EvilMonkey

QUOTE (lostfan @ Aug 27, 2009 -> 08:59 AM) This is pretty much the only solution I've been seen getting presented by town hall protesters when they are asked. I really don't have any idea what they want. Tort reform, ability to compete across state lines, (i don't know how to do this, but) untying insurance from employment, remove the legal obstacles that slow the creation of high-deductible health insurance plans and health savings accounts and reform Medicare. The last one should be easy since the Dems already claim to have these magic savings ideas which will provide the needed cash for any public plan they propose. Don't wait then, propose THOSE changes now, let's see if they work first.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Aug 27, 2009 -> 09:45 AM) The basis for my opinion is rigorous studies. WHich we don't have a link for? If you were citing rigorous studies that showed the opposite, Balta or others would have been screaming for links by now.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Aug 27, 2009 -> 08:37 AM) What did he serve for? The paycheck? Of course. And the 'prestige', family honor, all that crap. He took his brother's seat, to keep it in the family. Probably why they wanted to change the law again so they could appoint another Kennedy to the spot when he died, keep the legacy going. And sure teddy and family had money before that, but trust me, him being a Senator didn't hurt their finances any.

QUOTE (Tex @ Aug 27, 2009 -> 07:19 AM) So many people want tort reform until some Doctor, drunk or on drugs, f***s up their operation, then they want everything. I'm not certain what the answer is, but we have established a system of civil awards (re: fines) that based on the severity of the f*** up, can get very expensive. But when someone loses their leg or worse, do to neglect by a Doctor, I'm not certain how much is fair or adequate. Perhaps there are people smart enough to decide in advance how much is fair, but I doubt it. We could have a chart. 35 years old, father of two, needs legs to work, active athlete, loses his leg $250,000. 63 years old, inactive, retired, likes to read, loses his leg, $25,000. tex, if a doctor is drunk or on drugs f***s up something, he SHOULD have to pay thru the nose. AND not be able to practice again. but when a baby is born and has a birth defect of some sort, the first course of action nowadays is to sue the doctors and hospitals, because it HAD to be somethign they did. Most setttle out of court to avoid the hassles, so it perpetuates the cycle. Those are the cases reform needs to happen for. Reform needs to happen so doctors can stop having to do defensive medicine and ordering every test under the sun just to cover thier asses. People complain about how many tests and labs get run, but if they don't run them, and then discover somethign later, they get sued.

QUOTE (Tex @ Aug 27, 2009 -> 06:55 AM) Interesting that his colleagues in the Senate, both Republican and Democrat have a view almost 180 degrees from yours. On the patriot part or that he should have retiered part? I can see them all vainly hanging onto their position, for the power, perks, money, prestige, ego, etc. None seem to want to give it up. As for the patriot part, like I said, being a Senator doesnt make you a patriot. if you think Teddy served all those years 'for the good of his country', you are sadly mistaken.

QUOTE (Crash73 @ Aug 26, 2009 -> 10:05 PM) A man, a patriot, recently dies, and you damn republicans can not just post your respect. He loved this country every bit as much as you. A patriot? Teddy? You sure you have the right kennedy? Just because he was a Senator doesnt make him a partiot, no matter how many of his views you share. I am sorry for his family over their loss, that is the extent of my respect. The Senate is a better place without him. He should have retired long ago when his health issues sidelined him instead of depriving his constituants of representation, but his ego, and sense of entitlement led him to hang on and miss countless votes and not do his job.

The Colorado State Democratic Party HQ was vandalized yesterday. Early Tuesday, Democratic Party chairwoman Pat Waak said the damage to her building in Denver's art district was a consequence of "an effort on the other side to stir up hate." Ooops! not so fast, turns out the culprit has an arrest record and a history of helping a Democratic political candidate, public records show. When confronted with that fact, Waak doubled-down on her hate by saying "What I've been saying is there is a lot of rhetoric out there from both sides of the spectrum," Waak said. "That's what's been disturbing to me. People are saying a lot of things not appropriate for civil discourse." http://www.denverpost.com/commented/ci_13203950?

QUOTE (Rex Kicka** @ Aug 26, 2009 -> 05:40 PM) Except the problem is that the GOP leadership doesn't. The political reality of this is anything passes that has "health care reform" attached to it will be a big victory for Obama. If Obama was really all about being a hack, he'd have well abandoned the public option - knowing that liberals won't stray in big enough numbers and 18 months won't be a long enough time to realize a real benefit or problem from any legislation for major reform. The GOP leadership is full of hacks. They know that any reform is a bad thing for their chances in 2010 which, despite an incredibly steep road in the senate does historically signify a moderate gain in the house next year. Blocking health care reform makes Obama less effective. The GOP has to be the party of no in order to foment enough anger to win an election in the midterm or have a shot with the extremely shallow primary field that you see for 2012 at the moment. There's no Obamas, Clintons or even Edwards's there. Just Romney, Santorum and other people who haven't won anything at all recently. And the DEM leadership won't pass any kind of healthcare legislation that caps jury awards thanks to their trial lawyer donors. GOP leadership has proposed changes, but since they all contain tort reform in some fashion, they get dismissed outright by the left.

QUOTE (bmags @ Aug 26, 2009 -> 12:23 PM) They guy is a great reason you don't have term limits, imo. He knew the ins and outs of procedure and helped hammer out how the impeachment procedures should go on Clinton. Really, regardless of policy, the man was everything a modern senator should be. He is (was) a reason that we SHOULD have term limits.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Aug 25, 2009 -> 04:40 PM) The top fundraiser for Hillary Clinton's 2008 Presidential Campaign has been indicted for orchestrating a $74 million fraud of Citigroup. I think he also worked for John Kerry's campaign.

What we really need is to wait for the book to come out to find out just what his idea of 'pressured' really is. If Bush and Co went up to him and said "Hey, we have this information about X and Y that we think is serious and we think you should raise the security level", and he said "No", and that was that? Well then, I don't see how any loon can call that pressure. If it turns out that Chaney got him in a headlock while Bush gave him wedgies while trying to get him to change his mind, then you have something. The reality, which is more likely to be in the middle, will of course, be open for interpretation, causing a multi-paged new thread when it does come out, I am sure.

QUOTE (Rowand44 @ Aug 23, 2009 -> 01:55 PM) Gracias. Had an interesting night last night to say the least, hope I can top it tonight. Pictures?

Thanks guys. it was a fun one, even if I DIDN'T win in poker last night.

QUOTE (bmags @ Aug 21, 2009 -> 04:02 PM) thanks, especially those who are possibly, trying to start their own enterprise. There are always exceptions to every rule and statement. but the 20-somethings driving a bmw, texting on thier Blackberrys and clubbing 3 nights a week, and don't have insurance, could afford it. A guy that worked for me fir that mold, mid 20's, I didn't offer insurance, and he and his wife together made more coin that I did. Drove brand new cars, went out all the time and took a trip to europe every year for vacation. but went without insurance because it wold crimp their lifestyle. And you have others who simply can't afford it, regardless of what they cut.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Aug 21, 2009 -> 03:22 PM) No, in this quote you ascribe motivations to ridge pretty clearly. Are you having a hard time reading today? I said 'what if', not 'they did'. Also, "I don't doubt that they could have done it, but I don't assume that they did either." Hardly seems like a declaritive either way on my part.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Aug 21, 2009 -> 12:55 PM) It's also worth noting that you're assuming you know Ridge's intentions; money. You're not necessarily wrong, but you're doing the exact same thing you're criticizing. Look at my first post. I am doing nothing of the sort. I pointed out both extremes and suggested that the reality probbaly lies in the middle. Let me refresh your memory.

QUOTE (bmags @ Aug 21, 2009 -> 01:17 PM) sounds american to me, what's the problem? Before who knows what restrictions he was under, also would've lost his job and had a Rovian scheme sent against him, perhaps getting Siegleman'd, not those forces have been marginalized and there's a push to know what happened. What's the incentive for those who could be blackballed from every profession they know unless it can provide some security. I've never really bought into getting paid for releasing info=false info. Many-a important stories have been broken by paying someone for the info (My-lai). Hell, we just celebrated when journalism was great! in Frost-Nixon, where Nixon was paid handsomely. He didn't raise the levels at the time he was asked, and he didn't lose his job because of it.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Aug 21, 2009 -> 12:09 PM) Of course it's in there to try to sell books. My problem with all these folks and the horrible things they want to say to clear their conscience continues to be...if this was going on, and you saw it was a problem at the time, why didn't you either come forward with it at the time, when something could have been done (i.e. pre-2004-election) or just outright resign in protest? I will agree with you on this point. For anyone who does a tell all book afterwards, and tries to justify it as cleaning their conscience. Bulls*** to you, you are doing it for money.

QUOTE (bmags @ Aug 21, 2009 -> 12:10 PM) even if he was merely asked and said no, the fact that the audacity was there to try and manipulate my emotions after an event like 9/11 to further a handful of persons career, is enough for me to laugh at your justifications. And if they wanted the alert level raised because they truely believe it to be needed, that doesnt change things to you? With Dems, it s always about the intentions, they meant well, they meant to do the right thing. If they looked at the info and thought they saw a valid threat, they would be remiss in their duties to not try and raise the level. ONly they know what was going on in their heads, yet you proscribe to have inside knowledge of their intentions and have damned them so. Bravo for you.

QUOTE (bmags @ Aug 21, 2009 -> 09:43 AM) hahaha, k. So you are that willing to take as gospel the ad copy thrown out by a publisher in order to promote interest in a book? Man, I have a bridge to sell you? What if the book comes out and by 'pressured' he means they asked and he said no and that was it? Ooohhh, that's alot of pressure there. I don't doubt that they could have done it, but I don't assume that they did either.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Aug 20, 2009 -> 10:46 PM) http://newsbusters.org/blogs/ken-shepherd/...-senate-request Why is it that Democrats think of Senate seats as property that can be handed down or transferred to a relative or political crony?

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/08/19/uk-a...to-be-involved/

According to Wikipedia, it was only raised to severe once, in August of 2006, and which applied only to flights coming from the United Kingdom. August 10–14, 2006, in response to British law enforcement announcing it had disrupted a major terror plot to blow up aircraft, DHS raised the threat level for commercial flights from the United Kingdom to the United States to Severe. Was raised to 'orange' around the time that Ridge refers to due to "August 1 – November 10, 2004, for specific financial institutions in northern New Jersey, New York, and Washington, D.C., citing intelligence pointing to the possibility of a car or truck bomb attack, naming specific buildings as possible targets." It is clear that at that time many people thought the color code system was useless, including Ridge, and that 'changing' it was useless. Clearly others did think it was still usefull, such as Bush. You have a he said/she said thnig here. Bush had intel that reported something and wanted it raised, Ridge didn't think so. Best case for Bush and Cheney: There was an elevated risk and Ridge was wrong; Ridge was too worried about the appearances of raising the level, whereas Bush and Cheney didn't care about appearances. Wosrt case for Bush and Chaney: Just check any lefty blog, you will get a huge list of those. Most likely case: As people tend to do, they viewed the data with their own best interests in mind, and thus arguable, on-the-line data was seen by them --- honestly, due to the powerful agent of subconscious self-interest -- as warranting a heightened threat level. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeland_Secu...Advisory_System

QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ Aug 20, 2009 -> 11:01 AM) Wow, you sure do like to get a little extreme, huh? They used that video because, while there were reports of about a dozen people packin' heat, his was the one that was most visible. It helped show what they didnt have video of. Because, ya know, those Fair and Balance guys over at Fox News have NEVER EVER in their wildest dream ever considered editing something Obama has said into the exact opposite by carefully cutting out parts. So with all that video, they chose to use a 2 second clip that barely showed the weapon even, and have that clip loop several times, instead of showing ANY of the other people? And I am not debating what Fox news does or does not do. I am pointing out the intelectual dishonesty in decrying that whites are bringing guns to these rallys, when the very picture they showed was a black man, they just chose to hide that fact from you. Some of the media would dearly love to make the health care criticisms about Obama instead of about actual health care reforms. That would make it easier for them to dismiss them as racist.

Remember that picture of the black man holding the assault rifle outside a health care rally? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UYKQJ4-N7LI...player_embedded Seems MSNBC carefully cropped the video of the BLACK man carrying the rifle and then used that shot as a launching point for talking about 'white people' showing up with guns. The full picture image is available for all to see, does MSNBC think that nobody has seen it? or do they think he is a white guy in blackface? Here is a clip of the same guy from the ABC station out there, which at least gets the whole guy in the shot, even if the incorrectly describe his gun as a 'machine gun'.