KipWellsFan

QUOTE (Rex Kicka** @ Dec 16, 2009 -> 09:13 PM) Actually they did. And they withdrew the amendment in mid-read so they could get the appropriation through. The single payer amendment doesn't have close to 50 votes, let alone 60 votes anyway - so the reading of the amendment was pure political theater - and a delaying tactic "by any means necessary." Because it doesn't matter how watered down the bill is, the GOP recognizes that passing the bill turns a burden into a boon for the Democrats next year. Fortunately, for them - and frankly for the country at large, Sanders no longer supports the bill because it forces taxpayers to take a private insurance program that is basically broken. So we're back to 59 votes now. Hopefully enough liberals will fail to support the bill to cloture as it stands so we can get back to a good bill and force it through with reconciliation and get the 57 votes it would receive. With the medicare buy-in, its nearly all applicable to reconciliation now. Am I right in figuring that if the Democrats get this through, their election argument is the "Republicans want to take away reform," "they want to go back," and "if given the opportunity they'll take away medicare and medicaid too."

Hey guys need some tips on tvs. I haven't kept up with the technology. I'm looking to get about a 46 inch widescreen tv. But beyond that I don't really know what I'm doing. Should I be looking at getting an LCD or a Plasma? What's the difference? Are there other kinds? Is everything flatscreen now? I've heard that plasmas burn out quicker and take more power, but also that they've improved a great deal. Which one is more expensive? Which is the best quality for movies and tv? I'm also concerned about watching normal tv on a big widescreen tv. I've been over to peoples houses with huge tvs and the quality of normal shows and sporting events is just crappy. It's bigger but if the quality drops like that, what's the point? Is this unavoidable with a widescreen tv. Or can this be solved with an HD subscription? Also, what would you say is the best quality television available? Sony? Sharp? LG? I'm not afraid to spend a little bit more money for a better quality product. Hey, I watch a lot of tv and movies. Spare no expense! Thanks

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Dec 15, 2009 -> 08:21 PM) I don't disagree with any of you on the last couple of pages in this thread. They're all whoring out to get their pet projects protected. Ben Nelson is being a little b****, too. Unfortunately, this is the way the game is played in Washington, and the bill is going to be the s***tiest legislation in American history. Do you feel morally superior to all Senators?

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Dec 15, 2009 -> 12:09 PM) What obvious differences are there in our lives now that there is a Dem controlled Congress and Executive branch? Surely you understand how important it is to have moderate judges on the benches rather than the Republicans' current taste for absolutist retro-activists.

QUOTE (ChiSox_Sonix @ Dec 14, 2009 -> 12:21 PM) Nope. Good luck competing in life if you don't have access to kidney dialysis.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Dec 13, 2009 -> 04:13 PM) http://www.financialpost.com/story.html?id...8#ixzz0ZOyEadLM Writes the mother of two... This is a completely ludicrous idea at this time, and I don't know why this little Canadian article is getting so much attention. Nonetheless, I do think it illustrates one point. If environmentalists, and climate change scientists are even close to being right about climate change and other forms of environmental degradation, the amount of government intervention when the time comes will be massive in comparison to the pathetic and anemic plans out there today. Not to mention the potential pains as a result of the forces of nature.

Zombieland was the bomb.

Thought this was an interesting quote from Gibbs considering the topic here and Rex's comment http://whitehouse.blogs.foxnews.com/2009/1...t-historic-low/ The jumps up and down do seem a little weird. I remember Canada had three day tracking polls during elections and the day to day stuff never had such big jumps.

I disagree that Taiwan and Kosovo are countries! Got 140 though. Terrible at the WWII stuff. Got only 6. Should have gotten Iwo Jima and Midway.

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Nov 30, 2009 -> 06:46 AM) Cimate change data dumped. Soare we just supposed to take thier word for it, and change the entire world's economy on their say so? At the very least this calls for a global effort to reconstruct the raw data with the utmost transparancy to keep politics out of it, and stop the data manipulation so no more fake 'hockey sticks' show up. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/envi...icle6936328.ece I will not change the way I live based on research done by the 20th ranked university in Britain!

Screw drudge. But seriously the difference of a couple of points over a couple days doesn't matter. If a month from now Obama was consistently around 58% or say 45% then that would be interesting. Even then the relevance probably wouldn't be much. All these polls do right now is drive the punditry.

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Nov 26, 2009 -> 06:42 PM) The Wachowski brothers never quite got back to the level that they were at with the Matrix. I enjoyed V for Vendetta, but there were still parts in that movie that pissed me off Should it be the Wachowski siblings now? In their defense they only produced Ninja Assassin. But seriously I could only watch like 10 minutes before I turned off Speed Racer. What the fcuk was that?

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Nov 25, 2009 -> 09:38 AM) If people can't make the connection between a HUGE political push for environmental measures (i.e., lots and lots of money for "study" to scientists, and lots and lots of money being made by people who invested in green energy years ago) then you're crazy. I don't think that makes the debate more or less relevant, but there IS a political and financial gain from this debate. We're talking hundreds of billions that the government will spend to fix a problem we don't yet clearly understand. Yes, we're suffocating ourselves with pollution. But we don't know yet what that's going to cause. We have models, and theories, but all of that is pure conjecture at this point. And the problem isn't that we don't have a conversation going on about the seriousness of the problem, it's that the scientific community has already decided, unequivocally, that man has caused his own destruction and it's going to happen tomorrow. Anyone who disagrees with the severity or the timing is quickly dismissed, thrown into the "nonbeliever" camp, and forgotten. And if anyone thinks that the government is going to fix this problem you're nuts. On one side of the aisle you have people that believe God would never let them die from their own doing, and therefore global warming is a myth. And on the other you have an entire party in bed with an industry that relies on the energy base we need to change. At best we'll get a bunch of initiatives for energy conservation which we should all be doing anyway. I think it's a false equivalency to place climate scientists and renewable energy industries on one side and energy biz and their lobbyists on the other side. But sheesh, having common sense doesn't count for much anymore. It must suck to be a climate scientist. You spend your whole life studying these issues, working hard and doing what you think is hopefully right. But duh, you're actually just a tool of renewable energy and your whole life has been a waste of time. The people doing the real work, advancing humanity, actually work at the Competitive Industries Institute, and live in coal states.

QUOTE (chunk23 @ Nov 24, 2009 -> 04:48 PM) It's too bad that the vocabulary disconnect is largely the cause of this, and despite there being completely rational explanations for the language used, they will obviously be ignored. Of course Fox News has called this Global Warming's Waterloo. Despite the obvious preponderance of evidence that indicates otherwise. I don't get the vitriol aimed against people who want to stop global climate change. Besides Al Gore being a champion for it, I don't know why it's such a politically divisive issue. What do global warming deniers believe the incentive is for those "making it up" is? Well for one, some people think that scientists somehow need to be 100% certain about the issue before taking even the most anemic steps. Of course it's impossible to be certain about climate change as it is about most things. You either take political action or not. Two, any government intervention is bad to some people. Hence, only the invisible hand of the market should control this. Of course these people ignore that government intervention reduced ozone damaging emissions. Successfully and with little economic disturbance. Three, some complete idiots think that scientists are somehow acting in a conspiratorial way with an end to transferring large amounts of money from business to government. These people are bonkers in general. I think it's normal to be skeptical. I am skeptical. I'm skeptical about most things. I'm not a scientist and I'm not a climate scientist. I've got to make common sense decisions. Pumping endlessly increasing amounts of crap into the air is bad. It may have helped give us a quality of living unseen before, but everything comes to an end.

QUOTE (jasonxctf @ Nov 20, 2009 -> 02:37 PM) What am I missing here??? Daily Tracking- Gallup 50-44% http://www.pollingreport.com/obama_job.htm#Gallup Various Opinion Polls taken since 11/1/09 + approval varies from +17% (CBS) to Neutral (Fox) http://www.pollingreport.com/obama_job.htm Your first link is a day behind.

QUOTE (mr_genius @ Nov 18, 2009 -> 06:09 PM) lol Al Gore. Still a joke of a man. Still the politician who knows more about the science of climate change than any other poltician.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 10, 2009 -> 03:48 PM) I don't know where you are getting any of this. The governments in European countries come to better compromise specifically because they have 5 or 6 parties with seats at the table. Because 20% can't pass anything, but two or three of those can. That means the majority of moderation gets a more real say, instead of the gutters of two parties doing so. And as for it not being structurally possible, I think that is only partially true. There are significant barriers. But it was only 5 or 6 cycles ago we had a 3rd party Presidential candidate who had a serious shot of winning, and may have, if he hadn't stumbled over himself on a few occasions. The possibility is there. We don't have as much money in Canadian Politics and the system is totally different but in Canada it is almost a tradition that after a conservative party has been in power a long time, and tries to hug the center too long, it is replaced by a more right wing party. So I could see these Tea Party absolutists being a factor. EDIT: see my post above Northside

QUOTE (DukeNukeEm @ Nov 10, 2009 -> 02:02 PM) Couldn't disagree more. Look at the coalition governments European countries have to make majorities out of 5 or 6 parties, you end up with 25-30% of the population dictating policy as opposed to our 50%+1. Not that there can be 2 or more viable parties in America to begin with. Structurally its impossible. Umm, I think you're wrong about coalitions. The only country I know that has a coalition government in Europe is Germany (I'm sure there are others). In 2005, the coalition was between the Christian Democrats and Social Democrats and they won 70% of the vote together. And in 2009 the Christian Democrats are now in coalition with the more conservative Free Democrats and they won almost 50% of the vote together. By definition, coalitions tend to represent more of the voters, not less than a non-coalition government. For example, in Canada the Liberal Party had esssentially absolute control sans coalition for 11 years after attaining between 38% and 41% of the vote in three straight elections.

QUOTE (Kalapse @ Nov 3, 2009 -> 06:30 PM) "Tucker & Dale vs Evil" Red Band That is must-see!

Jaws, The Shining, The Devil's Rejects, High Tension, Saw, Eden Lake But really there have been so many that I like. Love horror stuff. Quarantine, Wolf Creek, Signs, the Hostel series too EDIT: How can I forget Cloverfield.

It's mostly a term used by people who don't like the genre... But I don't mind it. I don't know what it says about me that I like to watch these movies, but when it comes to my entertainment I don't like much censorship. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torture_porn#.22Torture_porn.22

If you can stand the genre Eden Lake might be the best torture porn, survivalist horror movie I've ever seen.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Oct 16, 2009 -> 10:17 PM) No Blood For Oil! How many people have died as a result of Obama's domestic policies?

QUOTE (Cknolls @ Sep 29, 2009 -> 10:56 AM) I gotta believe the Saudis would look the other way i.e an Israeli attack on Iran. So too would Egypt and Jordan. I also gotta think that Syria would join the fray against Israel. Saudi Arabia looking the other way? Iran will be looking for whatever excuse it has to meddle in Saudia Arabia. Lets not forget that Iran essentially would like to control Mecca, Bahrain, and the United Arab Emirates. I hardly doubt any Arab countries would be able to sit idly by. Egypt might be one of the most hostile Arab countries to Iran but could they really afford to take such a moderate position with a bubbling Islamist insurgency, perhaps funded in part by Iran. How about shutting down the straight of Hormuz or activating it's proxies in Hezbollah and Hamas? You think the moderate Fatah could hold on in the West Bank after this? And maybe Iran might make it's control of Shiite Iraq a little bit more official... And speaking of Iraq what would al-Maliki do? Would Sunnis in Iraq become especially vulnerable? And I've got no idea if Iran has any kind of foreign operatives left around the western world? That would be pretty... And you think Iran treated the moderates in their country harshly during the recent election protests? I wonder how they'd be treated in an all out war scenario. I believe that Iran would be able to unleash hell in the middle east... The unintended consequences could be endless. Again, I'm stealing from Robert Baer's book that's a must read if you're interested in this situation.

lol!