« Global Warming Will Cause It to Rain Polar Bears | Main | Let This Be a Warning to Sarah Palin Fans »

WHORE WHORE WHORE Cant wait for the next hurricane, just let the whole state swirl down the toilet, it got a 100 million to use it doe its own survival. Let ACORN bail them out... f her...better yet no thanks

Its not "I love you long time....."

The voters of LA need to send Landrieu packing next election to peddle her ass somewhere else.

Actually, if you want to be accurate for the Senate - you should have pictures of 11 year old Thai boys.......... that's what they really go for.

The voters of LA need to send Landrieu packing next election to peddle her ass somewhere else.

Fortunately for her, ACORN is based in Louisiana. She won't have to travel far to keep turning tricks.

On another note, I hope the American people are finally starting to recognize how parochial funding and pork projects corrupt the entire political process, even though their cost is dwarfed by entitlement spending (much of it passed thanks to pork barrel logrolling).

The entire process of pork and pet project funding allows politicians to engage in corrupt, back-room dealing for the benefit of special interests.

A politician's only concern should be the merits of a bill's policy. Tacked-on goodies should not be in these bills, because Beltway corruptocrats will invariably vote for bad policy to which they are opposed provided said vote benefits the special interests to which they are beholden.

The Senate just voted to advance the Obama-Reid health care takeover bill by a vote of 60 to 39. If the bill ultimately passes, every one of the 60 Senators who voted for it tonight will be responsible.

Everyone knows that any health care bill passed by this Congress and signed by this President will allow the government to take over our health care system in a way that rations care, increases taxes, explodes our debt, and kills jobs.

Nothing is going to happen during the Senate debate to change that. By voting to allow this bill to come to the Senate floor tonight, each of these Senators provided the crucial vote needed to pass this dangerous bill.

Every Senator who voted for this legislation tonight should be voted out of office, and SCF will specifically target any swing-vote Senator who tries to fool their constituents into believing they are not responsible for passing this bill.

-Senator Jim DeMint

Which one is Harry?

Uh oh, you need to update the dollar amount the Louisiana WHORE got for her vote.

so very very accurate

LOVE IT someone needs to sent it to her office!

An Open Letter to "Aye" Voting Senators & Specifically, Kay Hagan - NC
============
With Saturday's vote, you have threatened the ability of every small business in America to maintain their current employment level.
============
The vote was a dishonest cram-down against our need for lower cost & more competitive health insurance, and a lower tax burden to help keep our doors open. A tax credit is of no use, when we are counting our sales each day and each week during the month to meet expenses.
============
Politicians need to understand that we can't print money, we can't ignore expenses and financial obligations, and we don't have access to credit - ANY credit. So while Washingon - and Democrats specifically, are BURNING cash with excessive spending, driving down the value of the US dollar, quadrupling the national debt in the first 4 months of this year... Small Business USA, is dying.
================
We are trying to take care of our employees and their families. Your vote,in the name of party unity, for some 1930's goal, was a betrayal of us all.
=============
If you wanted ANY public or republican input, it would have been in conference and in deliberations, and there would be PLENTY OF TIME to analyze and refine any bill - in advance, and without any gimmicks.
=============
But no, it had to be done in secret. It had to be released at the last minute, with a rushed vote - just like the destructive 'stimulus' bill - on a Saturday night with a minimum of publicity.
=================
Don't think you can vote "NO" later and have political coverage. Come January, my employee's health insurance premiums are going to go up, my business and personal taxes are going to go up, and my business, as an ongoing concern, remains uncertain.
=================
The healthcare bill should have been fully discussed and deliberated by BOTH democrats and republicans BEFORE it came to a cloture vote.
You made my decision tonight.
=================
I am either going to have to try to get my employees to voluntarily reduce their hours to 32 per week so they can retain their full time benefits, or I am going to have to let some of them go. I am sick to my stomach.
===============
My business is carrying over $ 2.5M in debt and we are struggling to survive. I can't handle any more expense - regardless of your good intentions.
===============
For the first time in 8 years, we will not be having an office christmas lunch. We moved it to Thanksgiving in appreciation of each other and in consolation for the difficulties ahead. It feels like a 'Last Supper', in that we may not be around by next November.
=================
Do NOT be surprised when our unemployment rate in North Carolina exceeds 20%. It's nearly there in some counties. Forget about SPENDING and TAXING. The political class is robbing us of our hopes and dreams, and the future looks bleak.
================
All of us EXISTING small business owners IN EVERY COMMUNITY, need a means to refinance our debt with extended terms and/or a lower interest rate AND lower tax burdens. We need to lower our operating costs so we could stretch our sales dollars a little further and maintain the security of our employees.
=============
Instead ... we got 2,100 pages of MANDATES, ADDITIONAL TAXES, worthless PROMISES of less spending in the future, MORE bureacracy and regulations, and a (wink, wink) "debate" to make it better. I can hardly wait. Maybe an additional 1,000 pages will make it better ...
==============
Your vote tonight betrayed us all. Want to try for 30% unemployment with Cap n Trade ???

Almost all Scheme-o-crap party politicians are nothing more than political "ho's" for sale and Obamaskank is their collective Big Daddy Pimp. Its too bad pimping, procuring, and pandering from the Mulatto House (is sure ain't white any more) isn't considered part of "high crimes and misdemeanors"...

I hope they all get "the clap".

Wouldn't it be just if her money comes out of the final bill. She would get porked instead of receiving pork.

HAHA. "Which one is Harry?" Mad props.

I imagine that Sleezator Landrieu will not be the only one paid off; remember, these are democrats.

This is going to require a massive tea party; something that even the Main Slime Media cannot ignore.
First a phony "stimulus" theft-fest to escalate habitual looting, and now what we are seeing in the senate is an all-out coup against citizens.

LibertyHawk --we are struggling as well. I am trying to get our company out of the country - a matter of survival.

This just in.... A statement from Landrieu:

Hi, I'm Mary Landrieu. I just got paid 100 million dollars for screwing 300 million people. My pimp Odumbo says I'm one of the best whores in his house.

Word on Drudge is the payoff was 300mil, not 100mil. Here say I.

Whatever the cost, and I am a nobody American manufacturing engineer who has been unemployed since August.

Pass Obama-care by New Year, watch for an unemployment boom in excess of 5 million by Valentines day.

Non-government employers cannot afford the health care system they are mandating, and that includes health care providers.

There will be a revolution come March 2010.

Senate Vote Underway...Passes 60-39

Pretty much a foregone conclusion.

The only drama is will a Republican bail? Did history call?

They just wheeled Byrd in.

Sounds like all the Republicans stuck together (Collins and Snow stuck with the team), though I don't think Voinivich voted one way or the other. They are holding the vote because I don't think everyone got there.

It was a straight party line vote. Voinivich didn't vote but it didn't matter either way.

In the days of Huey Long, my old man used to say, "Half of Louisiana is always under water; the other half is under indictment."

He was right, and nothing has changed.

Between now and whenever they ram this bill through, we need to INUNDATE them with negative emails, phone calls, letters...and not just in Washington, but their local offices also.

These bastards won't work but a few hours a day, a few days a month, but boy-oh-boy, for THIS they work late on a Saturday. Slow news coverage, slip it through when the suckers are busy elsewhere.

Every one of them better be looking over their shoulders. 2010, baby.

We should keep writing letters and stuff, for our own mental health.

But we also have to realize it's not going to do any good. They stopped listening to the citizens a while ago. Odumbo invested all of his political capital in this one thing. The Democratic party faces annihilation and ruin if they don't deliver this. Even the so-called "blue dogs" are still Democrats.

I'm pretty sure the key blue dog types like Landrieu have already been promised key govt positions if they lose, in addition to the various payola like the $300 mil. There is no downside for the Landrieus of the world. We keep waiting for them to realize the voters don't want this, but they don't care. They have to support their party, and their party crossed the Rubicon on health care 6 or 8 months ago. There is no going back, the boats are burned.

Fucky sucky $300 million bucky???

Wow Mary, for a DOG you sure do command quite a large payment for services rendered.

It kind of reminds me of an old joke:

Man to Woman: "Would you sleep with me for a million dollars?"

Woman to Man: "You bet I would!!!"

Man to Woman: "OK, would you sleep with me for $2?"

Woman to Man: "$2! What kind of a girl do you think I am!!"

Man to Woman: "Oh, I think we've established that. Now we're just negotiating price."

Mega, no...don't give up. Don't say "it makes no difference". I get your point, and you are right...this is a Lemming march to the see for the Dems. But they are pissing of a HUGE percentage of the population.

Aside from putting the fear of God into them (and trust me, they may put up a "we don't care" brave face, but they are scared to DEATH of the anger back in their home districts), we can start to use all of this to get a groundswell movement going.

When the anger is obvious enough, when the voices are loud enough, and when the support falls far enough (esp. for those up for re-election), you'll see movement. If not...well, "When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another..."

We did it once, we can do it again.

Mary has to sell her vote, that's all she's got thats worth anything. Her morals are in the gutter, her word means nothing to anyone, she's a spike-heeled prostitute with a snoot full of cash and a big dose of VD
Vandalizing Democrats

Senator Mary Landrieu is a fucking whore. I cannot say it any better or with any wit...

And Harry Reid is a fucking pimp...

Man at bar talking to woman -

Man: I'll give you one million dollars to have sex with me.
Woman: Let's get out of here.
Man: (as they are walking toward the door) I'll give you ten dollars to have sex with me.
Woman: What kind of girl do you think I am?
Man: We already agreed on the terms, I know what kind of girl you are, I'm just negotiating the price.

Oops, Mr Galt beat me to it. My bad.

So, when/if we conservatives gain a majority in the house and senate next fall, will we be able to repeal this health-care mess? I know Obama would veto any attempt, but (fingers crossed) if we could hold majorities in congress until a new president is elected (a conservative of course), is is repealable?

I was thinking the same thing as the OP. The price of whores sure has gone up though.

Troy at November 22, 2009 2:34 AM, yes Troy, it can be repealed but once enacted, that will never happen for the same reason medicare isn't repealed today. As a matter of fact, one of the GOP's biggest fears is that once it's enacted and the dust settles, the people will will love it and that it will help Democrats retain seats in the long run. Remember, the GOP's political objective is not legislating for the people but rather to prevent Dems from getting anything done that Americans want, thus leaving them as a "do nothing" government or in short, make it their "waterloo".

Another pathetic conservative article with poor writing skills, no facts and a blatant partisan bias. Don't you guys write anything based in reality, or is it all just partisan manure?

Aww, how sweet, Andy brought a friend.

This just proves that the "moderate Democrat" is a myth. The Blue Dog Lap Dogs didn't listen to the people (Senate phone lines were busy all weekend) and are going to destroy America whether the public likes it or not. Mary Landfill has the 300 mil to try to buy the votes for her re-election, but hopefully the good folks of Louisiana will wake up and vote this cow out of office.

@Posted by: rev at November 22, 2009 7:21 AM

That's the whole point, "rev". This isn't a straight-up journalism site, it's opinion and we discuss ideas here, regardless of partisanship; we are beholden to no party and we take no prisoners. This is the equivalent of an op-ed page. Get it?

Say, while we're at it, can you direct us all to a site with no bias whatsoever?

rev, do you understand the difference between news and opinion? Evidently, you don't. Do you have anything substantive to refute the point of the post (i.e. Landrieu sold her vote for a bribe and is therefore a political whore)? No, you don't. That makes you a typical empty-headed leftist who brings no logic, no facts... just childish name-calling and very, very old talking points.

^^^^
Above post @ 7:46am was me.

Just keeping it honest.

Hey Kool-Aid Man,

yes Troy, it can be repealed but once enacted, that will never happen for the same reason medicare isn't repealed today.

Nice of you to prove us right. What you're admitting, Andy, is that this is just a vote-buying scheme. Hook people on the government crack, and watch as they put the socialists into office time and time again. It's the same thing Johnson did when he enacted Medicare.

As a matter of fact, one of the GOP's biggest fears is that once it's enacted and the dust settles, the people will will love it

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! Oh, holy shit Andy, you can NOT be this stupid. How many people "love" Medicare or Medicaid? How many doctors are happy to take it? No, Kool-Aid Man, they use it because at this point they've little choice. This program will be the same... slow, bloated, bureaucratic, and far more expensive than you socialists are pretending it's going to be.

and that it will help Democrats retain seats in the long run.

That it will. Democrats will use it for fear-mongering... "Don't vote for my opponent, HE WANTS TO CUT YOUR HEALTH BENEFITS!" And that's really the point, isn't it Andy? You socialists aren't doing this because you truly care about health care... you're doing it because you want power. That's what it's always about with you.

Remember, the GOP's political objective is not legislating for the people but rather to prevent Dems from getting anything done that Americans want,

Except Americans don't want this. You're trying to ram something through that a majority of people are opposed to.

thus leaving them as a "do nothing" government or in short, make it their "waterloo".

You are living in fantasy, Andy. Seriously, you are delusional to the point where you probably need to be locked in a padded cell and kept away from sharp objects. YOUR PARTY IS COMMITTING POLITICAL SUICIDE WITH THIS. The 2010 elections are going to be a bloodbath, and your Teleprompter Messiah­™ is going to go down in flames in 2012. Did you learn nothing from Hillarycare?

That's the reason your party is trying so hard to ram this through right now. Because you know next year you won't be able to. It's the reason you're barely allowing enough time to debate something that affects a massive percentage of the American people and trillions of dollars. It's the reason the bills are 2000 pages of dense bureaucratic mumbo-jombo... because you're trying to hide the truth.

You don't give a shit about health care. This is about money and power. And by doing this you're going to lose both. So save it for your fellow cultists, drone. We know the truth.

Also, Medicare and Social Security are bankrupt. Progressives tend to omit that niggling detail when discussing the "success" of their socialist programs.

As usual, Evil Otto knocks it right outta the park.....

Evil, I made an exception an actually read the contents of your slice and dice rhetoric. You fail to debunk or even constructively challenge anything but rather simply inject what you'd like to be true.

The fact that most people support medicare and don't want to lose it (I think there's some "keep your hands off my medicare" mantra that the GOP has been floating around) is no indication of "admitting" a vote-buying scheme. There's no association. My response to Troy was that once HCR is enacted, dismantling it will be politically impossible as like medicare, voters will not allow it. Why hasn't the GOP push to end the government controlled medicare program?

Despite your statement that "Except Americans don't want this", well, they do. There are provisions that some may not like but Americans overwhelmingly support a health care reform. More and more are losing it, the cost of doing nothing is skyrocketing, and the GOP's "do-nothing" approach is not the answer. People understand this just as they did in 1994.

Republican Senators have publicly conceded that a HCR passage would help Dems for years to come. You might hold you nose and actually check out non-Fox news sources.

While I disagree with your knowledge of the "truth", it's obvious that the GOP has no interest in reforming health care or in even letting the Dems get anything thru that voters want. They have become the most obstructive party in history and as a result we have the most dysfunctional government in history. Just today at Redstate, Erick Erickson (a Hannity regular) says;
"As I have said before, if Republicans work to improve the legislation, they presuppose its passage. Instead, the GOP should plan for the destruction of the bill by offering amendments designed to divide and fracture the Democrat coalition."

That's the main problem with the GOP today, not the HCR bill.

And speaking of whores, if you look at the naysayers of HCR and check out who's getting the most money from the health care sector, you'll find the true whores.

Explain to me TonyD95B, how exactly did evil "knock it right outta the park".

VK, it's interesting how selective you are at handing out ISP info of only people that disagrees with you. Coward.

By 2019, over a trillion dollars a year will have to be spent just on the interest on the national debt, which Obama's spending will double.

Meanwhile, Obama is asking (begging) the Chinese to loan us more money to provide a much higher level of welfare for our citizens than they do for theirs.

This level of spending is reckless and irresponsible to the point of national suicide; a multi-trillion dollar health care entitlement is exactly the opposite of what's needed.

@Posted by andy42302 at November 22, 2009 8:41 AM:

My response to Troy was that once HCR is enacted, dismantling it will be politically impossible as like medicare, voters will not allow it. Why hasn't the GOP push to end the government controlled medicare program?

Andy, that's precisely what Otto meant in the section where he said, "Nice of you to prove us right.", etc. Like Medicare, it will become a (forced) tax/entitlement; ergo entitlement mentality will be sure to follow, ensuring political power for both bands of thieves, regardless of party.

We're NOT representatives the GOP, okay? With us, it's about ideology, wherever that may take us. Heck, I'd take a Zell Miller(D) over an Olympia Snowe(R) any day.

Taking potshots at Republicans with us is like telling us why the guy we just fired can't be trusted. We knew that.

We don't care about what jersey someone is wearing, this isn't a game to us. We oppose "HCR" for a reason and brother, I can assure you: It's got nothing to do with whether or not someone has a "D" or "R" after their name...

V_the_K, there seems to be a presumption that this borrowing from China started with the Obama administration. Economist were screaming when Bush and the 109th GOP were borrowing $2B a day from China while cutting taxes for the most wealthy, pushing CAFTA, showering Pharma et al, and driving up the deficit as if they almost wanted to hand Dems a disaster.

But regardless of where we are or how we got here, how is ignoring the multi-trillion dollar cost of doing nothing for help reform the answer?
While the HCR bill may be debatable, kicking the can down the road isn't.

The deficit quadrupled the first year the Democrats took over Congress, and more than tripled again after Obama took office. The one month deficit for October 2009 was bigger than the whole year 2007 deficit under Bush/Republicans. The smallest projected Obama deficit is larger than the largest Bush deficit.

Facts are stubborn things. Complaining that "Bush had deficits, too" is like saying since Bush gave us a cold, you can't complain that Obamacrats are giving us double pneumonia.

Kool-Aid Man strikes again:

Evil, I made an exception an actually read the contents of your slice and dice rhetoric.

I've told you before that reading was a valuable skill. Nice to see you've tried it.

You fail to debunk or even constructively challenge anything but rather simply inject what you'd like to be true.

Ah, Andy the master of projection resorts to, well, projection. Actually, Kool-Aid Man, I debunked your cultish idiocy most effectively. You simply didn't like what I wrote.

The fact that most people support medicare and don't want to lose it

"Fact?" No, that's an OPINION. FACTS are things that you prove.

(I think

No you don't.

there's some "keep your hands off my medicare" mantra that the GOP has been floating around) is no indication of "admitting" a vote-buying scheme.

The plan spends taxpayer money to pay for health care, in a clear attempt to convince people to vote Democrat. That is vote-buying.

There's no association. My response to Troy was that once HCR is enacted, dismantling it will be politically impossible as like medicare, voters will not allow it.

That's the GOAL. That is the reason you socialists are pushing this so hard... you know full well that once it's enacted it will be virtually impossible to dismantle, and it will result in Democrat votes.

Do you not understand this, Andy? YOU ARE PROVING ME RIGHT WITH YOUR OWN ARGUMENTS.

Why hasn't the GOP push to end the government controlled medicare program?

Because you socialists have managed to hook millions upon millions of people on the government teat. It's too late to stop Medicare (at least, until it goes bankrupt). It's not to late to stop you from doing it again.

Despite your statement that "Except Americans don't want this", well, they do.

Really, drone? What percentage?

There are provisions that some may not like but Americans overwhelmingly support a health care reform.

HAH! And here we get to the heart of your bullshit. Americans may support "health care reform," but that in no way indicates that they support THIS health care reform. "Reform" is such a vague word that it can mean virtually anything. What YOU, cultist, need to do is prove that most people are in favor of this particular plan.

And you can't do that, because you know it's not true.

More and more are losing it, the cost of doing nothing is skyrocketing,

So the solution to skyrocketing costs is to enact a massive, bureaucratic, bloated program that will expand over the years? That is like trying to lose weight by eating nothing but Five Guy's Triple Cheeseburgers and milkshakes.

What in the history of the entire United States makes you think that creating a massive new entitlement will not cause prices to skyrocket?

and the GOP's "do-nothing" approach is not the answer. People understand this just as they did in 1994.

??? Are you from a parallel dimension where the Democrats didn't get their ass handed to them in 1994? Perhaps that explains it. In THIS dimension, Kool-Aid Man, the Democrats were utterly crushed in 1994, with the GOP sweeping into power, gaining 54 seats in the House of Representatives and 8 in the Senate. And it was partly due to the debacle of Hillarycare. You overestimated what people wanted, overplayed your hand, and got stomped.

You're doing it again. And the results are going to be the same. In my opinion, the more locked-up the federal government is, the better. The less they can get done, the better.

Republican Senators have publicly conceded that a HCR passage would help Dems for years to come.

I thought you said you read what I wrote. I agree with this. I just agree with it because I know the game you're playing... hook people on socialized medicine and then use it as a weapon.

You might hold you nose and actually check out non-Fox news sources.

Yeah, yeah, it wouldn't be a cliched leftist post without a "Fox News" slam. Haven't ever heard that before. Originality isn't your strength. It's ironic, though, coming from someone who is slavishly devoted to the Democrat party.

You NEVER question their motives, do you Andy? You've got this macro in your head that says "Democrats good/GOP bad" over and over again.

THEY BOTH SUCK. I don't know how much more clearly I can say that. I'd be happy if you'd show one-tenth the cynicism to them that you devote to the GOP. I mean, do you honestly think the Democrats are ramming this through because they genuinely want to reform health care? Or is this simply about power?

I know the answer. You don't.

While I disagree with your knowledge of the "truth", it's obvious that the GOP has no interest in reforming health care

Err, they've published several plans. You did know that, didn't you? Of course you didn't.

In any event, drone, I'm a libertarian. I know reading and remembering things isn't exactly your strong suite, Andy, but here's what I wrote a few weeks ago:

What I want out of the GOP is one thing, and one thing only: to stop this. I personally don't give a damn what they have in their plan, whether or not they even have a plan, or whether health care gets reformed any time soon. I WANT THIS STOPPED. I want the Democrats stopped in their mad spending, and then I want the Republicans stopped when they take power from your side in the next elections and start spending money like they did during the Bush administration. Which they will.

Get it, robot? Do I have to tattoo that on the insides of your eyelids so you'll understand? You can whine all you like about the GOP, but I really don't care. I don't think they're much better than your side.

or in even letting the Dems get anything thru that voters want.

Again, you have to prove that THIS is what the voters want. In any event, maybe the GOP can prove themselves useful by stopping you socialists. It's all they're good for.

They have become the most obstructive party in history

Good.

and as a result we have the most dysfunctional government in history.

Oh, quit whining. The fact is, the GOP can't do anything to stop you. You have the votes RIGHT NOW to pass this. You could have your so-called reform tomorrow if you liked. What's stopping you?

I'll tell you. Many Dems understand how unpopular this is, and fear it will cost them their next election. Many are being bought or strongarmed into voting for this so-called "reform" plan. That's why there is such a rush to shove this through, before it can even be read.

Just today at Redstate, Erick Erickson

Who?

(a Hannity regular) says;

I don't listen to Hannity. Is pointing that out supposed to convince me?

"As I have said before, if Republicans work to improve the legislation, they presuppose its passage. Instead, the GOP should plan for the destruction of the bill by offering amendments designed to divide and fracture the Democrat coalition."

Hmm. Sounds like a good idea. I like it. Maybe I'll have to start reading this guy's writing.

Oh, sorry, was I supposed to disagree with him?

That's the main problem with the GOP today, not the HCR bill.

Y'know, Andy, taking advice from you on what is wrong with the GOP is like a football coach taking advice from the opposing coach during a game. "Yeah, you should punt on first down. It's what I'd do." You're not exactly impartial.

And speaking of whores, if you look at the naysayers of HCR and check out who's getting the most money from the health care sector, you'll find the true whores.

(shrug) And your side isn't taking money from groups in this debate, Andy? Hmm? Is that what you're trying to tell me?

We don't care about what jersey someone is wearing, this isn't a game to us. We oppose "HCR" for a reason and brother, I can assure you: It's got nothing to do with whether or not someone has a "D" or "R" after their name...

Exactly, EvilResident. Andy is a partisan hack, so he assumes we are as well. I'm opposed to HCR on a fundamental moral level. I'll support any opponent of it and tear into any supporter, regardless of party.

While the HCR bill may be debatable, kicking the can down the road isn't.

No, actually, that is as debatable as anything else.

Facts are indeed a stubborn thing VK. Please point to one piece of legislation that the 110th congress enacted that lead to this fiasco.

Evil, throwing $11 trillion away by ignoring the health care problem is debatable? And your rebuttal is????

BUT BUSH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Evil, throwing $11 trillion away by ignoring the health care problem is debatable?

Yes. Yes it is. First, what exactly do you mean by "throwing $11 trillion away?" Where exactly do you get that figure? Over how long? Where is the money going?

See? Plenty of room for debate. I look forward to seeing the questionable sources you cite. This should be good for a laugh.

And your rebuttal is????

My "rebuttal?" Rebuttals only happen in debates. Which means we're debating, which means we can debate this subject.

Here is my "rebuttal," for what little good it will do: I question your numbers. I question the "$11 trillion" you quote above, which you've pulled out of your ass.

In addition, even if that number were true, the history of the federal government shows that spending never goes down, only up. Estimates are never correct, and often off by many multiples. In 1965, Medicare costs by 1990 were estimated to be $12 billion per year. Actual cost? $98 billion. Current cost? $386 billion per year. And that's just Medicare. Shall we look at Medicaid? Social Security? Shall we dig into the waste, fraud, and abuse in those programs?

So c'mon, Andy. Tell me how we're going to save money. Tell me that THIS program, unlike all the others, won't be a bureaucratic nightmare that costs three or four or ten times what your side estimates.

My "rebuttal" is that it's better to spend $11 trillion and defeat this program than to spend $22, $44, or $100 trillion by instituting it.

Facts are indeed a stubborn thing VK. Please point to one piece of legislation that the 110th congress enacted that lead to this fiasco.

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, where congress spent $787 billion dollars claiming that the economy was going to collapse and unemployment would top 8%.

Yeah, let's put the same incompetent clowns behind THAT in charge of our health care.

An old joke often attributed to Winston Churchill:

Churchill: Madam, would you sleep with me for five million pounds?

Socialite: My goodness, Mr. Churchill... Well, I suppose... we would have to discuss terms, of course...

Churchill: Would you sleep with me for five pounds?

Socialite: Mr. Churchill, what kind of woman do you think I am?!

Churchill: Madam, we've already established that. Now we are haggling about the price.

I just read its open season on libs and dems with no bag limit.
Get your nonexpiring tag.
Season starts Nov. 2010.

Evil, if you're going to intrude on a question I asked VK, please at least pay attention to the question. VK indirectly claims that our economic downturn is a result of Dems taking over in 06 so I asked what the 110th Congress did in that era to lead up to the disaster that Obama was handed in 09, not what legislation occured after 09.

Your rationale seems to be that's it's better to simply kick this can down the road and "it's better to spend $11 trillion and defeat this program than to spend $22, $44, or $100 trillion by instituting it". But your can kicking theory only prolongs a growing problem that will continue to cost more, and have more deaths as a result. You seem to be under the impression that there really isn't a problem with our health care system. Perhaps that explains why the Republican leadership has repeatedly failed to address it or act on it. No need to fix a problem that doesn't exist right?

Yet some more smokescreen....

Senate Democrats at odds over health care bill

AP - WASHINGTON – Senate Democrats on Sunday sparred with each other over how to fix the nation's troubled health care system, the moderates threatening to scuttle legislation if their demands weren't met and the more liberal members warning their party leaders not to bend.

The dispute among Democrats foretells of a rowdy floor debate next month on legislation that would extend health care coverage to roughly 31 million Americans. Republicans have already made clear they aren't supporting the bill.

Final passage is in jeopardy, even after the chamber's historic 60-39 vote Saturday night to begin debate.

"I don't want a big-government, Washington-run operation that would undermine the ... private insurance that 200 million Americans now have," said Sen. Ben Nelson, a conservative Nebraska Democrat.

Nelson and three other moderates — Democratic Sens. Mary Landrieu of Louisiana and Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas and Connecticut independent Joe Lieberman — agreed to open debate despite expressing reservations on the measure. Each of them has warned that they might not support the final bill.

One major sticking point is a provision that would allow Americans to buy a federal-run insurance plan if their state allows it. Moderates say they worry the so-called public option will become a huge and costly entitlement program and that other requirements in the bill could cripple businesses.

"I don't want to fix the problems in our health care system in a way that creates more of an economic crisis," said Lieberman.

The sway held by such a small group of senators has annoyed their more liberal colleagues, who could vote against a final bill if it becomes too watered down.
bla bla bla....

Posted by: andy42302 at November 22, 2009 12:31 PM

"Perhaps that explains why the Republican leadership has repeatedly failed to address it or act on it."

For God's sake, man, stop with the Democrat/Republican shell game; it's going to get us all killed.

Posted by: andy42302 at November 22, 2009 12:31 PM

The actual problem is listed as goal item number 15 in the book called The Naked Communist being...

15. Capture one or both of the political parties in the United States.

Naturally, this happened; and the drama we read about and watch on C Span is merely an act. They appear to be representing the PEOPLE but too bad for US that they all represent foreign interests, enemies of the state and anyone except American Citizens. I giant show where we all wind up penniless, homeless, sick and starving in the street while they go so far as to collect out gold teeth. Do you follow?

EvilResident, in my world, the legislative branch of government consist of 2 major parties that enact laws and they're Republicans and Democrats with of course a very few Independents. Accordingly, in my world, asking why Republicans failed to introduce legislation on HCR when they held the majority is an appropriate question, particularly when they are the ones opposing it now.

But that's in my world. In your world, perhaps it's the Andorians and Nausicans with a very few Klingons. I don't know.

By the way, did you guys here about this whore that said she'd do it for a million $........?

@ Posted by: andy42302 at November 22, 2009 1:02 PM

I can appreciate and understand what you've written because it's entirely consistent with what you've posted so far. Your question (within it's own assumptions) IS valid, provided you hold to the fire the feet of both sides of the aisle. My point is that there's a larger game at play here, one much further back and higher up.

And ah, an insult encapsulated within a Star Trek reference. Nice! Is this where I'm supposed to counter with something about Kamchatka?...perhaps Irkutsk?

No, my friend, in my world, there's The United States Constitution that makes no mention of parties in the pursuit of justice and lawful appropriations. In fact, it's framers direly warned against them. Yes, I know they exist (gosh, I'm not exactly "Mr. Current Events", am I?) Thanks for the civics lesson all the same, I learn something new every day, it would seem...

Kool-Aid Man just isn't very good at this:

Your rationale seems to be that's it's better to simply kick this can down the road and "it's better to spend $11 trillion and defeat this program than to spend $22, $44, or $100 trillion by instituting it".

Not quite. As I clearly stated, I don't believe your number, and I notice you made NO EFFORT WHATSOEVER to show where it came from. Context is everything. What $11 trillion are you talking about? Over how long? Where is that money spent? Who is spending it? Is it private spending? Public? Partly private and partly public? You've provided no information about this supposed $11 trillion, so your premise is faulty.

Answer the questions, Kool-Aid Man. You are an expert in only responding to a tiny part of what your opponents write, and completely ignoring anything inconvenient. Answer, or admit you can't.

IF... IF your number was correct, then it would still be better to "spend" $11 trillion than to spend several times that. In what universe doesn't that make sense?

But your can kicking theory

Umm, I don't believe your numbers, so technically it's your "can kicking theory."

only prolongs a growing problem that will continue to cost more, and have more deaths as a result.

Unbelievable. Do you have a reading disorder? Are you dense? I. AM. ARGUING. THE. DEMOCRAT. PLAN. WILL. COST. MUCH. MORE. MONEY. I am arguing it is better to do nothing than pass you socialists' 2000 page nightmare bills.

I honestly don't know how much more clearly I can say that. Do I have to use bright red 72-point font? It's like you're purposefully missing the point.

You seem to be under the impression that there really isn't a problem with our health care system.

No. I am saying that your solution will be an unmitigated disaster, a "cure" far worse than the disease. And I base that on the history of the federal government. The government has utterly failed to keep costs down in ANY social program it has created. Health care will be no exception.

Perhaps that explains why the Republican leadership has repeatedly failed to address it or act on it.

Who gives a shit what the Republicans do? Dear God, Andy, are you even capable of jumping off your one-track obsession with the GOP? Your side could pass this tomorrow if you wished, if the American people were truly calling for it, and the Republicans couldn't stop you. Democrats know full well the consequences... they would lose power. And power is far more important to them than any real reform.

No need to fix a problem that doesn't exist right?

Better no "fix" than a terrible one. That is my point, you simpering, none-too-bright party hack.

Thank you EvilResident for a civil response.
You and I are possibly looking at this from two totally different angles. I'm guessing that you're threatened by more government intrusion while I'm threatened by a more corporate owned government. I'm speculating that enacting HCR would be an infringement of freedom for you where it would be a freedom from the corporate stronghold for me. Both sides have points. I think (and hope) that we both agree that government has a place in law enforcement, basic education, fire departments, and basic functions that pertain to our immediate safety of ourselves and our neighbors. I think that they have a right to step in to prevent corporations, for the sake of profits, from building inferior bridges that I, my wife, children, and grandchildren drive over. Likewise, I believe that a persons right to live shouldn't be contingent on their wealth or even more so, contingent on how much our legislators are paid to protect corporate interest. So I'm against kicking this expensive can down the road only to cost us trillions, sending U.S. citizens home to die, and allowing the insurance companies to continue to profit at tax payers expense while offering an inferior coverage that allows them to pull the plug at will.

Posted by: andy42302 at November 22, 2009 2:03 PM

The USA is at the moment controlled by COMMUNISTS and what must happen is that all of you who do not like FREEDOM, FREE TRADE, REPUBLICS and LIBERTY go to China and live there! Thank you!

Evil Otto, I skimmed and it looks like the problem is that a) you don't believe that doing nothing on HCR cost money and b)that HCR will cost considerably more than the projected cost.

I find it odd that you question the cost of doing nothing. This is where the Democratic proposal offers a savings to the deficit of about $125 billion over 10 years. You didn't know this? You haven't heard this? Yet, yet, you're wanting to argue something that you're obviously ignorant on? You're not following the news at all, have no knowledge of the specifics yet you want to challenge the cost?????????

Ok, now I'm suppose to except you're non sequitur as you just have a deep gut feeling that it's just gonna cost a whole lot more. Based on? So, the Dems have put their #s together and come up with a $125B savings. (if you need links to this, surely you need links that there really was a vote last night too) There has been dicsussions and arguments on that figure on the senate floor. Mitch McConnell talked about that today. But wait, no Senator debated on the concept that "it just always cost more". If only someone had brought to the Senate's attention yesterday that Evil Otto on Moonbattery.com said that it jsut always cost more anyways, well maybe that would have changed the vote.

@ Posted by: andy42302 at November 22, 2009 2:03 PM:

"I'm guessing that you're threatened by more government intrusion while I'm threatened by a more corporate owned government."

Dude, I'm totally with you on BOTH counts! (And I never say "dude", so you know I mean it lol!)

"...we both agree that government has a place in law enforcement, basic education, fire departments, and basic functions that pertain to our immediate safety of ourselves and our neighbors."

Absolutely, I'd never argue otherwise. See, I think this is where the two "sides" drive right past each other. Do I believe that my Democrat neighbor is an all out Stalinist? No, of course not. Nor does my neighbor believe that I'm some sort of no-government-ever-at-any-time anarchist or {fill in the blank}. The older I get, the more it seems we're all reacting to stereotypes in the media. Yes, there are scary folks out there from both sides, but I can't shake the feeling that both ends are being played toward the middle.

"I think that they have a right to step in to prevent corporations, for the sake of profits, from building inferior bridges that I, my wife, children, and grandchildren drive over."
Again, right there with you!

As for the rest of your point, (where we might disagree), I swear to you I honestly don't have the time to respond as I'm off work now and have to get some shopping done before my room mate and I starve to death. (Well, that and there's a dearth of bourbon in the house lol!)

Either way, more later if I can and take care, y'all!

-EvilResident

This is where the Democratic proposal offers a savings to the deficit of about $125 billion over 10 years.

This is what it promises.

Remember, Vince the Shamwow guy makes promises too.

I'm willing to put up a fine steak dinner over a wager that the actual reality will turn out to be entirely different, as is always the case with such things.

In fact I'm hard pressed to name a single piece of legislation or well meaning social engineering program that has ever delivered on any promise, particularly promises of cost.

It's hilarious though how zealously some defend a bill that they themselves have not read.

I'd like to offer such folks the opportunity to purchase multiple bridges over swamp land in Uganda that I own, since I now know that such folks find reading contracts and their fine print to be unnecessary.

J, thank you for acknowledging that it was indeed a promise. Again, the main arguing point here seems to be the gut feeling thing or just not trusting vrs actual figures or credible sources. So, when the fear mongering death panels/slash grandma's throat well runs dry, folks should just go along with you because of that bad feeling thingy? Meanwhile, people are sent home to die and Big Insurance continues to rake it in while paying off our elected representatives? And of course, anyone not buying into your hype is a liberal communist? Interesting world that you folks live in.

J, thank you for acknowledging that it was indeed a promise.

Why wouldn't I? Promises like these are made and broken as a daily matter of course.

Again, the main arguing point here seems to be the gut feeling thing or just not trusting vrs actual figures or credible sources.

No, you would be entirely incorrect. Rather, the main arguing point is that when promises such as the one you point out are made by government, they are routinely broken and almost never offer an accurate picture of what actual reality will turn out to be. It's a matter of looking at the track record of government promises in this regard, and the reality is, it hasn't been stellar.

Meanwhile, people are sent home to die and Big Insurance continues to rake it in while paying off our elected representatives?

Really? Please cite a specific case where this happened with accompanying linked source please.

And of course, anyone not buying into your hype is a liberal communist?

Please provide the quote where someone made this statement.

Interesting world that you folks live in.

Well, it's not nearly as interesting as the deluded fantasy world leftists like to live in. But then, how can we compete with a political philosophy that had its genesis in the haze mind altering psychotropic drug orgies of the Woodstock generation of the late 60's?

By the way, would you care to take me up on my offer for a wager?

Evil Otto, I skimmed

There's your problem. I've often wondered why I can make a point and have you come back again and again with the same tired arguments as if I'd written nothing. It's because you can't be bothered to actually read what anyone is writing. One of the reasons I do these fiskings (aside from the fun of tearing your feeble arguments to shreds, of course), is to make sure I don't miss anything.

and it looks like the problem is that a) you don't believe that doing nothing on HCR cost money

WHO'S MONEY?!? Again, (and again and again and frikkin' again), are we talking private funding? Public? Both? Where do you get this magical $11 trillion dollar number from? Over how long of a time period? I believe this is the THIRD time I've asked these questions.

and b)that HCR will cost considerably more than the projected cost.

It will, Kool-Aid Man. How do I know this? Because these government programs ALWAYS cost two, three, five, more times what is claimed. ALWAYS. It's like a law of physics. You claim that's not an argument, but historical evidence is a valid argument.

I find it odd that you question the cost of doing nothing.

I question your numbers. I want to know where they came from, how they were computed, and by whom.

This is where the Democratic proposal offers a savings to the deficit of about $125 billion over 10 years.

Words on paper. Words written by people who have yet to demonstrate that they have any clue whatsoever how to cut the deficit or save any money at all.

Do you know what a "projected" savings is, Andy? Nothing. Nothing at all. Future congresses are not bound in any way to honor any savings made by this one, even if I granted that this congress means what they say and intends to cut the deficit and save money. I don't grant that. In any case, the nature of these government programs is to grow, and grow massively.

I joke about you being a Kool-Aid drinker, a cultist, but do you not have any cynicism towards their plan? None at all? No doubts? No uncertainty? C'mon, it's got to be in there somewhere. No one can be this gullible. You are trying to convince me that we're going to save billions by spending trillions.

You didn't know this? You haven't heard this?

I. DON'T. BELIEVE. IT.

Do you honestly think I take these people's word that this is magically going to reduce the deficit by even one dime? I can't for the life of me figure out why you do.

Yet, yet, you're wanting to argue something that you're obviously ignorant on?

Put a sock in it, cultist. I clearly know far more on the subject (as well as history and economics) than you do.

You're not following the news at all, have no knowledge of the specifics yet you want to challenge the cost?????????

I've demonstrated that I know more about it than you. I also understand something you don't: they're lying.

Ok, now I'm suppose to except you're

(sigh) Accept your.

non sequitur as you just have a deep gut feeling that it's just gonna cost a whole lot more. Based on?

HISTORY, You dumbass. It will cost more. These programs always cost more, much much more.

Always.

So, the Dems have put their #s together and come up with a $125B savings.

Created through accounting tricks and by pushing the benefits into the future while taxing starts immediately. You didn't know that, did you? Here you go, dumbass.

Even if they were sincere (they're not), there's an old saying: no battle plan ever survives contact with the enemy. They simply have no idea how much the plan will cost once it hits the real world. They're guessing.

(if you need links to this, surely you need links that there really was a vote last night too)

Ooh-kay... Looks like Andy's drifting off into Bizarro world. Or maybe he's going back. Not really sure.

There has been dicsussions and arguments on that figure on the senate floor. Mitch McConnell talked about that today. But wait, no Senator debated on the concept that "it just always cost more".

So if "no senator debated" that on the senate floor, it doesn't exist? That's all you've got left? Seriously?

If only someone had brought to the Senate's attention yesterday that Evil Otto on Moonbattery.com said that it jsut always cost more anyways, well maybe that would have changed the vote.

Wow, you are utterly out of ideas. That's pathetic. Either prove me wrong or admit you can't. I don't care what they're promising, I care what the REALITY will be, and you and I both know the truth: this is a massive money pit.

If you have evidence that I'm wrong, please present it here. Please tell us of the massive government programs that come in under budget as promised. Please tell us of the state-run health care programs that are doing just fine. Let's compare.

The government already is responsible for a great percentage of health care in this country. And those programs are ALL sinking in a pit, nearly bankrupt. They are ticking time bombs that are going to eat more and more of our economy, more and more of our taxes. And you, cultist, wish to create the largest program yet.

I used to spend time arguing with communists. Not the standard liberals who conservatives often call communists, but real, avowed dyed-in-the-wool, Marx-quoting, Lenin-reading, "workers of the world unite" types. (Like some of the people in the Obama administration... hey, never let it be said I'll pass up the opportunity to get in a cheap shot.)

They always claimed that those nations that claimed to be communist, the Chinese and USSR and Cambodians and North Koreans, those weren't real communists. Those communists claimed that if we'd just implement their ideas, this time it would work. This time it wouldn't end up with piles of skulls. And nothing I wrote, no amount of historical evidence, no amount of dissection of their ideas ever made a damned bit of difference. It was a religious faith masquerading as rationality.

You remind me of that. THIS time, you claim, we won't end up with another bloated monstrosity like Medicare, hundreds of billions in the hole and growing. THIS time it'll work. You have no evidence of this, just the word of people who have shown themselves to be utterly untrustworthy. You have faith in these people, Andy. I don't.

I don't want to hear words, I want to see results before I would ever support this plan. And it's going to take a hell of a lot, because I haven't even gotten into the questionable constitutionality of this. How about this: if the Democrats are serious about reforming health care, let them PROVE it by:

1) Fixing Medicare and Medicaid so they don't collapse.
2) TESTING their plan small-scale before they try to take it national. For example, they could pick a couple of blue states and run the program for a few years. If it worked and came in on budget they'd have a strong argument for taking it nationwide.

They won't do either, because their goal isn't to reform health care. It's to gain power and money by controlling health care.

On the 5 topics you touched on J,

1) Thank you for CONFIRMING my point, regardless of promises being kept or broken.

2)gut feeling thing or just not trusting makes no difference as you haven't even pointed to a specific, merely you just don't like the idea. That's not a realistic rebuttal or a response.

3) Links? Are you saying no one has died as a result of having no insurance? Are you truly that ignorant? Links? And you're arguing this issue? Who dresses you in the morning? Can't you read? You obviously have internet and understand the term "search engine". WTF?

4) Everyone that I've seen that responded negatively to any post here have been called "liberal" and quite often a communist. Do you disagree with that?

5)Yes, you and your fellow clones have fabricated a world in which you all parrot the same talking points and distracting tactics. Do you honestly think this goes unnoticed? Seriously?

Woodstock was 40 years ago so get over it. I'm not sure what you're wanting to wager but you come across as a pretty shady character. Accordingly, collecting would be a tall order.

By the way, New Moon was awesome. Pattinson was so teh sex! Me and Ghost of Wellstone got kicked out for some serious necking but we'd already seen it twice!

You might hold you nose and actually check out non-Fox news sources.

Why do that andy? all the non fox news sources are nothing but a bunch of fucking lying Obama fluffers as well as being in his back pocket.

This is where the Democratic proposal offers a savings to the deficit of about $125 billion over 10 years.

By promising to cut Medicare by $500 Billion over ten years, which no one seriously believes is going to happen; especially not as more baby boomers become eligible for the program.

The "cost of doing nothing" would appear to be about a trillion dollars less than doing what the Obamacrats want to do.

And if we went further and got the Government out of the health care business entirely ... you know, that radical notion that people should be responsible and self-sufficient ... we'd eliminate the deficit entirely.

ANDY, you keep saying that "the people want this", yet I know of no VOTE BY THE CITIZENS of this country to approve the SEVERAL bills your representatives are trying to pass without anyone READING them.

If you mean a POLL was taken, I have to object to the idea that fifty or sixty thousand (If that many) who answered a few questions could possibly represent the entire population of the US.

That why the bill is now known the "Louisana Purchase".

KHarn, Obama and many of the Dems were elected on the promise of reforming health care. I suppose you need some links to prove this?

Thanks Dave for explaining in a few words what it takes EvillOtto 2000+ to do. You don't pursue any information outside of extreme right leaning news sources. This explains why several here continue to ask for links of current news events while claiming to already have knowledge they exist,,,,only to discredit them and thus dismiss the argument. I suppose CNN, NYtimes. Boston Globe, Miami Hearld, ABC, CBS, NBC, Chicago Tribune, AP, Reuters, ect all are not credible sources? The only problem with this is that it leaves you open to except interpretation as fact or what you want to believe as real.

Linked to at:
HEY, IS THAT MARY LANDRIEU?