Truth About the “Demon” Pass

March 17, 2010 at 11:53 am 169 comments

There is a huge controversy brewing over the potential use of a House voting technique called “Deem and Pass”, or as conservative opponents call it, “Demon Pass”.

Time for some “Deem and Pass” education.

1. Deem and Pass is hardly unprecedented having been used by both parties at one time or another. The first known instance was in 1933.

2. The reason in 1933 as now was that the House needed to make a tough vote and Deem and Pass allowed them to make the vote without appearing to really have made the vote.

Let’s hit the current situation. The House doesn’t like all the compromises in the Senate bill and there are a number of Representatives who would vote the Senate bill down but vote for the reconciled bill which corrects the compromises (i.e. side deals like Cornhusker Kickback). So, a rule on voting for the reconciled bill is put forth and voted by the entire House. The rule deems the Senate bill (pre-reconciliation) passed for the purposes of voting on the reconciled bill.

Any Representative who does not like the Senate bill and thinks their vote for the “rule” would be viewed as voting for the Senate bill, will vote the rule down.

The hope is that Representatives can hide behind the rule by telling their constituents “I didn’t vote for the Senate bill, I only voted for the rule.” It’s a stupid distinction that with all the current publicity can’t work. If a Congressman’s constituents don’t like HCR, he will get voted out of office whether he votes for the Senate bill directly or via Deem and Pass.

Bottom line, the idea that the health care bill will become law without a vote is poppycock. The rule must be voted on; it isn’t just declared. So by voting on the rule, they indirectly vote on the Senate bill.

And yes, Pelosi and Slaughter are using a method they opposed years ago. So friggin’ what? The party in power does what it can to get what it wants and the party out of power does what it can to oppose what it doesn’t want. It’s called politics.

Here are my sources:
http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2010031116/deem-and-pass-not-without-vote

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/16/health-care-opponents-dem_n_501353.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/16/house-has-long-history-of_n_500623.html

Respectfully,
Rutherford

WordPress.com Political Blogger Alliance

About these ads

Entry filed under: Politics, Wordpress Political Blogs. Tags: , , .

A Mass-a-ive Embarrassment No, You Cannot Have Your Country Back

169 Comments Add your own

  • 1. Tex Taylor  |  March 17, 2010 at 1:36 pm

    Now that Rutherford and the Demons have shown that they will stoop to any level to implement their fascist form of neo-pagan socialism, that world where the losers feel obliged to dictate to us about how they will now rule our lives, isn’t that enough reason to finally declare war and turn their little pathetic world upside down? It’s been overdue for 40 years and I for one am in an asskicking mood.

    After we go medieval on several thousand of them, perhaps they’ll gain a new epiphany about how they fucked with the wrong group?

    War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself. –John Stewart Mill–

  • 2. Alfie  |  March 17, 2010 at 1:43 pm

    http://in2thefray.wordpress.com/2010/03/17/i-deem-the-democrats-are-total-pieces-of-st/

    At no time was deem and pass used for such a large scale issue.

    Pelosi joined a lawsuit to bash deem and pass once. I guess her displeasure passed on the matter.

    A line item here,an amendment there is one thing. This will not be accepted by the people and smarter and braver Dems will pass on voting on the rule.

  • 3. Tex Taylor  |  March 17, 2010 at 1:51 pm

    Let us remember just two weeks ago at the health care round table, the Chosen One said, “the American people want an up or down vote.”

    Let us not debate anymore if Obama and the Democratic party leaders are liars.

  • 4. LOL  |  March 17, 2010 at 2:32 pm

    He also said the time for talk was over.

    So if that is the case, let’s vote. Today. Right now.

    What is the holdup?

  • 5. Rutherford  |  March 17, 2010 at 2:34 pm

    Even Eric Cantor can’t call the Deem and Pass procedure unconstitutional with a straight face:

    http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2010/03/17/hoyer-cantor-deem/

  • 6. Rutherford  |  March 17, 2010 at 2:37 pm

    the losers feel obliged to dictate to us

    Here’s the rub Tex … in November 2008 YOU were the losers. We were the winners and we’re running the show for the time being. Sorry … better luck next time … maybe you’ll run someone with more of a pulse than John McCain. ;-)

  • 7. Rutherford  |  March 17, 2010 at 2:40 pm

    At no time was deem and pass used for such a large scale issue.

    The same argument used against reconciliation. Just another gripe to stop the bill.

    Alfie, utlimately you are right … representatives who have anti-HCR constituents might be wise to vote against the rule. But this just goes back to the basic premise:

    A vote for the rule is a vote for the bill. Either way, it’s an up or down vote.

  • 8. Rutherford  |  March 17, 2010 at 2:43 pm

    Tex … it is an up or down vote …. read the article again.

    “LOL” There are two schools of thought. First, Pelosi won’t pull the trigger unless she knows she has the votes (for the bill or the rule), or second, she has the votes and is enjoying the theater. I doubt the latter.

  • 9. LOL  |  March 17, 2010 at 3:10 pm

    I don’t find anything in our constitution that says a vote for a rule equates to a vote on a bill. Can you point that out for us?

    What I do find is that the yeas and nays of a vote will be recorded. Kind of difficult to record those things in a vote that never actually takes place, wouldn’t you agree?

    ““LOL” There are two schools of thought. First, Pelosi won’t pull the trigger unless she knows she has the votes (for the bill or the rule), or second, she has the votes and is enjoying the theater. I doubt the latter.”

    Well what is keeping her from having the votes when her party has complete control over the House?

    Isn’t she aware of how many Americans will die today while we are waiting for this life-saving legislation that we need to pass immediately so that it can take effect in 4 years?

    Our president has spoken, “THE TIME FOR TALK IS OVER!”

    Let’s vote now before any more people lose their feet or lives!

  • 10. Tex Taylor  |  March 17, 2010 at 4:04 pm

    Here’s the rub Tex … in November 2008 YOU were the losers. We were the winners and we’re running the show for the time being. Sorry … better luck next time … maybe you’ll run someone with more of a pulse than John McCain

    It was six months before America won one battle in WWII with the Japanese. The end however, was climatic as the initial winner lay wasted and in ruins. You won the battle – you won’t win the war. I can wait as the hatred builds towards your arrogance – the anticipation of standing over you and your broken party is as good as when you are finally annihilated.

    And on that day, rest assured there will be no mercy – including anyone you are affiliated with or love. No reconciliation or bartering, no pandering were all Americans, as I will look at you as my ancestors looked at the Japanese after Pearl Harbor.

    Enjoy it while it last as I set this one to memory... :wink:

  • 11. Dead Rabbit  |  March 17, 2010 at 4:32 pm

    To think Rutherford writes his drivel for free!

    There is no depth too low, no technical argument too petty, that our friendly blogger/sycophant won’t go.

    Why Rutherford? Why? Why would a person who has no ties to a politician ruin is own reputation over hero worship?

    You have no moral ground to stand on ever again? You realize that, don’t you?

    This is total bull shit and has never been done before. Never. Never has this garbage been used on a major piece of legislation that is still in the form of two different bills. Even if there was a precedent for this, it’s still fucking rotten.

    Rutherford is an expedient, Machiavellian hard ass now. There is no right and wrong. Just results, correct?

    The interesting question is, what does this mean for me. Am I now bound by a different set of standards, a new code of conduct when dealing with your type?

    Shall I use past precedent on this?

    Perhaps tar and feathering you would be acceptable? Did they tar and feather handicap people?

    No, I think not.

    You have joined a world you can’t compete in.

    Little broken and frail cuckolds like yourself really don’t have much of a role in your new thug world, Rutherford.

    Get the fuck out my way.

  • 12. an800lbgorilla  |  March 17, 2010 at 4:47 pm

    Sten Hoyer in 2003 on Deem and Pass:

    “When the Republican leadership reported a self-executing rule providing for the adoption of the $82 billion plan over 10 years and an almost trillion-dollar plan over 20 years, accelerating the increased child tax credit for low-income people families, we didn’t even get an opportunity to vote on the bill itself except by reference in a self-executing rule. What kind of lack of confidence does that display? What kind of process in pursuit of effectiveness does that mean that we are adopting? What kind of demeaning of democracy is the objective of efficiency resulting in?”

    R?

  • 13. Tex Taylor  |  March 17, 2010 at 6:04 pm

    Even if these assholes think they are clever (like Rutherford), this is going to be challenged over and over again.

    http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/62939

    And we will win and Rutherford will lose.

  • 14. Tex Taylor  |  March 17, 2010 at 6:46 pm

    Bret Baier’s interview with Bongo showed Bongo’s shuck & jive. When challenged, this sham reverts to filibustering.

    For his own sake, Bongo should avoid FOX News at all costs, because invariably Bongo looks the huckster, dodger and hack.

  • 15. Rutherford  |  March 18, 2010 at 12:22 am

    Kind of difficult to record those things in a vote that never actually takes place, wouldn’t you agree?

    What is so hard to understand here? If this approach is used, the vote on the rule WILL take place and be recorded.

    Critics of the approach who are not Republican hypocrites, point out that it is unnecessary since voting for the rule will create the same bad taste in the electorate as voting for the bill. So why bother with the sleight of hand? I agree with them on this.

    A factor I neglected to mention in my article is the lingering mistrust that exists between the House and the Senate. The House does not trust that the Senate will produce a reconciliation bill once the original bill passes. Hence they would all be on record for voting for the Cornhusker Kickback with no hope of it being removed. This way, again a lame strategy, they can say they voted for the rule and not the kickback.

    It’s not the Dem’s finest moment, but not because it’s dirty pool … simply because it’s just plain stupid.

    Well what is keeping her from having the votes when her party has complete control over the House?

    Rhetorical question. You know full well there are Democrats who are not happy with the Senate bill. Arms will be twisted until the 11th hour.

  • 16. Rutherford  |  March 18, 2010 at 12:30 am

    Gorilla, who ever said the Democrats don’t share in the hypocrisy pool?

    As I said in the article, the folks in power do what they think they must to get what they want and the folks out of power gripe about it …. until they get in power and use the same damn techniques. That style of governance didn’t start with Obama and you know it.

    The reason to oppose the Deem and Pass has nothing to do with constitutionality or even right vs wrong. The main reason to oppose it is that it’s founded in this case on faulty logic. Those that hate HCR will evict the legislators who facilitate its passing, no matter how it gets dressed up. Quite frankly, the folks who should be most upset about this are not the Republicans but rather the Democrats who oppose the bill and are being manipulated into voting for it.

  • 17. Rutherford  |  March 18, 2010 at 12:40 am

    LOL Rabbit refers to my thug world when he is the one talking like a thug.

    You know what you and Tex deserve with all your tough talk Rabbit? You deserve to be flashed back 150 years with no child labor laws, no protection for the elderly, no job discrimination laws, etc. etc. Let’s see how well you guys fare in a world with no government protections. You all talk a good f*cking game but you’re living in the relative lap of luxury where you can sit on your ass and gripe about government over-reach.

    The bottom line is one of the things that made America great and makes it greater with each passing generation is the way it shows that it cares about its people. Has every progressive initiative been a complete success? No. Welcome to reality. All I can do is toss at you the quote we’ve all heard over and over the past 12 months:

    Keep the government out of my business but don’t touch my Medicare.

  • 18. Tex Taylor  |  March 18, 2010 at 1:41 am

    Has every there ever been a progressive initiative that has been a complete partial success? No.

    Correct.

    You know what you and Tex deserve with all your tough talk Rabbit? You deserve to be flashed back 150 years with no child labor laws, no protection for the elderly, no job discrimination laws, etc. etc. Let’s see how well you guys fare in a world with no government protections. You all talk a good f*cking game but you’re living in the relative lap of luxury where you can sit on your ass and gripe about government over-reach.

    :lol: :lol:

    150 years, huh? I won’t bother to mention there are many that probably deserve to be “flashed back” for ingratitude, sloth, incessant whining, and continual petulance dragging a 90lbs…

    I’ll let you fill in the blank. :smile:

  • 19. an800lbgorilla  |  March 18, 2010 at 5:42 am

    Thanks R, I suspected that you had little principle, but thanks for clearing up any questions I might have had.

    Deem and Pass is dangerous because the same ignorant morons that voted for Obama, and likely the Dem idiot representing them, don’t understand the maneuver and since there won’t be an actual voting record for the bill, the deniability of the bill will be real.

    Don’t get me wrong, I have faith in the American people, but I have no faith Dem voters who have consistently shown a dramatic lack of intellectual fortitude.

    The Constitutionality of this is important and is relevant and I can guarantee you that I would be just as adamantly opposed to Deem and Pass if the GOP tried to do it too.

    Probably a big difference between you and I.

    But you haven’t answered my previous point in the other thread. You said the ends justify the means, I said what the hell are the means? You’ve yet to answer that. Tell me, what in this bill is so great and grand that it justifies bankrupting the nation and injecting an unconstitutional role of the federal government into my daily life?

  • 20. Tex Taylor  |  March 18, 2010 at 8:56 am

    There is a sense of irony these days with President B-Balls elected.

    While Rutherford feels more empowered, and Wally Curator feels enlightened with his power news sources, their little monopoly of disseminating news is quickly disappearing.

    MSNBC & CNN rank lower than the CARTOON CHANNEL! :lol:

    http://blogs.dailymail.com/donsurber/archives/10808

  • 21. Curator  |  March 18, 2010 at 11:45 am

    WOW… CBO project HCR package would reduce the deficit by $130 billion in the first ten years, and potentially by $1.2 trillion in the second ten years.

    Lets see on one hand we have this “Obamacare” legislation that is fully paid for, reduces the deficit in this decade, and potentially even more in the next decade, bring coverage to 32 million Americans — slightly better than the earlier estimate — and extend Medicare solvency by at least 9 years while closing the prescription drug “donut hole.”

    On the other hand we had the Republicans who in 2003 gave us Medicare Part D that had no dedicated financing, no offsets and no revenue-raisers; 100% of the cost simply added to the federal budget deficit.

    Hmmm…let’s use wingnut GOPher logic and just go out on a limb and say that President Bush’s unfunded drug benefit, which according to the Medicare trustees added $15.5 trillion (in present value terms) to our nation’s indebtedness, isn’t as bad as Obamacare.

    Waiting to see Tex’s head explode in 5,4,3,……

  • 22. Tex Taylor  |  March 18, 2010 at 12:20 pm

    Waiting to see Tex’s head explode in 5,4,3,……

    Dummy Wally, don’t flatter yourself. You’re the lamest of leftist debators at Rutherford L., as you usually don’t even attempt answer questions. Like Densico, you leave a load and run – probably like you did in warfare. See if you can break with tradition and answer below.

    I want you to explain to me how you are going to do the following, and then we can place our bets right here.

    (1) Add 31MM people to the rolls without raising taxes?
    (2) Keep 1/3 of primary physicians from leaving upon implementation?
    (3) Convince the 65% of American public, me included, that Obamacare isn’t a POS?
    (4) Assure those with private insurance who are perfectly happy with their insurance that their premiums aren’t going to increase because of Bongo Care as the CBO projects?

    But I am going to surprise you. The two absolute worst decisions Bush ever made were Head Start and Medicare, Part D. Straight out of the leftist playbook. Got me there as Bush followed your strategy of bigger government which is always a huge disappointment and dismal failure – like your career.

    Secondary bet. How many seats are you pole suckers from the Left going to lose come November?

    Are you game for a bet Wally?

  • 23. Tex Taylor  |  March 18, 2010 at 12:28 pm

    Wally,

    More good news for Government Care! Bring us more!

    http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2011367936_walgreens18m.html

    http://hotair.com/archives/2010/03/18/breaking-cbo-releases-the-actual-report/

    Looks like you’re estimates a little off Wally. Back to your state funded job. What you need are some more “professional” accreditation. :smile:

  • 24. Tex Taylor  |  March 18, 2010 at 12:35 pm

    Hey Curator? Using your logic, does this mean if we give the government the other 5/6 of the economy, they can cure the deficit too?

    What a rube…

    Back to basketball.

  • 25. Tex Taylor  |  March 18, 2010 at 1:01 pm

    Commercial break.

    Wally, one question. Off hand, can you name ONE government program that has EVER cost less in the long term than was originally projected? Just one?

    We’ll wait.

  • 26. Tex Taylor  |  March 18, 2010 at 1:10 pm

    ** GUFFAW **

    “White House officials said Obama’s recent remarks aren’t intended to personalize the debate or rally undecided Democratic members with an egocentric, ‘win one for Barry’ message.”

    http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0310/34602.html

  • 27. LOL  |  March 18, 2010 at 1:26 pm

    “Rhetorical question. You know full well there are Democrats who are not happy with the Senate bill. Arms will be twisted until the 11th hour.”

    And here we finally cut to the mustard.

    After wasting 14 months, the party who had enough power to not need a single opposition vote in either house is forced to resort to multiple underhanded tactics because they can’t be brought together to pass this mess.

    (Of course, we all knew that already. I just enjoy seeing you actually admit it)

  • 28. LOL  |  March 18, 2010 at 1:32 pm

    The CBO also said its findings were preliminary because they don’t have all the information because the bill is not even finalized yet.

    How much is that 11th hour arm twisting going to cost us?

  • 29. LOL  |  March 18, 2010 at 1:59 pm

    Although CBO completed a preliminary review of legislative language prior to its release, the agency has not thoroughly examined the reconciliation proposal to verify its consistency with the previous draft. This estimate is therefore preliminary, pending a review of the language of the reconciliation proposal, as well as further review and refinement of the budgetary projections.

    In other words, by its own admission, this CBO estimate is worth jack shit if one really cares about reality.

  • 31. Dead Rabbit  |  March 18, 2010 at 4:10 pm

    Well Rutherford, the last laugh is on me. After posting my message I went downstairs disgusted with this country and bench pressed set after set after set after set.

    I go see the surgeon on Monday for my shoulder. My normal summer activities are gone.

  • 32. Tex Taylor  |  March 18, 2010 at 6:20 pm

    It’s got to hurt…as Wally brags about the popularity of Bongocare and the approval of President B-Ball.

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_obama_job_approval-1044.html

    What’s that about the public approving of Bongocare again “r”?

  • 33. dead rabbit 2.0  |  March 18, 2010 at 7:48 pm

    The cool thing about having a baby is that if he’s ok, nothing really matter. Normally, I would probably be teary eyed with prospect of not playing softball all summer. But….now….it’s not so bad. I’ll be home with the little guy more.

    This summer I will be Daddy day care. I’m kind of intimidated.

    The diapers are fucking disgusting. I can’t imagine what this summer will be like.

  • 34. an800lbgorilla  |  March 18, 2010 at 8:22 pm

    Wait till he gets on solids. ;)

  • 35. an800lbgorilla  |  March 18, 2010 at 8:24 pm

    Let me read to you from the first page of the letter from Doug Elmendorf, the director of the CBO, to Pelosi. “Although CBO completed a preliminary review of legislative language prior to its release, the agency has not thoroughly examined the reconciliation proposal to verify its consistency with the previous draft.” Because there isn’t one yet! The reconciliation proposal is the Slaughter solution. The CBO is saying, “We haven’t seen that,” because nobody’s seen that. “Therefore,” writes Elmendorf, “this estimate is preliminary, pending a review of the language of the reconciliation proposal, as well as further review and refinement of the budgetary projections.”

  • 36. Tex Taylor  |  March 18, 2010 at 8:31 pm

    Rabbit,

    Until last year, I had twin labs that could shit a yard in a week. During the summer, it was nasty business twice a week cleaning up.

    I was outside one day with my sister-in-law and she said as I held the pooper scooper, “I don’t know how you can stand to do that.”

    I said, “I’d clean up 1,000 piles of dog shit with this before I would change one kid’s diaper with a diaper wipe.

    Man, I changed a bunch of diapers during my day and I ain’t going to do it with grand kids. Disgusting is the appropriate word.

  • 37. dead rabbit 2.0  |  March 18, 2010 at 10:50 pm

    Rep. Tom Perriello (D-VA) said, “if you don’t tie our hands, we will keep stealing.”

  • 38. Rutherford  |  March 18, 2010 at 11:10 pm

    Rabbit, regarding your impending shoulder surgery, I’d like to take one of your classic quotes (from the Sambo lecture) and spin it a bit:

    Now, we are all soon to be black people.

    Well most of us are also going to be disabled people one day. It’s just that most of us don’t know it. For at least part of the summer, you’ll join my ranks. Welcome brother. You’ll be surprised how quickly you adjust. ;-)

  • 39. Rutherford  |  March 18, 2010 at 11:14 pm

    Now onto more important matters. I changed my first diaper ill advisedly while my wife was running an errand. When she returned I cried out for help, and as she entered the living room she found me elbow deep in baby crap. I will also never forget the first time I actually saw my tot in the act. She had decided to let one loose during a diaper change. I swear it looked like a play-doh factory.

    Ahhhh those were the days! I’m with Tex on this one. If I never change another diaper in my life, it will be fine with me.

  • 40. Rutherford  |  March 18, 2010 at 11:20 pm

    The reconciliation proposal is the Slaughter solution.

    G, ehhhhh no. You’re playing fast and loose with language. The “Slaughter solution” is simply to pass the reconciliation and the Senate bill in one fell swoop by deeming the Senate bill passed.

    You pulled your assessment out of your ass. The CBO issued a prelim for the reasons they stated, They need to tie all the reconciliation language back to the original bill to be sure what changed and they haven’t done that yet. The reconciliation language does exist … that’s what enabled the prelim report in the first place.

    Do me a favor and stop making sh*t up, Thank you.

  • 41. Rutherford  |  March 18, 2010 at 11:25 pm

    This summer I will be Daddy day care. I’m kind of intimidated.

    Take my advice as you’re relatively new at this. Unless you want to sleep on the couch for a week or two, don’t let your wife hear you refer to “Daddy day care” or “baby sitting” where your own kid is concerned. It carries the connotation that women are supposed to watch the kid and when Daddy does it, it is somehow special, This drives many women into apoplectic fits. Take it or leave it …. I just don’t want to be the brunt of your sexual tension when you’re sleeping in the den for three weeks. :-)

  • 42. Rutherford  |  March 18, 2010 at 11:28 pm

    Real Clear Politics shows Obama at a statistical tie on approve/disapprove. Thanks Tex for proving that Obama is doing quite well under the circumstances. ;-)

  • 43. Rutherford  |  March 18, 2010 at 11:33 pm

    Tex, you poor dude. The difference between Astrobama and some of the early day Tea Party stuff was everyone who isn’t an idiot has heard of OFA. Organizing means providing your members with the tools to organize, including verbiage to use in letters to your congressmen. However with the Tea Party, we were told this was just ordinary Americans rising up on their own without any mention that Dick Armey was leading them by the scruff of their necks. :evil:

  • 44. Rutherford  |  March 18, 2010 at 11:36 pm

    this CBO estimate is worth jack shit if one really cares about reality.

    If “preliminary” is the same as jack sh*t in your book then yes you’re right. Would you prefer that no preliminary finding is issued? What’s your beef exactly?

  • 45. Rutherford  |  March 18, 2010 at 11:37 pm

    The CBO also said its findings were preliminary because they don’t have all the information because the bill is not even finalized yet.

    G, I owe you an apology.

    You and “LOL” pulled this out of your ass. :-)

  • 46. Tex Taylor  |  March 19, 2010 at 12:35 am

    Face it Rutherford,

    Even if you get the vote by deception, this one is going to cost you big time. Thirty-seven states are currently in the works of putting a stop to this, and there won’t be a damn thing you can do about that.

    I’m actually enjoying this because it has shown Bongo’s true colors – a ruthless bastard, not terribly bright, that is going to take the entire party down with him.

    And I’m going to stomp your balls for obtuseness after it happens. :razz:

  • 47. LOL  |  March 19, 2010 at 2:23 am

    What’s my beef with these preliminary figures?

    They are being touted as anything but preliminary.

    Here is a sample of what they are being touted as:

    U.S. Rep. Chellie Pingree, a Democrat representing Maine’s 1st District, said the deficit reduction estimates released Thursday by the Congressional Budget Office show the reform effort is on solid footing.

    “It confirms that we can improve the health care coverage of millions of Americans while drastically cutting the deficit,” she said.

    But House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., was jubilant, calling the bill “a triumph for the American people in terms of deficit-reduction.”

    Pelosi’s lieutenants held out hope that the numbers would sway fiscal conservatives, who formed the largest bloc of “no” votes when the House passed a more costly health care bill in November

    Obama points to fresh CBO score

    President Obama trumpeted the Congressional Budget Office’s estimate Thursday that health care reform legislation would make deep cuts in the deficit over the next 20 years.

    “This morning, a new analysis from the Congressional Budget Office concludes that the reform we seek would bring 1.3 trillion dollars in deficit reduction over the next two decades,” he said in the Rose Garden before signing a jobs bill. “That makes this legislation the most significant effort to reduce deficits since the Balanced Budget Act in the 1990s. This is but one virtue of a reform that will bring new accountability to the insurance industry and greater economic security to all Americans.”

    Notice the word “preliminary” is not highlighted in any of those quotes.

    Because it’s not there.

  • 48. Tex Taylor  |  March 19, 2010 at 11:02 am

    Finally, somebody with the gonads to step up and say what must be done:

    Impeach the President?

    http://washingtontimes.com/news/2010/mar/19/impeach-the-president/

    This clown has overstepped his bounds and must be taken down. He has either sidestepped judicial constraints, or stomped all over them.

    Frog March his ass to the curb…in handcuffs, if necessary.

  • 49. Tex Taylor  |  March 19, 2010 at 11:37 am

    Oh, this has to hurt the Wally.

    Rasmussen: 43% now strongly disapprove of Obama, same as Bush when Bush left office

    http://volokh.com/2010/03/19/rasmussen-43-now-strongly-disapprove-of-obama-same-as-bush-when-he-left-office/

    Buwahahahahaha…took numb nuts 14 months to be as hated as the man he so vociferously campaigned against, and still blames all his weaknesses today. :lol:

    Impeach the bastard, try him for crimes against America and Frog March him to the curb.

  • 50. Rutherford  |  March 19, 2010 at 11:39 am

    LOL The Washington Times??? You’ve gotta be kidding. The article is just plain stupid and by citing it Tex you are bordering on stupid yourself.

    My article tells the truth about the situation. The Times article is full of lies and melodrama.

    What world do you folks live in?

  • 51. Tex Taylor  |  March 19, 2010 at 11:42 am

    The Real Truth About Obama

    There’s No ‘I’ in ‘Deem’

    Here’s the rub of it and a great point that even Rutherford can’t excuse, though he will attempt to:

    But if the substance of the bill is as good as they say it is–indeed, if it is anything other than a monstrosity–why do they have to come up with one procedural gimmick after another to persuade their fellow partisans to approve it?

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704743404575127690939847922.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_MIDDLETopOpinion

    Impeach Obama and Frog March his worthless ass to the curb!

  • 52. Tex Taylor  |  March 19, 2010 at 11:45 am

    Rutherford, maybe the Wall Street Journal will please you more. :lol:

    We’re going to kick Obama’s ass to the curb after we beat him up some more! :smile:

    Did you see that stupid hack being interviewed by FOX? Your man is weak as hell. I could actually hear his nuts twist through the TV. How dare somebody question my greatness!!! :lol:

  • 53. Tex Taylor  |  March 19, 2010 at 11:48 am

    Thank you Jennifer Rubin. Finally, the beginning of the end for Obama! Buwahahahahahahaha! The act of desperation.

    But should we be surprised? This was the candidate who created a cult of personality, who told us he represented the “New Politics,” who was going to eschew politics-as-usual, and who would be post-partisan, post-racial, and post-ideological. Now he’s a handful of votes away from a humiliating defeat. No wonder it’s desperation time. His possible failure would not be a mere political failure; it would be the obliteration of his own mythology.

    Should he squeak it out, Obama’s “victory” would come with a heavy price. Gone is the image of a policy sophisticate (try watching that Bret Baier interview a few times without wincing). Gone is the “moderate” moniker. And gone is the notion that he’d usher in a new era of less contentious and less corrupt politics. (It’s a new era, perhaps, but hardly a better one.) There is no mistaking now the depth of the campaign deception. The public has figured out what he is all about. And increasingly, they dislike what they see.

    Read it and weep Rutherford. I’m a patient man – waiting will make the victory so much sweeter when we witness the fall. I’ve got my popcorn ready for popping.

  • 54. Rutherford  |  March 19, 2010 at 11:52 am

    Tex, if you can’t quote anyone but Rasmussen you’ve got no argument. You already posted a Real Clear Politics average which proves your point is … well … pointless. That average included Rasmussen. It’s also worth noting Obama still enjoys a higher approval rating than Congress. (Admittedly damning by faint praise … but it shows where the focus of America’s anger is … against Congress, not the White House).

    As for the calls for impeachment … Tex, you’re turning into a punch line.

  • 55. Tex Taylor  |  March 19, 2010 at 11:56 am

    Is that the same mad Rassmussen that continually picks the margins closer than any other in Presidential Polls? Keep shoveling shit over your head Rutherford.

    We’ll contact you when your nightmare is over and you can come out and play with the big dogs again. :wink:

    I need to find a gravatar with Bongo in hand cuffs, standing before the masses. Your man is quickly going the way of Nancy Pelosi – possibly the most disdained man in America today.

    Face it Rutherford – your man has failed miserably. It will take years to clean up the damage your feckless party has caused, but they won’t be standing in the way much longer. Hopefully, those that do will find themselves standing in a new country with the other outcasts. :smile:

  • 56. Rutherford  |  March 19, 2010 at 12:00 pm

    By the way, I watched some of the Bret Baier interview. Bret proved once and for all that Fox is not about news, it’s about a right wing political agenda. Until that night, Dan Rather probably held the all time record for rudeness to a President but Bret passed him by far.

    You guys (Tex, Rabbit, G, BiW, “LOL”) are also spending so much time arguing the obvious that it has become silly. YES, the bill has imperfections that keep some Dem’s from wanting to back it. Got any other brilliant observations?

  • 57. Tex Taylor  |  March 19, 2010 at 12:05 pm

    Rutherford, ** GUFFAW **

    Painful to watch Bomba when he is really interviewed, isn’t it? He sounds like a scratched record. There was absolutely nothing that wasn’t legitimately raised and Bomba tried to run out the clock.

    Personally, had I been Baier I would have said, “Hey Jack, you ain’t the questions. This isn’t some stump speech chump. Since you’re incapable of being honest, let’s talk about something you can answer. How’s your bracket?”

    Imperfections? Only 17% of the damn economy. I’ll give you one thing R. You sure can minimize disasters…

  • 58. Rutherford  |  March 19, 2010 at 12:20 pm

    Tex, you redeemed yourself with the WSJ article. It’s a shame you weren’t “patient” and waited for that article to surface before posting your embarrassing Washington Times article.

    But isn’t it interesting how you ignore that the WSJ article made my very point:

    But they would still have to approve the “rule” to “deem” the bill “passed,” which–assuming the courts either approve of this procedural dodge or decide the question is not justiciable–is the functional equivalent of voting for the Senate bill.

    This is what I have said. A vote for the rule is a vote for the Senate bill. Plain and simple. This is why the rule in my estimation is an unnecessary piece of tomfoolery that won’t work. It won’t save any Congressman from being judged on the substance of his or her vote.

    As usual you guys fail to see nuance. I think the rule approach is stupid and unnecessarily controversial,. I also think lots of lies have been told about the rule by your side. You see it’s actually possible to find good reasons to oppose something without lying about it.

    While I’m at it … there’s another piece of ridiculous hyperbole floating around. This notion that if HCR fails, it’s the end of Obama’s presidency. While it is probably true that Congress is screwed, the President can easily duplicate Clinton’s pattern and get reelected in 2012 despite a major legislative defeat.

  • 59. Blackiswhite, Imperial Consigliere  |  March 19, 2010 at 12:40 pm

    While it is probably true that Congress is screwed, the President can easily duplicate Clinton’s pattern and get reelected in 2012 despite a major legislative defeat.

    1. Who would believe him if he suddenly turned to the center? HCR has been his raison d’etre since he took the oath of office. And he’s already proven that we can’t believe other things he says.

    2. His own nutroots would howl like wounded hyenas if he decided to split from the left’s agenda. And they are the ones who can be counted on to really bring the violence. “President Biden” isn’t really an improvement on the situation.

  • 60. Tex Taylor  |  March 19, 2010 at 1:02 pm

    I liked the Washington Times article….finally somebody with the balls to say lets get rid of this scumbag.

    The nuance you continue to miss is that a large part of your own useful idiot party is having to be bought for this “wonderful piece of legislature.” If it is so good, why with large majorities can’t you pass it straight up or down? The reasons are obvious.

    Win or lose, we’ll hold it up in the courts, nor will states abide by this POS, until we can remove Caesar from office – if his own don’t frag him first after being sold out.

    He’ll go down as the most hated President in history and that makes me happy. :smile:

  • 61. LOL  |  March 19, 2010 at 1:53 pm

    “You guys (Tex, Rabbit, G, BiW, “LOL”) are also spending so much time arguing the obvious that it has become silly. YES, the bill has imperfections that keep some Dem’s from wanting to back it. Got any other brilliant observations?”

    Which is why, even though you had the power to pass whatever you wanted for more than a year, you are having to resort to a series of underhanded procedures to forcibly shove this bill up the ass of America.

    And if you think we are going to stop reminding you of that, you’ve got another thing coming, my friend.

  • 62. Alfie  |  March 19, 2010 at 3:34 pm

    In mixed order my responses to Rutherford:
    the President can easily duplicate Clinton’s pattern and get reelected in 2012 despite a major legislative defeat.
    Not likely dude too many other variables. Really the only way Obama gets reelected at all will be if a credible centrist (D) leaner runs,otherwise the center right crushes him.

    On the polling. I’d say the collective RCP average is crappy but the reality is still not all that bad for BHO. I’d shitcan the polls other than Rasmussen,Fox and Pew. That gets you 45% approval 48% Disapprove and a 7% free radical.

    The Slaughter tactic does not include Reconciliation (upper case matters),it facilitates its use within the Senate. The House is going out on a limb in a number of ways here. That is the no making shit up reality.

    The Fox interview was very good. Obama gets pointds for showing up,and negs for not being on top of his game. The reporter was not rude,he was a reporter. People,and by that I mean O-bots have become to entranced by a media that cannot ask hard questions of Obama due to their lips being on his member.

  • 63. Tex Taylor  |  March 19, 2010 at 4:03 pm

    Speaking of “objective” reporters and with the libs like Hippie always whining about how unfair FOX is?

    Between games, I’m listening to this shill named David Schuster interview a Repub Congressman and this “thing” was so slanted, Wally Curator could have been asking questions. And he was so dumb he couldn’t grasp what this Republican Congressman was trying to explain to him about deficit/GDP ratios.

    This Schuster was going, “Well yeah, but what about the Iraq War, and and and the Bush Tax Cuts and and and…”

    Had he been black, I could have sworn it was Rutherford doing the interviewing. :smile:

    Absolute complete hypocrisy from the Left – what’s new?

  • 64. Dead Rabbit  |  March 19, 2010 at 4:13 pm

    “Well most of us are also going to be disabled people one day. It’s just that most of us don’t know it. For at least part of the summer, you’ll join my ranks. Welcome brother. You’ll be surprised how quickly you adjust. ” R

    Dude, that’s the first smart/witty/true thing you’ve said in a long time. Plus, I laughed out loud at that.

    I am handicapped right now. No doubt about it. Arm in a sling.

    Thanks for letting me join the club.

  • 65. Alfie  |  March 19, 2010 at 7:46 pm

    Closing lines of a very interesting post that touches on some of the right of center CBO issues:

    This is an intentional gimmick designed to reduce by $29 B the scored cost of the reconciliation bill. As policymakers on both sides of the aisle bemoan the mid-90s Medicare policy change that created today’s Medicare funding cliff, the Speaker and her allies propose to create an exact parallel in Medicaid, beginning Monday.

    It’s hard to say which is worse: intentionally hiding $29 B of spending, or intentionally creating a funding cliff. I’ll call it a tie.

    here

  • 66. Alfie  |  March 19, 2010 at 7:47 pm

    DR you don’t get the parking though.

  • 67. Alfie  |  March 19, 2010 at 7:47 pm

    Rutherford…not that I like herand granted she was a candidate but Gibson v Palin…any rudeness there?

  • 68. Rutherford  |  March 19, 2010 at 9:09 pm

    Alfie, I’d be the first to admit Gibson was condescending which I guess is a form of rudeness. Unfortunately, it opened a window into Sarah’s brain, a window that remains open to this day. :-D

    As for DR not getting a special parking spot, I stubbornly resisted that for years until New England winters finally caught up with me. If there is a “normal” spot next to a handicapped one, I still park in the normal one.

  • 69. Rutherford  |  March 19, 2010 at 9:19 pm

    Had he been black, I could have sworn it was Rutherford doing the interviewing.

    The hilarious part of that statement Tex is I that I look more like David Schuster than Al Roker. (Sadly it says something about the news business that the best I could come up with was Al Roker :-( )

  • 70. Blackiswhite, Imperial Consigliere  |  March 19, 2010 at 9:32 pm

    From Rutherford’s fellow travellers in the fever-swamps (Kostards or dummie underground…it doesn’t really matter)

    Seems there is a bit of angst over the U.S. Chamber of Commerce coming down against this blatant power grab:

    A strong case can be made that it’s time for all to advance and promote the meme that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Retail Industry Leaders Association and the National Association of Manufacturers and their membership are, essentially, enemies of the people, in particular of the middle class.

    Someone is doing a bang up job with their Noam Chomsky reader, but if they are going to talk like that, I prefer they quote the original Marx-Engles.

    And you said something about me being extreme, R? “Enemies of the People [Proletariat]?”

  • 71. Rutherford  |  March 19, 2010 at 9:45 pm

    Well BiW, I never said you or Republicans had a monopoly on hyperbole. Passionate debate has lead to some whoppers being told by both “sides”.

  • 72. Dead Rabbit  |  March 19, 2010 at 10:15 pm

    So now that the CBO says this thing is in the red, does that mean Obama will refuse to sign the bill (if it passes) like he promised.

    Maybe I’m just not being “nuanced” enough. I’m starting to understand that taking people for their word is not being “nuanced”.

    I’m just a simple Rabbit.

  • 73. Tex Taylor  |  March 19, 2010 at 10:46 pm

    I assume that Wally will be correcting his post from above about this disaster of an idea saving us big bucks according to the CBO – especially considering we get to pay four years for it before it even takes effect?

    Medicare fix would push health care into the redRollback of Medicare cuts to doctors, if added to health care bill, push it into the red.

    http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Medicare-fix-would-push-apf-2700343586.html?x=0&.v=2

    Add in the rest of the lies and it will bankrupt the economy. If that gets rid Obama, maybe it’s not so bad an idea.

  • 74. Dead Rabbit  |  March 19, 2010 at 10:56 pm

    “If that gets rid Obama, maybe it’s not so bad an idea.”-Tex

    The problem is that the shit will hit the fan 15 years from now.

    The blame game will be…uh…nuanced…..and the government will already have 20 other disasters put in motion.

  • 75. Tex Taylor  |  March 19, 2010 at 11:34 pm

    Rabbit,

    I am confident that even if the Dims use everybody deceit to get it passed, we can tie this up in the courts for years. A majority of states are ready to file suit as unconstitutional – you can’t force a citizen to purchase anything.

    We will nail their asses to the wall before this is through. Let Rutherford gloat for the moment, as we will have a huge last laugh.

    It’s political suicide which only a lib can explain.

  • 76. Dead Rabbit  |  March 20, 2010 at 12:39 am

    “A majority of states are ready to file suit as unconstitutional – you can’t force a citizen to purchase anything.”-Tex

    It really does boil down to that too. You’re right.

  • 77. Dead Rabbit  |  March 20, 2010 at 12:57 am

    Really amazing when you think of it. Both what they are passing and how they are passing it is unconstitutional.

    This deeming bills or what ever the hell it is sickens me. I have to admit, this crap has been an eye opener for me in terms of how the congress as a whole, Rep or Dem, have been conducting business during the last 20 years.

    that being said, this current bull shit takes the fucking cake.

    The bill must contain the exact same language in both chambers. It’s not.

    Rutherford is a cock roach for defending this. And he knows it.

    He truly is part of the problem. And the problem has nothing to do with left, right, health care etc etc. We’re talking about the fundamentals of our Republic, here.

    I never knew they “deemed” bills in the past. I would never knowingly support such crap, even if they were using it to abolition abortion.

    Now, they don’t even want to follow the old crooked protocol. They are making it up as they go.

    If they set precedent in this fashion it is time to give serious thought to dissolving the union.

    .

  • 78. LOL  |  March 20, 2010 at 2:32 am

    Don’t be too hard on Rutherford. He’s invested 3 years into this asswipe. He can’t go back now. It’s too late.

    He’ll probably vote for him next time, too.

  • 79. Tex Taylor  |  March 20, 2010 at 10:54 am

    Rabbit & LOL. Completely serious this time.

    After this fiasco over the insured, and the Iraq War, and the debate about torture, and funding of Medicare and Social Security, and abortion, and tax increases without representation, and AGW, and a host of other issues with which I adamantly disagree with people like Rutherford, Curator and Hippie, I have come to this conclusion.

    Because we so fundamentally disagree on all issues of real importance, and being we so obviously disagree to the meaning and intent of the Constitution, I don’t see any way that we can possibly call ourselves the United States of America, if we really ever could in my lifetime. There are certain fundamental issues which can not be negotiated or mediated, and the irony is that it took something like 9/11 and UBL to make this crystal clear.

    I have serious disagreements with many Republican representatives, but feel I can work within the rules to resolve these issues. With most Democrats, I can not.

    I will actively advocate to separate myself and my loved ones from the Left by every measure necessary. I no longer care to share with these people, do not care to call them fellow countrymen, and I can’t believe they would want to call me part of their country either, truth be known. And if it comes to war, it comes to war.

    There is a real war that has been brewing for 50 years over fundamental differences, I believe I am on the moral and correct side, and I am ready to bring an end to this. I hope millions will join me.

  • 80. Tex Taylor  |  March 20, 2010 at 10:59 am

    This place needs a laugh, because I have a strange feeling there aren’t going to be too many more laughs after this weekend:

  • 81. LOL  |  March 20, 2010 at 1:28 pm

    I’m going to disagree with #79, Tex.

    That we can have this level of disagreement on so many issues, while maintaining peace and order throughout the land is exactly why we are the United States of America.

    Until bullets start flying, there is nothing done that can’t be undone through the same measures.

    Has the last 14 months been America’s finest hour? Far from it. But I’m not ready to give up on the strength of our union quite yet. We’re still be best country on the face of the earth.

  • 82. An800lbGorilla  |  March 20, 2010 at 1:46 pm

    Let me get this straight. We’re going to be gifted with a health care plan written by a committee whose chairman says he doesn’t understand it, passed by a Congress that hasn’t read it but exempts themselves from it, to be signed by a president who also hasn’t read it and who smokes, with funding administered by a treasury chief who didn’t pay his taxes, to be overseen by a surgeon general who is obese, and financed by a country that’s broke.

    What the hell could possibly go wrong?

  • 83. Dead Rabbit  |  March 20, 2010 at 2:13 pm

    I half way agree with Tex. I am willing to be a part of the body politic (I hate that word) and live within a rule of law I totally disagree with as long as we are a functioning Republic.

    I realize we will always fall short of this idea, to some extent.

    However, Congress is no longer functioning in a democratic fashion. There is nothing representative or democratic in eliminating the responsibility of each congressman from their votes. It’s even more horrific that they are further changing the rules to do so in an ad hoc fashion.

    Tex is dealing with the same anger I am. I totally understand where he is coming from.

    Revolutions take the lives of sons and daughters. Is Tex willing to sacrifice his family for some sort of new Union? I can’t answer for him. I’m not there yet.

    I know we will never come together as a country over government intervention vs. freedom. We will always have to deal with corrupt assholes in office.

    What shocks me are people like Rutherford.

    I swear to God, I would have never written a blog trying make this latest attack on our republic kosher. I don’t care if I could find an example of the other “side” doing something like it in the past.

    These people represent all of us. Now they are making up ways that purposely detach themselves from doing exactly that.

    To think our lying scum bag of a President ran and won on a platform of transparency is mind boggling.

    Ultimately, Tex is right. Things simply can’t continue in this direction (I’m talking how Congress operates).

  • 84. Dead Rabbit  |  March 20, 2010 at 3:21 pm

    http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/Rules-Committee-meeting-descends-into-chaos-88725962.html

    What a fucking joke. Can you guys believe this shit? This is an utter joke.

    Rutherford. Awesome leadership by your president.

    Rutherford. Awesome courage by your party.

    They won’t even vote on the thing. Rutherford used to argue how the American people are on board with this. Remember that?

    They won’t even vote on it! They are cheating! This has never been done before. Fucking cheating!

    Congress. Rutherford is one in a million. The rest of us, no matter where we stand, are not on board with this shit.

  • 85. Dead Rabbit  |  March 20, 2010 at 3:28 pm

    Obama Administration’s Chief Actuary: ‘I regret that my staff and I will not be able to prepare our analysis within this very tight time frame, due to the complexity of the legislation.’

    our assholes are so reckless that they don’t even give a fuck to pad the numbers anymore.

  • 86. Dead Rabbit  |  March 20, 2010 at 3:39 pm

    They are acting like they backed down from Deem and Pass. The truth is they had no choice. It wasn’t Deem and Pass (as much as I hate the notion of such a thing). It was worse. It was something else that doesn’t have a name other then cheating.

    This is good news though. The cowards tried their hardest to cheat but when it came down to it and they realized that going through with their evil plan was essentially killing our democracy, they wimped out.

  • 87. Dead Rabbit  |  March 20, 2010 at 3:48 pm

    I WILL NEVER FORGET RUTHERFORD’S STANCE WHEN THE DEMS TRIED TO ABANDON ANY SEMBLANCE OF REPUBLICAN DEMOCRACY.

    “So friggin’ what?” -Rutherford.

    I’m telling you, guys like Rutherford essentially lose their voice over stuff like this. What leg does Rutherford now have to stand on? How can a guy like R have any high-ground when stopping the Republicans from pulling the same kind of shit in the future?

    So friggin what.

    You are an invisible man, R.

    Imagine this ridiculous scenario: The Republicans take back the house and senate in November. Obama abolishes the entire Congress and declares martial law. Would Rutherford support Obama?

  • 88. Tex Taylor  |  March 20, 2010 at 4:57 pm

    That we can have this level of disagreement on so many issues, while maintaining peace and order throughout the land is exactly why we are the United States of America.

    That’s as much horseshit as Wally and Rutherford usually write. What part of “United” do you not understand?

    united [juːˈnaɪtɪd] adj
    Being in harmony; agreed.

    When sides can’t even agree on what the Bill of Rights says, there is no United. What you define as united, I define as gutless appeasement and acquiescence. I excuse people like Rutherford because he’s a lost cause who never knew better. I thought you did – I’ll mark that down as my mistake.

  • 89. LOL  |  March 20, 2010 at 8:20 pm

    Tex, we had sides that couldn’t agree on the Constitution of the United States more than 200 years ago.

    If we had harmony to the extent you would like, political parties would not have taken shape.

    The Federalist papers would have never been written.

    Is all of that horseshit, too? Try disassociating yourself from your anger long enough to enage your fucking brain once in a while, man. You might win more arguements, and you’ll definately live longer.

  • 90. Tex Taylor  |  March 20, 2010 at 11:56 pm

    LOL,

    Do you really think there was one Founding Father who approved of abortion as found in the Constitutional definition, the necessity of forcing individuals to buy health care, 44.5% personal tax rates, 12.5 Trillion dollar deficits, ACORN, selling the federal government for votes, stolen elections, or Fairness Doctrines?

    You spell like Wally and I’m not here to win an argument with some inane, inbred dolt like you. So let me help an obvious uneducated, fucking moron out: (1) engage, (2) arguments, (3) definitely. Every time I read somebody calling themselves Libertarian or Conservative and can’t spell, I cringe. You’re an embarrassment to the cause so I’ll keep this real simple.

    The United States of 234 years ago is not the Divided States of today. Some of these sorry turds like Wally would be hanged for treason yesteryear, and the mind numbing argument of the Federalist Papers is as empty as Wally quoting scripture. There will be exactly one party signing on to universal health care, it will be forced upon a citizenry that the great majority do not want, and it will be accomplished in the most underhanded of methods – so don’t give me this empty argument of Federalist papers, or harmony, or political parties plural.

    I’ll add your punk ass to the people to mock who appear here for no definitive purpose, and another I’ll be aiming at when all hell breaks loose.

    Associated enough for you asshole?

  • 91. Rutherford  |  March 21, 2010 at 12:32 am

    Do you really think there was one Founding Father who approved of abortion as found in the Constitutional definition, the necessity of forcing individuals to buy health care, 44.5% personal tax rates, 12.5 Trillion dollar deficits, ACORN, selling the federal government for votes, stolen elections, or Fairness Doctrines?

    This has to be the funniest thing I’ve read all week. It’s almost akin to saying “do you really think there was a single founding father who opposed high octane gas in cars, supersonic airplanes, or 24/7 cable TV?” ROTFLMAO

    Tex look up the word anachronism dude. :lol: :lol:

    While I’m here …. Tex “LOL” is on your side. WTF is wrong with you? Just because he’s not ready to dissolve the union yet, he is suddenly a traitor to your cause? I think the fact that virtually no libs comment here (exceptions, Hippie, Curator, and Sensico) has given you a false sense of numerical superiority. Take my word for it dude … you don’t want to lose “LOL” over some melodramatic argument. You need every conservative you can find to support your cause, because like I said before, you LOST the 2008 election and all those voters haven’t gone away, We’re still here and we still want CHANGE.

    I just finished my show where I played the race card big time! If you need something to increase your pulse, give it a listen. ;-)

  • 92. Tex Taylor  |  March 21, 2010 at 1:44 am

    Rutherford,

    Are the things I listed anachronistic Boy? Your stupid analogy trying to be clever is used ass backwards. Unlike you, who didn’t know what the word misandrist meant though you’re married to one, I don’t need to look anything up.

    Was there legal tender in 1776? Did our Founding Father’s understand deficits, taxes or stolen elections? I’m pretty sure those terms listed above are timeless, even if you’re too stupid to figure that out.

    LOL can kiss my ass. You on the other hand, I’ll skull fuck through your tracheotomy before it’s over Demi. :twisted:

  • 93. Tex Taylor  |  March 21, 2010 at 2:31 am

    Rabbit,

    I’m going to get my ass booted from here before too long on purpose, and when I do I am going to light Rutherford’s little world on fire (consider it a future favor to Trig Palin), so I missed your hypothetical from above.

    Would I sacrifice my wife and kids for the sake of the Union? No – it prevents me from acting out. But if somebody should fire the first shot, I will be interested if people like Rutherford and Wally are as good with a weapon as they are at running their mouths.

    Given the chance, I’ll give Rutherford a first hand demonstration of an anachronism. Water boarding will be mere child’s play.

    http://www.listaholic.com/12-of-the-most-horrifying-torture-devices-in-history.html

  • 94. Dead Rabbit  |  March 21, 2010 at 1:12 pm

    “You need every conservative you can find to support your cause, because like I said before, you LOST the 2008 election and all those voters haven’t gone away, We’re still here and we still want CHANGE.”

    Yeah. The “people” are loving this change.

    I will repeat myself one more time. The change people wanted was how business is conducted in Washington. It had nothing to do with leftist politics or conservative politics. We also like seeing a black guy be prez.

    Wiat until November, bitch.

    You not an honest person.

    You even argued for for a pseudo Deem and Pass maneuver that was clearly so fucked up even they backed off it.

    You are the reason this country is trashed. The elimination of people like you, Rutherford, is the change people wanted.

  • 95. LOL  |  March 21, 2010 at 1:46 pm

    Oh boy, Tex. Internet threats made to the handicapped.

    Are you a closet SEIU member, or what?

    What a fucking punk.

  • 96. LOL  |  March 21, 2010 at 1:54 pm

    I love how Tex moves the goalposts after he’s been bitchslapped.

    His arguement began with this:

    “united [juːˈnaɪtɪd] adj
    Being in harmony; agreed.”

    And after I point out that since the inception of this nation we never ever had that, he suddenly starts running on about legal tender and abortions.

    Dude, do yourself, and every other conservative a big giant favor and go pour yourself a nice hot cup of SHUT THE FUCK UP.

    I suggest making it decaff.

  • 97. Tex Taylor  |  March 21, 2010 at 2:41 pm

    LOL, (appropriately named).

    Your pious, profound concern for Rutherford is noted – but you really ought to make up your mind as I will now conveniently remind your mealy-mouthed nature.

    You’re not smart enough to bitch slap anybody, as you just demonstrated. You’re a lame opponent and a Vichy lackey without the guts to do what is necessary. Our Founding Fathers would have disowned a toad like you. That a socialist lite puke would reference to their writings disparages their memory.

    His arguement argument began with this:

    Unbelievable…I insult you and you still can’t get it right.

    Oh boy, Tex. Internet threats made to the handicapped. Are you a closet SEIU member, or what?
    What a fucking punk.

    Rutherford is a maggot. The fact he is handicapped has nothing to do with growing disdain with his ilk, or your ilk. You’re perfectly healthy I assume and still stupid. So Rutherford has more of an excuse.

    But I’ll tell you this dummy for future reference so you don’t get it shoved up your ass on this board later. Everything you say here to your betters, Rutherford will eventually use against you. Don’t let my perceived pseudo-friendship with the blog owner mislead you into me believing I don’t think Rutherford isn’t the enemy. He is a conniving little shit and Obama pole smoker You would be wise to remember that when you start picking sides. :wink:

  • 98. LOL  |  March 21, 2010 at 3:11 pm

    If I am such a lame opponent then why are you unable to launch an actual argument that doesn’t move the goalposts you set in the first place?

    Your only game on this board is to correct spelling and to throw tantrums like a child. You have absolutely no substance. You’re as bad as the jackass running this country.

    It’s people like you who cost us the last election, and it will be people like you who cost us the next one, too. People who are willing to eat their own over simple disagreements. You are just as responsible for the mess we are in as Rutherford is. The sooner you figure that out, the better off you, and the rest of us will be.

  • 99. Tex Taylor  |  March 21, 2010 at 3:57 pm

    You’re a lame opponent because you can’t even understand the word united – as in understanding basic rights that would define common law. Basic tenets are not something to be “debated” but understood. The fact that you don’t understand that is an indicator of dead wood.

    Add to the fact that you think I’m a jackass which tickles me, and I need no substance to debate a toad like you. Laughing at you is more effective as you write worn out fallacies and spell in Ebonics. What are you? Some first year philosophy student trying to sound brilliant? Drop out while you still can.

    It’s people like you who cost us the last election, and it will be people like you who cost us the next one, too. People who are willing to eat their own over simple disagreements. You are just as responsible for the mess we are in as Rutherford is. The sooner you figure that out, the better off you, and the rest of us will be.

    You give me another weak candidate like McCain and you’re damn right I’ll cost you another election. I’ll take you right down with the rest of the crippled pack of idiots for your abject stupidity just to spite you. I’m find up with RINOs and socialists representing my supposed party, and I’m tired of carrying the good fight while mealy-mouthed toads like you pout.

    I’ll let Rutherford be your Caesar and we’ll see how you like eating that fuzzy little peach.

  • 100. Tex Taylor  |  March 21, 2010 at 4:17 pm

    Back to Rutherford who is fooling himself:

    The Democrats and the White House are lost in a legislative “fog of war” right now. They are focused on twisting enough arms, offering jobs and negotiating specific “deals” (bribes) to get them to 216 votes. Their attention and energy is focused exclusively on a final vote in the House tonight. No one is looking even one minute beyond that horizon. They are like a general who pours all his reserves into taking a symbolic bridge, never realizing that his lines have already collapsed and his flanks have been turned. They may take the bridge and get to 216 votes. (I’ve learned to never bet against Congressional leadership and an Administration united for a single legislative victory. ) But, they have already lost the war. They have deluded themselves that if they can…just…get…this…bill…passed, the public’s anger and attention will subside, they can put health care ‘behind them’ and they can focus on other ‘popular’ measures that will shore up their election prospects in November.

    What they don’t realize is that today’s vote isn’t the end, but just a new beginning in the debate over health care. Buckle up, because if they manage to cobble together enough votes to pass the Senate Health Bill today, we’re set for weeks and perhaps months of a constitutional and political crisis the likes of which we haven’t seen in our lifetimes. . . . A representative democracy cannot long endure a political class that is so out of touch with the populace. In some respects, what happens tonight is almost beside the point. The politics are set. Some Democrats are deluding themselves that they can put this behind them and somehow survive in November. They are most assuredly wrong.

    http://biggovernment.com/mikeflynn/2010/03/21/obamacare-to-pass-or-not-to-pass/

    The only thing the author gets wrong is they keep referring to the reaction as “fear.” Not in my circles it isn’t. That is a raging anger building.

    Bring it on Rutherford – bring it on.

  • 101. Curator  |  March 21, 2010 at 9:03 pm

    Give it up LOL.

    Tex comes from the church of IHATEYOU, so soon he will be saying the world would be better off if you and your family are dead. He gives Republicans a bad name and the few conservatives I get along with a worse stereotype. I bet he put members of his family up to the challenge of driving to D.C. so they could spit on members of Congress, call Rep. Barney Frank a faggot, and Rep. John Lewis a nigger.

    Score 3 for Tex Taylors family. You can call and congratulate them at the Westboro Baptist Church were I think they are attending a BBQ with Fred Phelps and his clan.

  • 102. Rutherford  |  March 21, 2010 at 9:08 pm

    Tex, skull fuck through tracheotomy? Did you fail anatomy? I guess insults don’t need to be anatomically correct. I think the impending Dem win has you unraveled. Take a Valium and cool it. The world is not coming to an end.

  • 103. Tex Taylor  |  March 21, 2010 at 9:32 pm

    I bet he put members of his family up to the challenge of driving to D.C. so they could spit on members of Congress, call Rep. Barney Frank a faggot, and Rep. John Lewis a nigger.

    :lol: :lol: :lol:

    Yeah, I read about that. I guess Bongo has really reconciled the nation, hey Wally? How did you like the disgraced Alcee L. Hastings stating “there are no rules – we make them up as we go.”? You remember Alcee don’t you? He spent ten years as a federal judge before he was impeached and removed from office for corruption and perjury. A perfect black Dim Congressman!!!

    If I wanted to call somebody a nigger or a fag, I wouldn’t need to increase my carbon footprint. I can do that at home.

    Score 3 for Tex Taylors family. You can call and congratulate them at the Westboro Baptist Church were I think they are attending a BBQ with Fred Phelps and his clan.

    Imagine a pagan complaining about Fred Phelps church? How little does he realize that he and his lovely wife and idiot son will be taking residence with them for a very, long time.. :smile:

  • 104. Tex Taylor  |  March 21, 2010 at 9:44 pm

    Rutherford, didn’t you like my anatomical pathway? I thought the insult pretty funny.

    But the more I thought about it, the more I thought getting through the pallet would be an incredibly difficult route and I may not have “the hardware” to make it that far.. Maybe I’ll gouge your eyes out and take the shorter pathway. Didn’t you see my “anachronisms” to achieve the result? That’s the correct usage, by the way.

    Calm down? I’m pumped. I haven’t had this much fun since they arrested wife killer “snap dat head back” O.J. You remember he thought he won too when I walked, didn’t you? Let’s see Cochran dead, F. Lee disbarred, O.J. in prison. I’m a patient man Rutherford.

    You aren’t really naive enough to think this vote tonight is the end result do you? This is the shot across the bow that starts the war. You and I can duel on this one for years to come. :razz:

  • 105. LOL  |  March 21, 2010 at 10:08 pm

    “You’re a lame opponent because you can’t even understand the word united – as in understanding basic rights that would define common law.”

    That’s funny. I thought the word united was understood as “Being in harmony; agreed.” Isn’t that exactly what you told us all just this morning?

    And we have not had a rich history of being united under your new definition, either. Does the Equal Rights Amendment ring any bells, dipshit?

    Now go throw your little “OMG someone disargeed with me” tizzy and then come back and play with the big boys when you get something other than a dictionary to fight with.

  • 106. Tex Taylor  |  March 21, 2010 at 10:45 pm

    LOL, simple question.

    If you can’t spell something as simple as “argument” after being corrected, why would you possibly find yourself so steeped in wisdom? I think LOL must be a pseudonym for Red Pill. I’ve got my dictionary from your last rant, but it not necessary any longer as I have raised your blood pressure enough. Case closed.

    Let me try to explain this once playing semi nice, though it pains me. Understand, if I really want to make the attempt at professional conversation, this is not my blog of choice as this blog makes a mockery of deep thinking. My best attempts are not on “WordPress” as I find most of it casual at best. It’s entertainment and I happen to enjoy the liberties of my flippancy. Otherwise, people like you bore me to death.

    ————————————————

    America was founded for two basic reasons: (1) taxation without representation; (2) freedom of religion. It’s really about that simple.

    The last forty years, we as a country have watched our taxes increase exponentially with little or no benefit to the majority, our children’s future mortgaged, our country become more amoral and dehumanized by the day, and our religious liberties threatened with privatization and removal from the public square. That you don’t realize this doesn’t surprise me in the least.

    Now, if you want to bring “harmony” by acquiescing to parasites like Wally who live off the federal dole by being buddies, if you want to become very much like Dhimmi Western Europe of which Rutherford dreams, if you are willing to forgo your freedom for the nanny state, and if you think big government the solution to all our problems under the guise “of United”, you be my guest. Wait around long enough and you will have “united”, but only for a short time.

    The fact that you disagree and don’t recognize there has been a war going on in this country for its very culture, for the “soul” of the country if you will, then so be it. Join up with Wally and Rutherford and make yourself comfortable in the process where you can play house and agree to disagree pretending you’re experts. The problem is sooner or later, you run out of other people’s money, step on a few too many toes, and your left with little or nothing. It is my opinion that mindset is certainly not what made America great once upon a time.

    I claim to be no Constitutional “expert”. But neither do I find it terribly difficult to understand when read. And what is going on now and has been for at least fifteen years and probably longer, is not only dishonest, but incredibly dangerous. Enough to ruin all you know. I do know a little about medicine and how it works.

  • 107. Tex Taylor  |  March 21, 2010 at 11:08 pm

    Great humor from reading Rutherford’s tweets where he converses with fellow brain dead libs.

    It reads like school boys and girls. I can’t help but imagine Big “R” stroking himself while “typing” that mess. I’ll bet it is as close as Rutherford gets to adultery.

    Rutherford: “Awww, Bill Maher, awww Jon Stewart, awww, oh Obama my master, Sandi Hermaphrodite – your words excite me (slowly stroke me).”

  • 108. Tex Taylor  |  March 22, 2010 at 12:57 am

    Hey GOP, it’s not an accident that Progressive contains the word PROGRESS – RutherfordL

    Progressing to what? The abyss, the precipice, hell?

    Your twitter account is even more mind numbing than your insipid posts and I need to check out my new avatar. I didn’t want to just post test.

  • 109. an800lbgorilla  |  March 22, 2010 at 6:21 am

    You should absolutely be ashamed of this. You’ve fucked this country…

    Truth Is A Casualty Of The Final Push

    Posted 03/19/2010 07:07 PM ET

    Health Reform: Not since the heyday of Bill Clinton have we had a leader play so fast and loose with the facts as President Obama. And as the health care debate reaches a crescendo, he’s been especially reckless.

    Tired of waiting for the major media to take note, here’s a small sampling of whoppers we took from the president’s speeches last week in Ohio and Virginia, plus his interview with Fox News’ Bret Baier:

    • “We have incorporated the best ideas from Democrats and from Republicans.” Far from it. Some of the biggest omissions include tort reform, health savings accounts, portable insurance, expanding consumer access to plans across state lines and posting provider prices for services so patients can shop around.

    Republicans were almost completely shut out from the process and at the early stages last summer, were not even permitted to read the bill. In an atmosphere like this, it’s little wonder the bill isn’t drawing a single vote of support from Republicans of either house. It’s fully a creature of the Democratic Party.

    • (“This is not a) government takeover of health care.” How is it that government can dictate to private insurance companies what they can offer, to whom, under what circumstances and at what prices, and yet still not own it? Every basic business decision a private company can make has effectively been expropriated.

    Even as Obama denied his health care plan was a government takeover, his vice president, Joe Biden, laid out the real deal: “You know we’re going to control the insurance companies.” We’ll take him at his word.

    • “If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor.” That’s if your doctor chooses to remain in the profession. Unfortunately, our own IBD/TIPP Poll found that up to 45% would consider quitting if they’re going to be dictated to by unaccountable bureaucrats who couldn’t get into medical school.

    Price controls will slash doctor salaries and raise workloads, mandating that doctors make up for losses with volume. Bureaucrats will crack the whip on costs by lowering payments and penalizing doctors who refer patients to specialists. All this, and zero tort reform relief, will drive many doctors out of the profession just as 32 million new patients enter the market.

    • “Our proposal is paid for … our cost-cutting measures would reduce most people’s premiums and bring down our deficit by more than $1 trillion over the next two decades.” Government programs always cost more than projected. Medicare, which has $86 trillion in unfunded liabilities, was supposed to cost $10 billion within 25 years of its implementation. It actually cost $107 billion.

    The real cost of the Democrats’ reform plan, according to the Cato Institute, which isn’t handcuffed in its estimates like the Congressional Budget Office, is $2.5 trillion over the first decade.

    • “If this vote fails, then insurance companies will continue to run amok.” They’re not exactly wildcatting as it is. Health plan providers boast a profit margin of 3.4% — placing them 88th of 215 industries in Morningstar rankings. More than 2,000 state mandates dictate what coverages they provide.

    • “By the time the vote has taken place … you’ll know what’s in it because it’s going to be posted and everybody’s going to be able to evaluate it on the merits.” The final bill wouldn’t available to the public until Saturday morning, the day before the vote, congressional sources told us Friday. So in fact, nobody would have time to digest the 2,500-page leviathan.

    • “We’re not transforming one-sixth of the economy in one fell swoop.” Yes, Obama wants to take over the health care sector, but in pieces. In 2007, he said that “economically it is better for us to start getting a system in place, a universal health care system, signed into law by the end of my first term as president.” Canada, he noted, “did not start off immediately with a single-payer system, they had a similar transition step.” He’s been on record since at least 2003 as a “proponent of single-payer, universal health care.”

    • “(This will be) the largest middle-class tax cut in the history of the country.” Tax cut? New taxes on prescription drug sales, medical devices, tanning services and an annual tax on health insurers for being health insurers will all end up on middle-class shoulders.

    Then for families earning $250,000 there are taxes of 0.9% for hospital insurance, 2.9% on “unearned income,” plus a tax on high-premium policies. The “middle-class tax cut,” in the president’s misleading words, amounts to “tax credits to help you afford” the more expensive insurance of the new (also misleadingly named) “competitive marketplace.”

    • “$3,000 your employer doesn’t have to pay … maybe she can afford to give you a raise.” Premiums will not go down, but way, way up. The Associated Press last week found that $3,000 to misrepresent a Business Roundtable analysis last year that “didn’t consider specific legislation.”

    Larry Levitt of the Kaiser Family Foundation told the AP “it would be miraculous” if premiums went down under the legislation set to be passed. Using the HIS/Global Insight U.S. Macroeconomic model, a Heritage Foundation analysis found that with the new government-regulated exchanges “crowding out the employer-sponsored market,” there will be “an overall increase in the absolute amount of health spending on premiums.”

    • “Small business owners … can purchase more affordable coverage in a competitive marketplace.” In fact, small businesses will be slapped with new taxes — including a penalty if they don’t provide the level of health coverage Washington dictates. As owners of modest-sized firms cope with the new burdens, their employees may find themselves with substantially reduced coverage — or with pink slips.

    As to the promised financial assistance for new employer mandates, it remains unknown what “small business” will mean under ObamaCare. Will the definition apply only to micro-businesses of a couple dozen workers?

    • (The reform legislation is) “about the character of our country.” Let’s hope not. Never in American history have politicians sunk to lower depths than in the push to thrust this massive expansion of government down an unwilling America’s throat.

    From the unconstitutional “Slaughter solution” that would pass it without a vote of the people’s representatives, to the taxpayer-funded bribery of the “Cornhusker kickback” and “Louisiana Purchase,” to the pretense of passing it as a budget item bypassing Senate filibusters, Democratic leaders have shown they will stop at nothing to set us on the road to European socialized medicine.

    http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=527930

  • 110. Curator  |  March 22, 2010 at 7:44 am

    Too long… didn’t read but the first paragraph.

    “We have incorporated the best ideas from Democrats and from Republicans.” Far from it. Some of the biggest omissions include tort reform, health savings accounts, portable insurance, expanding consumer access to plans across state lines and posting provider prices for services so patients can shop around.”

    All of these has been refuted by many leading economist as being of so little value it will not be worthwhile. Tort reform is bogus. There is no tort emergency and any effort at reform would only bring down health care cost maybe 1.5%.

    Personal injury and other filings have declined nationally by 8 percent since 1975. Texas the rate of tort filings fell 37 percent between 1990 and 2000. Even in liberal California, the rate of filings has plummeted 45 percent over the past decade.

    Get with the program.

  • 111. Alfie  |  March 22, 2010 at 9:45 am

    Curator you are so full of shit it is amazing:
    Ma access
    Texas experienced what they did primarily due to Tort Reform
    Also the leftists applaud the alleged decline in filings but then block their ears regards costs of incurred from dropped cases. And all of the discussion completely ignores defensive medicine costs.
    And regards the much loved 1.5%…That’s 30.4 BILLION dollars that’s a lot better than the 2.7 billion the tanning tax makes. Oh yeah the 30.4 is per year the tan tax is over 10

  • 112. Curator  |  March 22, 2010 at 9:46 am

    I just realized that Tex didn’t refute anything from his reply at #103.

    Did I hit it a little too close to home there Sport?

    Hey Pastor Tex I heard that someone threw a brick through the front window of [Representative Louise Slaughter's] Pine Avenue office. Was that you there too? Boy do you get around.

    I guess you also approve of those signs saying…

    “Warning: If Brown can’t stop it, a Browning can,” with a picture of a Browning pistol and referring to Sen. Scott Brown (R-MA).

    I, for one, am glad that it has devolved to this. In other words… “do what we want and nobody gets hurt”.

    The Republican Party motto.

    hey…wait a minute…

    Terrorism – the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes, …and here we have a sign threatening violence.

    Is this the start of the The Tea Party Terrorist club? I’m sure they would take someone like you Pastor Tex.

    Membership dues are only a couple hundred pounds of ammonium nitrate.

  • 113. Curator  |  March 22, 2010 at 10:11 am

    Texas experienced what they did primarily due to Tort Reform
    oh I see.

    So Texas enacted tort reform and capped pain and suffering at $250,000. This must have drastically decreased the cost of health care in Texas right, since doctors don’t face the same malpractice threats as the rest of the country. This is, in fact your primary argument…

    oh wait what’s this…

    Texas is home to three of the top ten most expensive cities in the country to receive health care. In each of these cities, every Medicare patient is costing the country more than $10,000 a year which is a couple thousand more than the national average. That can’t be, tort reform was supposed to save money.

    As for the defensive medicine argument, If doctors are ordering tests when there is no medical necessity, Blue Cross, Blue Shield and Medicare wouldn’t pay for those tests. Otherwise it would be condoning fraud. Like the concept of “the frivolous lawsuit”, the idea of “defensive medicine” is made up by Madison Avenue to line the pockets of those who cry wolf.

  • 114. Alfie  |  March 22, 2010 at 10:50 am

    Curator I used to be in the field. I’ve held a book in my hand that was given out to interns at a major Boston teaching hospital that showed what tests cost what and what potential standards these tests met.
    Lawsuits always eventually come to a standard. So if doctor A orders a MRI instead of a CT when a CT is good and proper he has actually exceeded the standard.
    So continue to delude yourself that defensive medicine isn’t rampant. I seem to remember a certain (D) complaining about just that…..Al, wait a sec what was that name?
    Also your case if we’ll call it that seems to think that a decrease in cases filed automatically = less malpractice insurance costs. Well that’s simply untrue as insurance premiums have increased and where caps are not in place rewards have increased. Your sides case just doesn’t hold water.
    As for your goal post movement by inserting Medicare and Texas into the conversation.It seems most of the difference with Texas is that out of hospital costs are greater than the nation,yet in hospital costs are less.Kaiser
    Also can’t help but notice you like to call Tex out on something while ignoring things like the billions difference in tort savings compared to tan tax.

  • 115. Tex Taylor  |  March 22, 2010 at 11:29 am

    Alfie, you’re wasting your time with the rube known as Curator. He doesn’t understand that the cost of “torts” aren’t what lawyers receive, but how the threat of litigation and damages cause the medical community to change the practice of medicine. The fact that Wally Curator is either too stupid to understand, or doesn’t want to understand is not completely understood. But I gave up trying to have a serious debate with Curator a year ago, because unless you tell him what he wants to hear, no matter how valid the documentation, it falls on deaf ears.

    I gave Wally information not two weeks ago showing defensive medicine makes up between 15% at the low end of an estimate, to 30+% of the high end of the aggregate medical costs (because obviously it’s a subjective best guess as are the CBO estimates that Wally uses when convenient), but Curator only reads what he wants to read.

    But even if Wally was right and it costs “only” 1.5% which is a joke, that is still 30Billion dollars in savings in perpetuity, give or take a few billion.

    Listen Alfie, I know I am preaching to the choir, but Curator didn’t work in the positions he was and is in because he was the brilliant mathematical, financial, or economic student. The more sharing of the wealth that goes around, the better off Wally and his wife will be. If Wally were really serious about having a serious discussion about health care, he would be the first to admit that tort reform should be first on the list of items to be addressed. But being Wally is a die hard lib, he’ll mouth the talking points of ACLU lawyers to the letter.

    Curator would have made a great Frenchman. Who knows. Maybe he is one.

  • 116. Tex Taylor  |  March 22, 2010 at 11:46 am

    Curator,

    I just realized that Tex didn’t refute anything from his reply at #103. Did I hit it a little too close to home there Sport?

    What was I supposed to refute? :smile: That my family and I are sitting members of the Fred Phelps Church? Or that I spit on a Congressman, called another a nigger, and a third a fag? Or that I’m the associate pastor of Westboro Church? :lol:

    Now Wally, I am only going to do this once, so read closely. Because I’m going to prove your charges wrong very simply.

    I can’t be a member of Fred’s church and claim to be a Republican. Have you forgotten Fred Phelps history? Other than his claim of divine worship, he is you Wally! :smile:

    A good standing member and activist of the Democratic Party

    Phelps has run in various Kansas Democratic Party primaries five times, but has never won. These included races for governor in 1990, 1994, and 1998, receiving about 15 percent of the vote in 1998. In the 1992 Democratic Party primary for U.S. Senate, Phelps received 31 percent of the vote.

    Support for Al Gore

    Phelps supported Al Gore in the 1988 Democratic Party primary election. In his 1984 Senate race, Gore opposed a “gay bill of rights” and stated that homosexuality was not something that “society should affirm. According to Phelps, members of the Westboro Baptist Church helped run Gore’s 1988 campaign in Kansas. Phelps’ son, Fred Phelps Jr., hosted a Gore fundraiser at his home in Topeka and was a Gore delegate to the 1988 Democratic National Convention.

    Did I mention Phelps is a civil rights activist? Come on Wally. You can’t play both sides of the fence without losing some creditability here. Make up your mind killer. :roll:

    Did you want to me to try and refute the brick toss too?

  • 117. Curator  |  March 22, 2010 at 11:46 am

    So we should ignore that the use of tanning beds before age 30 has been associated with a 75 percent increase in the risk of melanoma, the deadliest form of skin cancer? Seems like a preventive measure to me.

    If, as you say, tort reform is supposed to reduce defensive medicine then why hasn’t it decreased in Texas since tort reform was enacted? If tort reform works to reduce defensive medicine, then is healthcare cheaper in states with tort reform? It’s a simple question and a relatively simple answer. The reason the proponents of “reform” don’t tell you is that the truth is it seems to have no effect on per capita spending.

    I didn’t move any goalpost. If Texas enacted tort reform back in 2003 then why does McAllen, Texas spend more Medicare money per beneficiary than in any other city except Miami? Malpractice suits have all but disappeared due to tort reform leaving no rationale for defensive medicine.

    I have access to 50 doctors on any given day, and 25 messages a day on the university message boards about health care reform.

    I’m not saying defensive medicine isn’t rampant, but it is not the primary cost driver you make it out to be in the 1.2 trillion national health care bill.

  • 118. Tex Taylor  |  March 22, 2010 at 11:51 am

    Oops…I missed this beauty: :razz:

    Is this the start of the The Tea Party Terrorist club? I’m sure they would take someone like you Pastor Tex.

    Membership dues are only a couple hundred pounds of ammonium nitrate.

    Sounds promising. Where do I sign up? Do they have a brochure, or do you have information? I want to be a charter member.

    I don’t need lessons on the ammonium nitrate part, though it’s a bitch to get urea (46-0-0) anymore as I learned last year. All I need is an approximate address of your neighborhood.

  • 119. Tex Taylor  |  March 22, 2010 at 11:58 am

    Wally, you’re so full of shit. I can stipulate with a great degree of confidence a lot about you by information you’ve volunteered on this blog.

    You’re some uneducated, but accredited lackey, sitting next to the bathroom in a windowless cube. You write simple scripts to retrieve data, which is passed on through several channels making the way to the appropriate professional for evaluation. Trust me pal, you’re invisible explaining your rotten demeanor because you feel God cheated you out of greatness.

    If you’re affiliated with some university being you told me you help to construct scoring on the MCAT tests, those doctors don’t know you exist anymore than they have a personal friendship with the janitor. You’re a frickin dime a dozen and damn lucky to be employed.

    Blow it out your ass liar… :roll:

  • 120. Tex Taylor  |  March 22, 2010 at 12:04 pm

    oops…credibility.

    Better correct myself before LOL/Red Pill has ammunition. :smile:

  • 121. Tex Taylor  |  March 22, 2010 at 12:06 pm

    Hey Curator, why don’t your provide the following:

    Texas is home to three of the top ten most expensive cities in the country to receive health care. In each of these cities, every Medicare patient is costing the country more than $10,000 a year which is a couple thousand more than the national average. That can’t be, tort reform was supposed to save money.

    Now list the cities for us…so I can show why.

  • 122. Curator  |  March 22, 2010 at 12:09 pm

    No… you are from the church of IHATEYOU, and are the leading hate merchant on the rutherford blog.

    Wow…Phelps is a Democrat… that really stings.

  • 123. Curator  |  March 22, 2010 at 12:13 pm

    How is Phelps not an actual conservative? His obsessions and fears, and his self-created enemies, are exactly the same as yours. The issues he promotes are official Tex “Bootlicker” Taylor Party platform planks.

  • 124. Tex Taylor  |  March 22, 2010 at 12:14 pm

    Curator,

    Hate is a strong word. I don’t hate you – I dislike you. :razz:

    You’re a rank propagandist without a sense of humor like Rutherford, which means you have little redeeming value. Then you use your service as a bunker to hide in when you’re busted, which also makes you a coward.

    You want to have a serious conversation, let’s have one. But until the stop the Joseph Goebbels act, you’re not going to get much respect from me.

  • 125. Alfie  |  March 22, 2010 at 12:20 pm

    So we should ignore that the use of tanning beds before age 30 has been associated with a 75 percent increase in the risk of melanoma, the deadliest form of skin cancer? Seems like a preventive measure to me.
    Well you would think that since you’re a nanny stater. When will you progressives stop being pussies and just pass the draconian laws you really want. No cigs,twinkies or tans. FWIW I think indoor tanning is stupid and even when regulated via the nanny is not a good idea. Still the money is the reason I ponied it up and now this is you stance.
    As for McAllen texas. Well you are right regards tort in a way but that’s not the reason. In fact with such a small Medicare medicare eligible demo it is surprising the McAllen msa has such high costs. The reason though is access and usage.Patients there are getting more specialist treatment. Inordinate levels? Perhaps but then one could flip and say that the so called reform of insuring 30+million new patients into the system will have the same experience.
    I have access to 50 doctors on any given day, and 25 messages a day on the university message boards about health care reform.
    I have no idea wtf that means.
    I’m not saying defensive medicine isn’t rampant, but it is not the primary cost driver you make it out to be in the 1.2 trillion national health care bill.
    I fail to see where I said it was. I just live in the real world where I know it is a real cost driver.I never used the word primary.
    And back to this jewel:
    Malpractice suits have all but disappeared due to tort reform leaving no rationale for defensive medicine.
    Yet defensive medicine is still going strong. I also laugh because there seems to be a major disconnect in tort reform and actual settlements.Ma. has a cap of 500k but has seen awards into the tens of millions.

  • 126. Alfie  |  March 22, 2010 at 12:22 pm

    On a side note as a conservative I by no means accept any ownership of Phelps

  • 127. Tex Taylor  |  March 22, 2010 at 12:24 pm

    Well, if I am like Fred Phelps, why do we have admiration for completely different men Curator? For instance, Phelps abhors Billy Graham – but to me, Billy Graham represents the best model of how a Christian ought to carry himself living. I’ve got his biography sitting here on the coffee table in front of me.

    I think you have forgotten how we first met Killer. You came in to the Rutherford Lawson blog questioning me about the Iraq War, did you not? When you didn’t like my answers in return, which we won the war which you also have conveniently forgotten, the rhetoric begin to be ratcheted up a degree at a time. I’m just playing your game.

    And for once, you found somebody that could match your nasty demeanor when necessary, even beat you at your own game of being a condescending asshole. Not something I’m especially proud of – but necessary across the net.

    Now if you would like to cool it, I’ll cool it. But if you want to raise the stakes all the more, I am game for that too. You pick.

  • 128. Tex Taylor  |  March 22, 2010 at 12:34 pm

    Alfie,

    Are you as pissed as I am that they hypocrisy of the Left wing of the Democratic party has now been so exposed, yet the MSM will not even make mention?

    This is simple pandering to create dependencies for votes. It’s part FDR, part Keynesian, part Marxist, part ego (Obama). Obama is convinced he really is “The One.”

    Obama encourages this whole act because of narcissism. I have never witnessed such arrogance in my entire lifetime in any capacity, and that is the truth. I believe there is absolutely no goodness in the man. Obama is a blank slate, with a wicked and self-serving nature, that anyone with eyes recognizes. Some transitional, historical figure which makes him dangerous.

    The fact that Curator and Rutherford don’t recognize the megalomania is actually more of a concern to me than the man himself.

    If the purpose was to provide medical coverage for everyone, which by the way now exists and the “pushers” of this facade don’t want to admit as much, tort reform would have been the first or second issue addressed. These people are so phony, so morally bankrupt which has been so beautifully exposed through this debate, that I no longer have a shred of doubt about that which is to come.

  • 129. Tex Taylor  |  March 22, 2010 at 12:47 pm

    Okay boys.

    When all else fails, it is time to return to the basics of the discussion. Let’s forget the complexity of the issue, the politics of the fight, the bias, and the obvious divide. Everyone remember Economics 101?

    Well here is a great explanation that everyone should understand, including the basic supply and demand graphs of why this health care proposal can not work.

    Somebody has taken the time and I will use their article to demonstrate for anyone interested.

    http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/supply-and-demand-reviewing-the-unbreakable-theory-that-shall-doom-obamacare-in-short-order/

    If anyone can argue otherwise, minus the politics, I would be most interested in your reasoning. My rant was yesterday – my logic will be implemented (for a time) today.

  • 130. Curator  |  March 22, 2010 at 12:53 pm

    @Alphie,

    Patients there are getting more specialist treatment. Inordinate levels?

    Possibly…yes,..are all these treatments necessary?

    If over-treatment by greedy doctors instead of tort reform is driving Medicare fraud wouldn’t you think giving teeth to the Medicare Advisory Commission is a good idea? The current fee-for-service model is wide open for abuses because it just rewards doctors the more that they do.

    Doctors at the Mayo clinic are on salary, so they have no financial incentive to order extra procedures. Mayo costs are 28 percent below the national average.

  • 131. Tex Taylor  |  March 22, 2010 at 1:20 pm

    Curator,

    I really don’t think you have a grasp of the situation like you think. I am somewhat puzzled why you would think doctors less honest than say medical malpractice attorneys. I won’t bother to explain why the Mayo model with salaries, more patient/doctor time and centralized procedures can not work on a large scale. I’m afraid if you don’t understand the basic, logistics certainly won’t fly.

    But let’s say you’re right. That doctors when taken as a collective, are as unscrupulous and manipulative greed seekers – kind of like the mob (which begs the question why you’re working with them). You do realize there is a large doctor shortage, don’t you? It’s been estimated that Medicare is fraught with 30% fraud, and only a small portion of that could be blamed on doctor’s visits and patient care.

    How do you propose eliminate the fraud as you expand Medicare? Do you think government efficient in its nature? Serving in the military, I would think you would have a great deal of insight into the efficiencies and effectiveness of governmental operations. If that didn’t open your eyes, I am not sure what will.

  • 132. Tex Taylor  |  March 22, 2010 at 1:33 pm

    Curator,

    Being I was just in medical school, I feel like I have a pretty good idea of what is required.

    You do realize that even for the most simple of practices, there are a minimum of 11 years of education required, the typical M.D. degree will cost approximately $300K, and that only about 3-5% of college graduates deemed capable of the handling the curriculum?

    So if you place price controls on the salaries of the doctors, if you add the additional burden of government approvals for patient care, and if you forgo the concern of being indebted in starting a career, how do you propose to provide the incentive to attract the best and brightest to the practice?

    Or do you believe than anybody on the street capable of practicing medicine?

  • 133. Alfie  |  March 22, 2010 at 1:48 pm

    @ Curator:
    I’m a complex person politically,really don’t laugh so I can’t do myself justice in a thread let alone a post of my own at my own blog.
    Suffice to say i think the McAllen example is very dynamic. I think there is “over care” but I am not willing or able to label it all as greed,fear,bad medicine etc.
    My overall politics prefers closer to the scene regulation so MAC isn’ ta fave and I’d prefer something closer to the state level. Not more govt. just different ,you see?
    I like fee for service and ideally support a market approach of medical menus as it were. There are private hospitals in the USA offering operations at a savings. It’s like internal med-tourism. I don’t think that comes close to the feared rationing system and fail to see how it can’t be expanded.
    I have seen Mayo stuff and think it a great example of how real on the ground work is good. I also think it serves as an example though that individual solutions do exist in a field that one size fits all is possibly dangerous.
    A question to you. I assume you loathe him politically but are you aware of some of Newt Gingrichs programs,issues points?

  • 134. Alfie  |  March 22, 2010 at 1:57 pm

    @ Tex I find a lot of things shocking. One current one regards the msm is the reporting on the faggot/n-word stories coming out of the DC protests. I have not seen a source of audio or video on this and the reporting seems to be shaky re partisanship bs. This on the tail of the Walmart story. Now I get how people would say that racism DOES exist. I say no shit Sherlock,and seeing as it does I think people could report on actual events.
    I find Obama to be a progressive elitist. I personally don’t slide that under the Marxist or socialist file but I do indeed find them an insidious lot. I feel most Presidents fail the “humble test” and totally think Obama is not interested in it for sure. FWIW I don’t think Obama is committed to ruining the country,I think he is however committed to his beliefs and too stubborn to be swayed no matter the consequences.That is a leadership flaw.
    That’s not really coming out the way I want it but I hope you can decipher it.

  • 135. Tex Taylor  |  March 22, 2010 at 1:57 pm

    Rutherford,

    You asked me last week to explain why I stated it was a “market” driven problem in trying to explain health care costs. This comment does an excellent job.

    The analogies your fictional professor uses to explain supply and demand assume a very critical phenomenon: a direct economic relationship between provider and consumer. That relationship is what makes the S/D theory work. Relentlessly.

    Thus, in every commodity market where the basic necessities of life are provided and consumed, price is kept relatively affordable because of this relationship and the subsequent tendency for supply and demand to reach an equilibrium.

    The single exception to this rule is health care, where costs have skyrocketed for decades at varying multiples of inflation – every phase of which tracks perfectly with intentional government meddling in the health care market. The reason? Innovation? No – all other sectors of the economy have seen at least as explosive innovation, and the cost-per-improvement has typically gone down, not up. Regulation? Nope – most other commodity sectors are just as over-regulated as health care.

    The one and only difference has been staring us in the face for decades. But because we have come to conflate health CARE and health care INSURANCE so blindly, we simply can’t see it. The reason is that with health care there is NO economic relationship between provider and consumer; it’s a brokered market where all price negotiation is mediated (and, in practice, controlled) by the accidental cartel of comprehensive group health care insurance companies. These companies essentially form a proxy monopoly, controlling both the price of and access to health care. Meanwhile, the consumer never has any clue what the goods and services cost, nor is there any incentive whatsoever for him to care BECAUSE the insurance company issues a NO-LIMIT HEALTH CARE CREDIT CARD (aka ‘insurance card’). Both patient and doctor are encouraged to over-consume as a result of this arrangement – “insurance will cover it” – artificially driving up both the cost and price of health care overall.

    The problem is this: INSURANCE IS A TOOL FOR MITIGATING FINANCIAL RISK. It was never intended to be used as a payment scheme for large-scale funding of the basic necessities of life, like routine health care. Abusing insurance in that way has destroyed the economic relationship between provider and consumer, destroying with it almost all downward pressure on price. So the professor’s analogies simply do not apply here.

    Worse, abuse of insurance has resulted in an economy where we “spread the costs around” (sound familiar?), i.e., price is actually encouraged to increase because the market resources – 100 people paying group premiums – are being used to pay for health care consumed by only a subset of that market. Since commodity prices are like a gas, and expand to fit the resources of the space they’re in, the collectivizing aspect of group insurance – when applied to large-scale, commodity consumption – distorts that space to make it appear much larger than it really is. The inevitable result is exactly what we’ve seen since the early ’70s, when the use of comprehensive, group policies became a federal mandate: skyrocketing health care costs.

    All of this is to say that increasing the Supply in this broken market – i.e., “increasing the supply of doctors, nurses, medical technicians, and other providers” – will do NOTHING to bring down price, or overall cost. The critical aspect of the supply/demand mechanism required to do that – a direct economic relationship between provider and consumer – doesn’t exist.

    Meanwhile, it’s true: adding 32 million new consumers with NO-LIMIT HEALTH CARE CREDIT CARDS (aka “insurance cards”) will absolutely increase demand and, therefore, price – or, at least, overall cost. In effect the mechanism at work there is hardly different from the phenomenon which artificially added millions of previously unqualified buyers to the housing market, through Taxpayer-backed, “affordable mortgages”. That phenomenon, combined with artificially low interest rates that were counter to market realities, led to the housing bubble and, eventually, to the credit meltdown in 2008. We will see the same in health care… until it, too, melts down completely.

  • 136. Curator  |  March 22, 2010 at 2:04 pm

    I am somewhat puzzled why you would think doctors less honest than say medical malpractice attorneys.

    It’s because I don’t think that, nor did I say that. A person could be greedy whether they work as an attorneys or a doctor. Are you saying that overtreatment and overdiagnosis by a doctor is not a cost driver?

    Has real tort reform like in Texas let doctors tell their patients they don’t need their third MRI or their 10th cardiac cath?

    Actually I think we need to get real about the cost associated with any procedure, device,or service. What are the actual costs! What is the mark up? Explain to me why a wholesale price of $800.00 ends up to be five thousand dollars. How many freaking middle men are their siphoning off the patient/plaintiff? The facts are that doctors or attorneys seldom think about it as long as the bottom line is in the black.

  • 137. Tex Taylor  |  March 22, 2010 at 2:25 pm

    Are you saying that overtreatment and overdiagnosis by a doctor is not a cost driver?

    No, I am saying that is the exception to your rule.

    Has real tort reform like in Texas let doctors tell their patients they don’t need their third MRI or their 10th cardiac cath?

    I think you minimize the difficulty of diagnosis. I’ll use a “system” example as analogy. When you write a script, are they always correct the first time? If you’re like me, you continually improve the code until you have the desired result. Only the practice of medicine is infinitely more complicated than writing code. So you ask, how does this relate?

    Because like a complex program, many times you have to determine what it is not, explaining why multiple tests may be necessary. The treatment of cancer for instance explaining why it may be necessary to determine the metastasized regions performed in an incremental manner.

    I could ask you a rhetorical question in return. If Texas so wrong in its practices, why is its economic and financial status stronger than any other state in the nation? How is M.D. Anderson considered the best cancer hospital facility in the world?

    http://health.usnews.com/health/best-hospitals/cancer-hospital-rankings/

    Explain to me why a wholesale price of $800.00 ends up to be five thousand dollars.

    And yet a majority of hospitals are non profit, some operating at a loss insured by a trust fund. Could it be that we are already paying for the uninsured, all of whom receive treatment, contrary to popular opinion?

    How many freaking middle men are their siphoning off the patient/plaintiff?

    Apparently at least 30% of the costs of Medicare and Medicaid? So how do propose to clean that up as you expand it? With goosesteppers from the IRS fining citizens for non compliance? Because that is exactly what your Caesar Obama plans to do.

  • 138. Curator  |  March 22, 2010 at 2:30 pm

    @Tex,

    We had over 4000 application last year for admission to our Med school. We only took 115 as that is all we are accredited for. I think it has something to do with number of clerkships in the 3rd and 4th year. If we have more hospitals we could take in more students.

    AMA President John Nelson says “The truth is, we don’t know if there’s a shortage of physicians,”, so I’ll wait and see before I agree there is a shortage. Retiring boomers will surely add to any imbalance, but I wont repeat the talking point that it will be due to HCR. I have read that any shortage will only be in number of primary care physicians. Payments to primary care physicians are lower than those made to specialists. Specialties are where the $$$$ are.

  • 139. Tex Taylor  |  March 22, 2010 at 2:57 pm

    Curator,

    We had over 4000 application last year for admission to our Med school. We only took 115 as that is all we are accredited for. I think it has something to do with number of clerkships in the 3rd and 4th year. If we have more hospitals we could take in more students.

    And why do you only have 115 clerkships? Because we can’t “AFFORD” to have more. Increasing the number of hospitals will have no effect or bearing on increasing the number of spots. You can allocate more funding, but where do your propose to get the funding with most state balance sheets operating in the red? You raise taxes and you assuredly will damage the economy further Curator. Money is not manna from heaven.

    AMA has stated without capitulation that we do indeed have a shortage of physicians – mainly primary care, geriatrics and internal medicine. Your information is dated. Here’s the rub assuming John Nelson (I don’t know him) is right. It takes eleven years at a minimum to become a physician. We fill the shortage now with residents. And being many primary care physicians are now threatening to leave the practice on account of your Caesar’s health care proposal, how do propose to provide a “stop gap” during the interim?

  • 140. An800lbGorilla  |  March 22, 2010 at 4:40 pm

    This whole thing sickens me. Can’t wait for it to be thrown out on its ass when the SCOTUS rules, inevitably, that this is unconstitutional.

    Anyone who believes this thing is going to save money, is just plain retarded- and that is my clinical diagnosis…

  • 141. Blackiswhite, Imperial Consigliere  |  March 22, 2010 at 4:47 pm

    Anyone who believes this thing is going to save money, is just plain retarded- and that is my clinical diagnosis…

    And that is why people like you will not be able to get student loans now that Big Brother controls all the student lending, commerade!

  • 142. Tex Taylor  |  March 22, 2010 at 4:59 pm

    Gorilla,

    Anyone who believes this thing is going to save money, is just plain retarded- and that is my clinical diagnosis…

    You would have made an excellent physician. Spot on clinical calculation utilizing nothing but common sense. That is the essence of good medicine.

    Pretty scary isn’t it when 39% of the public can come to that conclusion that by adding millions to the roles by force, manned by executives than can’t even balance their checkbook, would still believe that all will now be repaired?

    The same people, mind you, who thought Obama would now pay their rent. They are in for an incredibly rude awakening.

  • 144. Tex Taylor  |  March 22, 2010 at 6:13 pm

    BIC,

    A talented writer like you needs to post, preferably soon, something about the front loaded benefit of this so the rubes don’t think the aggregate bill is a benefit.

    These dishonest bastards are going to attempt to take the few benefits receive (i.e, extension in age of child coverage) which takes effect this year and sell it as apple pie, never making mention of the punishment to soon follow, including the mandatory fines for not carrying coverage enforced by the IRS of all jackboots, higher taxes, and loss of extensive coverage for those who already have health insurance.

    Please make it a point to do so if you have the time. These SOBs need to burn for this one and it’s up to guys like you to make sure they don’t get the opportunity to market their propaganda and spin. :wink:

  • 145. Blackiswhite, Imperial Consigliere  |  March 22, 2010 at 6:43 pm

    Tex,
    1. you can’t rush a good thing; and
    2. the celebrations are instructive.

    In the fullness of time.

  • 146. Tex Taylor  |  March 22, 2010 at 6:52 pm

    BIC,

    Understood. Rutherford won’t get it. Just make sure the fullness doesn’t extend past mid October. :smile:

  • 147. Tex Taylor  |  March 22, 2010 at 7:00 pm

    One other thing BIC. Rutherford won’t understand this one either.

    In light of the jackbooted health care program, many of us have took our eye off the proverbial ball of long-term consequence.

    There may be an even more pressing discussion taking place as we speak. Tomorrow, I understand our “illustrious” President Barack ‘Hussein’ Obama meets with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to “discuss” the building program in East Jerusalem.

    The repercussions of that conversation may prove even more far reaching than any health care Mr. Barack wishes to provide. I wonder if Obama understands the opponent he fights this time and if Obama really understands what real change looks like? :wink:

  • 148. Dead Rabbit  |  March 22, 2010 at 7:04 pm

    I look forward to the day that my son and I enjoy a nice picnic in Washington D.C. Afterwords, we both will relieve ourselves on the graves of the saboteurs of this Nation, the architects of this bill and the others coming down the pipe.

  • 149. An800lbGorilla  |  March 22, 2010 at 7:36 pm

    Why wait for the graves?

  • 150. dead rabbit 2.0  |  March 22, 2010 at 7:51 pm

    man…wouldn’t it be nice to be a lobbyists for the drug, insurance and hospital industries right now????

    $core!!!!!

  • 151. dead rabbit 2.0  |  March 22, 2010 at 8:54 pm

    Wow. I just saw how the fine is worth paying because if you get mangled or sick, you just get insurance upon the disaster. I’m sure this has been pointed out before here….but, how utterly stupid.

    At what point is “insurance” not even “insurance”?

  • 152. LOL  |  March 23, 2010 at 12:41 am

    The next fight is going to be over immigration.

    They will need those 13,000,000 new Americans to help keep them in power.

  • 153. Tex Taylor  |  March 23, 2010 at 1:16 am

    It was possible for Western Europe to become socialist lite as long as America remained strong, just as prodigal sons in wealthy families may squander yet survive. All this changes when the defender of freedom is attacked.

    I’ve said in this blog and elsewhere for some time, sometimes to snickers, that the Left is far more dangerous to the world than radical Islam.

    I believe it even more now. :evil:

  • 154. an800lbgorilla  |  March 23, 2010 at 6:27 am

    R is pretty quiet.

    What’s the matter R, can’t type in between champagne bottles, as you dance all over the Constitution…

    As for Curator…
    Actually I think we need to get real about the cost associated with any procedure, device,or service. What are the actual costs! What is the mark up? Explain to me why a wholesale price of $800.00 ends up to be five thousand dollars. How many freaking middle men are their siphoning off the patient/plaintiff? The facts are that doctors or attorneys seldom think about it as long as the bottom line is in the black.

    Well genius, you’ll likely find that the number of middle isn’t so many- state and federal government.

    This is what is so stupid about the lefts argument- you claim that the health insurance industry is trampling the rights of everyone, earning exorbitant profits and scheming on how to get out of every expense. The health insurance industry is one of the most heavily managed industries there is, just like the health industry in general. How much of medical school is spent on learning state and federal restrictions? It can take 20 years to get a new drug on the street and new technology just doesn’t appear. All of these things have enormous federal oversight, which lengthens the time and raises the cost of development.

    Then, on top of all these developmental and production costs, toss in a couple union workers to really fuck up the process.

    And if you think doctor’s insurance is ridiculous, look at how much a hospital has to pay in insurance.

    Shit gets expensive.

    My experience, I’ve not had a problem with my health insurance provider- and I use the doctor. In fact, my insurance has gotten me deals on services. For instance, I had to get an MRI, and instead of paying $160 (my 10% obligation), I paid $80 because my insurance company worked out deals with certain providers. I’ll bet dollars to donuts, that those kind of agreements get tossed out the window.

    Sharpton inadvertently calls a spade a spade.

    http://www.mediaite.com/online/al-sharpton-socialism-and-obama-reserve-your-judgment/

    Now, you idiots can try to tell me that Obama isn’t a socialist and that he isn’t a far left radical, but you can’t identify any moderate or conservative positions or actions.

    Sounding like Reagan and acting like Reagan are very different things.

    The American people did not vote for socialism. Obama did everything he could to not sound liberal and to say conservative things. Obama’s past and associations got almost zero scrutiny from the media. The media didn’t play Obama calling the Constitution a negative document, talk radio did. The media didn’t expose his radical associations, talk radio did. You can’t point to a single instance of this man and his one page resume doing something moderate or conservative.

    You know it and I know it, if you took this man, with his record of 15 months, he would have been crushed in the primaries. If the American people had even an inkling that this idiot was going to be half the asswhole he is, they would have never touched him. How else do you explain a 35+ point positive in the polls collapsing to zero in what has been the fastest decline in popularity of any President in history.

    Poll after poll shows that this is NOT what the American people wanted, and Sharpton is just affirming why we should NEVER trust a dem…

  • 155. Tex Taylor  |  March 23, 2010 at 10:08 am

    Gorilla,

    Rutherford is as predictable as the spring. He’s gloating as much believing Obama stuck it up the asses of Conservatives as he is what he perceives an Obama victory.

    You’ll get the “world isn’t coming to an end” post soon as Rutherford makes the appearance of trying to be profound, humbled by accomplishment,and magnanimous. And it will be enough to make a billy goat puke and intended to be arrogant. If you ever read Rutherford’s tweets, you get a much better idea of the real condescending nature of Rutherford. He as arrogant as the next Lib, but more tolerant because he likes the give and take.

    But Rutherford is also a little sharper than many Lefties, and though he’s happy for the moment, like the hunted deer, he sniffs pack of wolves in the air not far behind. Rutherford will never admit it, but there is a little fear now as his innate instinct tells him indeed Obama may have crossed the Rubiicon. There is no turning back and the sides now chosen. Nobody is straddling the fence anymore and most are engaged. Like Obama, Rutherford is still counting on apathy and appeasement – but this time, he is not completely sure.

    Remember, Rutherford thought ostrich head Holder’s move of KSM to New York was superb until he misread the national mood, got a taste and went silent after throwing a hissy fit.

    What Rutherford has no idea because he is a lib is just how angry people really are as he thinks he has heard it all before. Most are still going to let it play out before declaring war. But Rutherford thinks it is sheer political gamesmanship.

    I tell you with absolute certainty Gorilla. I have witnessed this kind of rage only once – immediately after 9/11. Except this time, the terrorist sits in the Whitehouse, and his accomplices in the halls of Congress. We don’t have to go hunting in caves for Obama.

    Right now, millions are asking themselves do we let the courts handle it correctly one last time – or do we open the gun cabinet?

    I don’t think Rutherford has any idea the powder keg he is sitting on.

  • 156. Tex Taylor  |  March 23, 2010 at 10:54 am

    Rutherford,

    While you’re still gloating, I’ll tell you the biggest mistake your side made this weekend. You don’t walk through an aggrieved crowd and mock them like Pelosi did with her Bam Bam gavel. This was no Civil Rights walk which took real bravery – this was hubris meant to mock.

    You’re always so concerned and preachy about physical violence – mainly because you have no fear that it would ever happen to you. What Pelosi did is a real quick way to escalate the debate to a place rational people don’t want to go.

    And if you understand like human nature like I do, it doesn’t take much from a few fools to snowball into something that America hasn’t seen for a number of years. If I were you , I would tell my lefty compatriots to cool it with the act of getting in many faces right now – because I got this bad feeling like I had the day I watched a Waco compound burn that somebody was going to pay for that egregious mistake.

    How little did I know that a lot of innocent people in my adopted state would lose their lives two years later from one madman. I really don’t want that to happen again. And there are some really pissed off people at this minute – out of the millions, you know there’s a few that are imbalanced. Just some advice.

  • 157. LOL  |  March 23, 2010 at 12:32 pm

    “How else do you explain a 35+ point positive in the polls collapsing to zero in what has been the fastest decline in popularity of any President in history. ”

    RACISM!!!!!!!11111

  • 158. Curator  |  March 23, 2010 at 2:34 pm

    “…the terrorist sits in the Whitehouse”

    “…do we open the gun cabinet?”

    “[sitting] on a powder keg”

    You really are sounding imbalanced there Tex. Are you encouraging a violence insurrection? What else could it be if you claim that a terrorist sits in the WH? Can I go ahead and label you a right-wing extremist? You sure sound like one.

  • 159. Tex Taylor  |  March 23, 2010 at 2:59 pm

    Curator,

    Can I go ahead and label you a right-wing extremist? You sure sound like one.

    You can label me as you wish – I think you already have labeled me a hate mongering, wing-nut extremist on many occasions here on the Rutherford Lawson blog. I wear the badge proudly. Who knows? We never know what the future holds, do we?

    And though I am ‘pretty’ sure I’m still balanced and don’t yet condone violence, taking into account the worshiping sycophants of Nancy Pelosi and her arrogance, it probably wouldn’t take much to push many to the brink of insurrection.

    Just pointing out a most obvious fact. I would prefer we simply beat you at your own game, destroy progressivism through less dubious means, and then stand on your throat after the fact.

    Where’s the sport in simply sending you into oblivion? Anyone can shoot the fox guarding the hen house from the back porch, but to ride the horse while chasing you with club in hand? Now that’s real entertainment! :wink:

  • 160. Curator  |  March 23, 2010 at 3:14 pm

    Oh so you don’t yet condone violence, but have no problem instigating it?

    “…the terrorist sits in the Whitehouse”

    Why are you rationalizing violence against other Americans? You have said over and over that the shit is gonna hit the fan, standing on our throats, that people are angry, and you best be ready, they will deserve what they get. I’m paraphrasing but I think your message is clear.

    Why do you wish violence on other Americans?

  • 161. Tex Taylor  |  March 23, 2010 at 4:06 pm

    Great questions Curator. I’ll be happy to oblige so I leave no doubt, as I can not see anyplace where I have “instigated or condoned violence”. I have simply stated it is my opinion that your party, more specifically the majority of your designated party led by Barack Obama, are far more dangerous to the future of this country than Osama Bin Laden could dream.

    And it is time that we as a nation leave our comfort zone and finally began to address our imminent demise if we let these fundamental arguments drag on. The longer we allow the grievances to fester, the longer the pain for all of us. It is time to divide or conquer.

    ————————————

    I have forewarned anyone willing to listen that the country now sits upon a powder keg in which there is only one probable outcome and ultimately one victor. The fact that you ask me these questions Curator demonstrates that the feeling palpable, whether you recognize that fact or not.

    We are finally to the point that we are at a great divide in which there can be little room to negotiate. It is my opinion that it is approaching the point our Founding Fathers came to with King George’s dictates – that is, that I can no longer tolerate your wishes. I believe I speak for many. It is coming to a climax after at least 40 years of arguing, with your philosophy and mine antagonistic in nature and diametrically opposed.

    The semantics in this case are important. For instance, you, Rutherford and Hippie have a philosophy that would desire or help to ensure equal outcomes. Speaking only for myself, I have a philosophy that wishes to ensure equal opportunity, but recognize the outcomes will always be unequal. Your side believes that a larger government is the only one capable of implementing a fair solution; my side believing that government is for the most part the obstacle to achieving the best solution, and that government only serves when and where necessary – and then in the most limited capacity.

    Neither side has yet achieved its desired result, both sides frustrated, with the inevitable battle of attrition quickly coming to a head. At this time, it might appear to you that you have the upper hand. But I choose not to believe that and am willing to bet my well being that you are quickly losing your grip.

    At its roots, the question is this. Do we wish for the United States to adopt a more secular western European philosophy? Or do we return what I perceive as a deeply religious and free nation, individual independence maximizing both liberty and prosperity? I do not demand your allegiance to my religion, but I do expect you to respect my freedoms to carry forth with its message. Even if we were not intended as a Christian nation, as I believe were a nation planted on religious freedom including the right to hold no religion, we were still a nation founded mostly by Protestant Christians. I am willing to admit that my philosophy not perfect as we are but mere fallible men with an evil nature. Sometimes our worse nature wins out and greed can rule the day.

    But I will no longer abide by your rules and I believe you have perverted the intent, nor will you dictate to me how I will conduct my life any further. You have overstepped your rights.

    And the only question that remains is to what means are we both wishing to justify the ends? Because the results we both wish are in great proportion mutually exclusive. I believe I represent the majority of this country, and eventually the majority will win out. For a time, I am willing to let the process unfold, to what ends I’m not entirely sure.

    In a perverse way, we all owe Obama a degree of thanks. Because only a man of his demeanor and character, charismatic to many and affront to many more, and his deep-seated philosophy of the desire of equal outcomes, a sharing of the wealth, could have made the obvious divide so readily apparent.

  • 162. Rutherford  |  March 23, 2010 at 5:06 pm

    A lot of comments have come down the pike and I’m not even going to attempt to address all of them. I’ve moved onto the next post.

    But:

    You’re some uneducated, but accredited lackey, sitting next to the bathroom in a windowless cube. You write simple scripts to retrieve data, which is passed on through several channels making the way to the appropriate professional for evaluation. Trust me pal, you’re invisible explaining your rotten demeanor because you feel God cheated you out of greatness.

    Tex, you’re pulling your Hannibal Lecter again. If we start with your having intercourse with me through my eye sockets and then add the above comment made to Curator, the resemblance is incredible.

    Tex, next time you go on a personality analysis, think back on these immortal words so you can remember who you resemble when you write such stuff.

    You know what you look like to me, with your good bag and your cheap shoes? You look like a rube. A well scrubbed, hustling rube with a little taste. Good nutrition’s given you some length of bone, but you’re not more than one generation from poor white trash, are you, Agent Starling? And that accent you’ve tried so desperately to shed: pure West Virginia. What is your father, dear? Is he a coal miner? Does he stink of the lamp? You know how quickly the boys found you… all those tedious sticky fumblings in the back seats of cars… while you could only dream of getting out… getting anywhere… getting all the way to the FBI.

  • 163. Rutherford  |  March 23, 2010 at 5:21 pm

  • 164. Blackiswhite, Imperial Consigliere  |  March 23, 2010 at 5:51 pm

    Strange. I tend to think of Tex more like this than than like Hannibal.

  • 165. Tex Taylor  |  March 23, 2010 at 6:11 pm

    Why, that little diddly just broke my heart. :sad:

    It’s so hard to live honestly, isn’t it Rutherford? I need no movie quip to get to the truth and make this very personal in “my analysis.”

    Do you know how many “rubes” I had under my jurisdiction with titles like “programmer”, or “systems administrator”, or “data processing manager” over the years, usually thrust on to me by some higher authority who hired them as favor to friends, or more likely to meet quota?

    Some even with high powered degrees or fancy sounding accreditation arraigned by affirmative action, or prior service, or daddy’s trust fund, the foundations not worth the paper they were printed upon. That lived life to the max carried forth by only good graces of others, but never giving a moment’s thought to mortgaging their future? Those who lived in the constant fear of hoping no one would notice their obvious weakness in stature?

    And truth be known, tolerated by a society with their dead carcass in tow, dragged along only by the good fortune of the privileges America offers. Who provided nothing to offer in true talent, a liability in the book of community living, while parading their imagined skills and bragging of debatable talents sans crack or flaw, while others snickered in privacy of an office and now in their home?

    You should have recognized as much when they walked you out the door, broken and beaten, the HR representative holding your hand and carrying your belongings, whispering sweet nothings of future help in return. You should have considered it was only a matter of time before they figured out how to push you to the abyss where there is no coming up.

    Glory days Rutherford. Glory days…

    Now you think about that while you pretend you are Freud.

  • 166. Rutherford  |  March 24, 2010 at 12:46 am

    You should have recognized as much when they walked you out the door, broken and beaten, the HR representative holding your hand and carrying your belongings, whispering sweet nothings of future help in return.

    ROTFLMAO and you tell me that does not sound like another Hannibal speech! Dag, you prove my point in your effort to slap me.

    Tex, you are quaint and old-fashioned my friend. I had a home office so there were no belongings to be taken out of an office and best of all, I was laid off over the phone. That’s right, no human being (HR or otherwise) ever had to look me in the eye to deliver the news. Just return your laptop and badge and shut the f*ck up. Of course, they were much “nicer” than that. ;-)

  • 167. Tex Taylor  |  March 24, 2010 at 12:58 am

    You had a home office? How convenient and most would be jealous. Catered and mothered your whole life. I understand why you’re so dependent upon Brother Barack now. Does your wife blow your nose?

    You know, now that you mention it, I do recall you telling me you were laid off over the phone. Gutless, but typical.

    I may be Hannibal (as I recall he was not only cruel but cunning)but Wally still is sitting in the cube by the bathroom Rutherford. No insult you can possibly dream changes that fact. In fact, it only adds to you ignorance of how the “real operation” works in a corporate environment, of which I sat for 20 miserable years.

  • 168. Rutherford  |  March 24, 2010 at 1:25 am

    You had a home office? How convenient and most would be jealous. Catered and mothered your whole life.

    Well, not my whole life. I said I had a home office when I got laid off, not my entire career. On the contrary I worked in an office from 1983 – 2004. I had a full time home office from 2004 – 2007. In the very early days, I commuted roughly 90 minutes one-way, three highways, toll bridge and a brand new driver. So I actually think I paid my dues on the commute side.

    My wife stopped blowing my nose for me when my daughter was born. I didn’t want to over-burden her. ;-)

  • 169. Rutherford  |  March 24, 2010 at 1:27 am

    Oh btw, you know full well I understand corporate reality. I just choose not to make assumptions as to how “Wally” fits into that reality.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Trackback this post  |  Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed


March 2010
M T W T F S S
« Feb   Apr »
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293031  
Bookmark and Share

Categories

Rutherford on Twitter

The Rutherford Lawson Blog is a member of

WordPress Political Blogger

My Sister Site

Town Called Dobson Daily Preview
AddThis Feed Button
http://www.blog4mobile.com/

Recent BlogCatalog Readers

View My Profile View My Profile View My Profile

Archives


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 710 other followers

%d bloggers like this: