jump to last post 1-20 of 20 discussions (119 posts)

41 states want to repeal healthcare bill

  1. profile image0
    Madame Xposted 7 years ago

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/linda-ber … 68472.html

    Maybe, just maybe, people are waking up.

    1. JWestCattle profile image60
      JWestCattleposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Thank God.

    2. leeberttea profile image53
      leebertteaposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      I'm not surprised. It's another unfunded mandate. I also heard a number of big companies have hired lawyers to see if it would be cheaper to pay the fines than provide the insurance and they determined that it would be waaayyy cheaper to pay the fines. No one has yet announced that they will drop coverage, but you can bet that if it's the difference between a profit or a loss, they will drop the coverage, and once one company does it the rest will follow. Eventually, we'll have a single payer system and a single insure, the government, which has been the plan all along.

  2. ediggity profile image60
    ediggityposted 7 years ago

    Waking up just in time to find out they slept to long.  What a mess.....

  3. Ron Montgomery profile image61
    Ron Montgomeryposted 7 years ago

    Your post is an exageration.  Must've been too excited to actually read the article.

    1. Doug Hughes profile image59
      Doug Hughesposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      The count of 41 is a distortion - not an exageration. In 22 states AGs have filed suits - and (surprise) they are all Republicans (except one). In t he other 19 states, there are attemts at a voter refereundum or attempts to introduce legislation. All of which means nothing in terms of the popularity of the bill or the legal merits of any of the suits or legislation.

      David Frum is a conservative columnist. he wrote on this:

      "Some Republicans talk of repealing the whole bill. That's not very realistic. Even supposing that Republicans miraculously capture both houses of Congress in November, repeal will require a presidential signature."

      Most of the suits are even less likely as they presume that the authority of the states can override the federal authority. That was settled almost 2 centuries ago - the states lost. So almost all of this is political posturing to whip up the base for the 2010 elections. What else is new?

      1. profile image0
        Madame Xposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        Then why bother doing it if it will have no effect?



        Your belief in Federal Presumption is very revealing!

        1. Doug Hughes profile image59
          Doug Hughesposted 7 years agoin reply to this

          The 'effect' is going to be wingnut politicians promoting their careers. A lot of gulable wingnuts will work for the cause of repealing health care by electing conservatives who know damn well that they can't do what they are quite willing to promise.

          Federal Law trumps state law. It's not my opinion. It's not new. It's a fact. So if States want to pass a law that  declares a federal law null, the state law is actually null from the git-go. But lots of gulable people will sign up and contribute - and lots of cynical conservative politicians will pocket the money and promise an outright lie....

          You teabaggers were gonna remove Obama over that birth certificate thing. What happened with that and how much did they scam out of you?

          1. Aficionada profile image89
            Aficionadaposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            I wonder if you would please clarify my understanding of chronology.  I thought the teabag movement began in 2009 (April 15, in fact).  "That birth certificate thing," as you call it, was discussed before the election of 2008, pretty much whipped up primarily by one lawyer who took on the issue as a personal campaign and then spread it.  That issue definitely preceded the teabag movement, as I recall.

            1. Doug Hughes profile image59
              Doug Hughesposted 7 years agoin reply to this

              The 'issue' was disproved before the election. One lawyer in particular has been trying to cash in on various incarnations of the suit. But a high percentage of the birthers are teabaggers and vice versa.

              Some people will want to take exception to that as unproved, which it is. But it's also true. The same folks who pushed birther theories are teabaggers for the same reasons.

            2. tony0724 profile image62
              tony0724posted 7 years agoin reply to this

              Actually an Attorney who supported Hillary Clinton out of Philidelphia started the whole Birth Certificate question in 2008

        2. Arthur Fontes profile image83
          Arthur Fontesposted 7 years agoin reply to this

          Madame allow me to apologize for the lemmings who think that calling people by pornagraphic metaphors is alright.

          Its not.  I am sorry, you should not have to put up with it.

          1. profile image0
            Madame Xposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            Thank you Arthur. It's always so heartening to meet a gentleman smile

          2. Doug Hughes profile image59
            Doug Hughesposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            Arthur - 'pornnagraphic' is spelled with an 'o'. 'pornographic' is correct.

            1. Arthur Fontes profile image83
              Arthur Fontesposted 7 years agoin reply to this

              You would Kno Chester.

              1. JWestCattle profile image60
                JWestCattleposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                No doubt.

              2. Doug Hughes profile image59
                Doug Hughesposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                You're welcome.

            2. Cagsil profile image60
              Cagsilposted 7 years agoin reply to this

              Federal cannot stand up to state laws.

              Federal does not trump State Laws. A State can apply any Law it's citizens deem. Once the State gets Citizen approval via a vote, then Federal Law needs to bend. The Citizens spoke!

              1. Doug Hughes profile image59
                Doug Hughesposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                Are you posting from an alternate universe operating under different rules? Google 'Federal vs State Law' and you will read over andover with Constitutional citations and Supreme Court  decisions.

                1. Cagsil profile image60
                  Cagsilposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                  Well, I am telling you right now. When more and more States begin protesting against Federal authority, in combination with one another. We'll certainly see, won't we.

                  1. lovemychris profile image61
                    lovemychrisposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                    I don't know about that...an awful lot of states had a problem with No Child Left Behind...because the gvt (Bush) mandated things but gave no funding for them! AND, if states didn't go along with No Child Left Behind, they would lose federal funding!
                    Lot (dare I say majority?) of people didn't like it. Kind of had no choice if you need money from the fed--and schools do!--you do as they say.

            3. habee profile image95
              habeeposted 7 years agoin reply to this

              Doug, I can't believe you are correcting someone's spelling/typos.

              "Andover" is spelled "and over." You also misspelled "gullible."
              Pot, meet kettle.

              Rose

              1. JWestCattle profile image60
                JWestCattleposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                smile about time.

              2. Doug Hughes profile image59
                Doug Hughesposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                Rose -

                I am actually notorious (did I spell that right) for posting without proofing.

                But Arthur and have such a mutual respect that comes out in friendly rivalry. I call him 'teabagger' and he calls me lemming.  All in good fun.

                If I'm ever in the same room with him, I'll wear a bulletproof vest.

                1. habee profile image95
                  habeeposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                  Funny! Love it!

                  1. JWestCattle profile image60
                    JWestCattleposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                    ???  Funny, ha ha.

                    Doug:  "all in good fun" hardly.  Funny, not in the least. Pathetic, yes, at times I think he has his Daddy's photo posted and he is a youngster, one who doesn't even know what a red squiggly line means in his irrational, baseless, and misspelled posts.

          3. PrettyPanther profile image84
            PrettyPantherposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            That's sweet of you, Arthur, but are you only concerned about Madame X's feelings?  What about others (men) who have been called teabaggers?  Is it because she is delicate?  I do seem to recall her being offended at being referred to as "sugar."  wink

            I personally refrain from using the term on the forums, but I also believe it to be a legitimate moniker given its origins.

            http://voices.washingtonpost.com/right- … eabag.html

            1. Arthur Fontes profile image83
              Arthur Fontesposted 7 years agoin reply to this

              I do not like the term at all. Considering several people have been banned through their conversations with the lemming, it does not seem right that every conversation is instilled with insults.

              I thought for a while that the troll was not sure of the exact definition of the term considering his age and all.  I know not only does he know the definition he uses it exactly as it is defined.  It is meant as a personal attack.

              If someone used the term to refer to an actual Tea Party member that would be one thing.  I do not know any self confessed Tea Party members in the forums.

              I know I am not.

              BTW the link led to an unfound page.

              1. PrettyPanther profile image84
                PrettyPantherposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                Okay, try the link now, it should work.

                My post had two points:  First, the term originally was used in a derogatory manner toward Democrats (see the sign in the article), and promoted by politicians on TV, so it should not be surprising when it gets turned around. 

                Second, maybe you are being chivalrous and that's fine, but to apologize to Madame X and not others who have been subjected to the term in the forums seems to imply that because she is female she shouldn't have to endure the same barbs as everyone else.

                1. Arthur Fontes profile image83
                  Arthur Fontesposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                  Simple, the term has a different meaning when said to a female.

                  This is an akward discussion LOL. 


                  I hope you understand without me elaborating. (blushes jus a lil)

                  1. PrettyPanther profile image84
                    PrettyPantherposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                    LOL!  I didn't realize you were so easily embarrassed.  That's kinda sweet. 

                    Never mind, then.  smile

                  2. Sab Oh profile image55
                    Sab Ohposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                    Glen Quagmire could explain it.

                2. profile image0
                  Madame Xposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                  Why do you object to the interaction between two people on a forum over something of which you have no part? Arthur is a gentleman, and that means he has a refined sensibility. Gentlemen, when they see a cad abusing a woman, step in and give aid to the woman.

                  And before you get yourself in a wad, that isn't sexist or condescending. It is a part of the settled order of nature of men and women. It's only the stupid "feminist" movement and it's boatloads of propaganda about how "we're all equal" and therefore identical that confuses things.

                  You know what I say to that?

                  Viva La Difference!

                  1. PrettyPanther profile image84
                    PrettyPantherposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                    First, I do not object to any interaction on these forums; I am merely trying to understand.  Aren't you the one who started an entire thread about being condescended to?  And I seem to recall the term "sexism" being thrown around quite a bit in that thread.

                    I've never brought up sexism or feminism anywhere on these forums, while you have previously built an entire thread around it. Just trying to find where the consistency lies, which is apparently an impossible task.  ;-)

                    This was, of course, a major digression from the original post, so carry on.

              2. Doug Hughes profile image59
                Doug Hughesposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                Hubpages is tolerant of  just about any idea. They have criteria for banning for personal threats and repeated personal attacks.

                You (Arthur) aren't clear who has been banned or over what contact. I don't think I have gotten anyone banned. Conservatism is moving in the direction of fascism - I mean that in a literal and exact way, not the imprecise way teabaggers toss around 'isms' they don't understand.

                Arthur doesn't like that I don't grant the respect to fascist ideas that he may think they deserve. He's entitled to think so, but I intend to play as rough on the forum as the rules allow to discredit with facts and rational argument that movement  in opposition to the ideals this country was founded on.

                1. Arthur Fontes profile image83
                  Arthur Fontesposted 7 years agoin reply to this



                  I know, you are a propagandist...  You are not here for intelligent debate.   The value you add to the forums is diminishing rapidly.

                  We ALL know what you are!  A cad!

                  1. PrettyPanther profile image84
                    PrettyPantherposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                    I'd be okay with you calling Doug out like that, if you'd also call out others here who are disrespectful and condescending.  From my perspective, they were here being disrespectful and condescending long before Doug arrived.  Maybe he is merely fighting fire with fire?

                  2. Doug Hughes profile image59
                    Doug Hughesposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                    Arthur - responding to the rumor you posted about the DOJ hiring bloggers to put out the Administation position... I don't know.

                    I read over the articles online about the subjhect and they all  spin conspiracy theories without proof. Occasionally a conspiracy theory turns out to be true. The arguments so far have all the factual basis of the birther conspiracy theories, and I'm inclined to file the story under BS.

                    As I poined out elsewhere, I am a working guy. I don't have a computer at work and most of my day is spent outside. Usually in the sun but sometimes I get drencehd in the rain. It comes with the job, and my job is NOT with the DOJ blogging for Obama.  MadamX was WAY outa line to make the accusation.  If you want to defend the lie, that's your business.

                  3. Ralph Deeds profile image66
                    Ralph Deedsposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                    Egad! A cad!

      2. Sab Oh profile image55
        Sab Ohposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        "Most of the suits presume that the authority of the states can override the federal authority."

        No, they do not.

  4. profile image0
    Madame Xposted 7 years ago

    I don't usually read the Huff n Puff but the fact does stand out that 41 states are putting together lawsuits against this bill no matter what your need to spin that for yourself.

    1. Ron Montgomery profile image61
      Ron Montgomeryposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Facts are not spin, they are actually in the article you linked.  It is a shameful exageration to claim as you did that 41 states want to repeal the bill.

      tsk tsk

      1. profile image0
        Madame Xposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        The SPIN is in the article. The facts are in the MAP!

        1. Ralph Deeds profile image66
          Ralph Deedsposted 7 years agoin reply to this

          In Michigan, which is one of the states which allegedly "want to repeal the health care reform bill," polls show that a majority support the reform. We have a Dem majority here, a Dem governor
          and two Dem senators. A conservative Republican attorney general, Mike Cox, who has jumped on the Tea Party bandwagon in his primary campaign for the GOP nomination for governor is the one who filed the suit against the health care reform bill. It is doubtful that a majority in the state support his action. However, this doesn't mean that the Tea Party rabble isn't a significant factor in the state.

  5. Buck Steiner profile image60
    Buck Steinerposted 7 years ago

    "With the news that 41 states are trying to repeal part or all of the recent health reform law"

    Is this not a fact?

    I mean it could be a lie, it is the Puffington post.

    1. JWestCattle profile image60
      JWestCattleposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      The Puffington should be considered 'biblical' to left wing liberal llamas -- how odd to see libs finding argument with them!

  6. profile image0
    Madame Xposted 7 years ago

    Uh, I guess this means the majority is speaking . . .

  7. profile image0
    Madame Xposted 7 years ago

    states rights

    1. profile image0
      yankeedoodleposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      So instead of trying to modify a bill, that all presidents since the early 1900/s wanted, just kill it? Makes no sense to go backwards. We can send 70 billion a year to Africa to control aids, but I'm to believe we don't want to help millions of children and americans with health care? Who is this majority? An MSNBC or FOX news poll? Polls have no merit. How many of you have ever been polled? What part of the country can determine results. Income can determine the results. So let's just kill a health bill and watch many young children and American die for lack of health care. Is that the American and Christain way?

      1. JWestCattle profile image60
        JWestCattleposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        So this rendition of a health care bill has been in place since the early 1900's?  Chokes me up, my abject Ignorance.  But, given that, then why, please tell me, and everyone, why! this bill had so many unknown financial issues, had to be shoved through Congress? ......... issues that are only slowly leaking out like the puss from a sore that needs real health care?

        1. profile image0
          yankeedoodleposted 7 years agoin reply to this

          I'll answer that with a question, don't you believe saving millions of young lives and Americans is important? Are you prolife? If you are, does prolife end after birth or should everyone have the advantage of health care? If you lost your job or was unable to afford health insurance, would you have a different opinion? What price do you put on anyone's life?

        2. Doug Hughes profile image59
          Doug Hughesposted 7 years agoin reply to this

          There is nothing more disingenuous than a conservative lecturing about 'real health care'.  The GOP had Congress for 8 years, the White House for 8 years. Six of those years overlapped. Over the decade involved, assemble a list of 'real health care' reforms.

          Conservatives never had - then or now - any intention of providing 'real' health care reform. With all the talk about repealing - look for a specific plan that would REPLACE the existing bill.

          The prospective benefits are health care for 22 million Americans who don't have it and couldn't afford it.  Until all features of HCR kick in, 45,000 annual deaths continue for lack of health insurance.  Dispute the exact number if you like, but the truth is - if conservatives had their way -  that  death toll would continue year after year - for the sole purpose of making rich people richer.

          1. JWestCattle profile image60
            JWestCattleposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            There is nothing more pathetic than an indoctrinated liberal twisting up words to suit their purpose, and it is such a long tradition of farce, and nothing is more boring or wasteful of everyone's time.

            I'd imagine if you took a poll, an honest one, you'd find most conservatives want to see everyone have access to affordable health care, including themselves, and I'd imagine, if you took a poll, most who were gung ho this admins health care plan, are a bit disappointed in the timing of its onset. 

            As well, I'd imagine, if you took a poll, most liberals would swear that Biden did not say explicitly that the fed will now control health care, and thus a large chunk of our lives and economy. How much profit margin do you think the fed needs to pay the growing bloated fed employees?  No doubt much more than private insurance.

            Should I ever again make the error of responding to any of the ignorant and baseless and incendiary crap you post -- do tell me where to go.

            1. profile image0
              yankeedoodleposted 7 years agoin reply to this

              Only a conservative would believe Bush when he said, lowering taxes on the rich would create incentive to invest in new business and generate real jobs. And amazingly enough, the GOP is saying the same thing today...even though Bush's tax reduction created no new jobs but hording of the extra money by those given the tax break. And only a conservative would have believed Bush when he said by pooling small businesses together, health insurance would become affordable to all. But given the opportunity to pass that bill, it sat on his desk for years unsigned. Again, the same GOP promises to fix the mess we're in. Old ways don't seem to have worked and if they could work, are never implimented.

              1. JWestCattle profile image60
                JWestCattleposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                I suppose Obama's likening of himself to Reagan in the early months of his appearance on the national stage ..... was just bogus, and earlier poor George was just boon-doggled by the bogus, as I presume you think, success of Republican Reagan's policies.

                As for Bush letting a more workable and economical health care bill sit on his desk...you tell me, why did he do that?  You clearly know more than I do on that score, or so it appears. 

                And on what basis do you premise your statement that Bush's term saw no new jobs?  I'd like to know.

              2. Doug Hughes profile image59
                Doug Hughesposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                I think it's more accurate to say that while there was job growth in the Shrubbie years, real wages fell. The deficit peaked under Shrubbie as it did with Reagan. They were both working the same playbook, lowering taxes for their rich constituants, running up the federal credit card, and promising that economic growth would create more revenue than was lost in the tax cuts, a formual Bush the Greater called 'voodoo economics'.

                The sudden conversion on the part of the GOP to fiscal discipline is bogus. Pure political oportunism. But the fat cats who pull the strings withthe GOP are afraid they will have to pay up when the democrats get around to balancing the budget.  The last  time we had a budget surplus was under Clinton.  Here's a link to a superb graph -

                http://zfacts.com/p/318.html

            2. Doug Hughes profile image59
              Doug Hughesposted 7 years agoin reply to this

              JW - I don't want you to think I don't trust you, but if you want me to comment on sometthing Biden said, give me a link so I can see what it was in context. Speaking generally, I like Joe because he's sincere and he does go off-script, which is fun. It does occasionally leave him with a case of athelete's tongue.

              1. Randy Godwin profile image94
                Randy Godwinposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                But if you took a poll.....

                1. JWestCattle profile image60
                  JWestCattleposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                  How about if you actually informed yourself of all the facts....what a novel approach.

                  1. Randy Godwin profile image94
                    Randy Godwinposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                    I am not the one who keeps saying "but if you took a poll" in my posts.  How many polls have you actually took? 

                    And I do indeed believe you "inform yourself."  I can't see any other way you get some of the junk you put out there.  You told yourself, so it must be true.  LOL!

              2. JWestCattle profile image60
                JWestCattleposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                If you are so out of the loop from watching mainstream media that you don't know that Biden, in his endearing and off the cuff way, said clearly that the federal government now controlled the health care system.....then you have only yourself to blame, and you can do your own research, if you dare, and find the quote and link yourself and post it here for your cohorts too contemplate.  I heard it live, clearly you didn't, and don't wish to.  Surprise. As for trust, I find it odd you would even use the word.

                1. ryanedel profile image60
                  ryanedelposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                  It sounds like the issue is just that we'd like to hear the quote.  Could you please post a link to it?

                  Also, I'm interested by your definition of someone being "out of the loop" because they watch "mainstream" media.  If something is "mainstream," then how could it also be "out of the loop"?

                  As for me, I don't get to watch nearly enough media of any kind, so I tend to prefer links to websites so I can catch up on what I've missed.

                  1. JWestCattle profile image60
                    JWestCattleposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                    http://www.informationliberation.com/?id=29406

                    Poor dear, as you are so pressed for time, here's a link, Randy -- and someone watching 'mainstream'media' can be 'out of the loop' if they refuse to ever watch unbiased news sources.  Mainstream has new connotations these days doncha know, kind of like the word 'teabaggers'.

  8. MikeNV profile image81
    MikeNVposted 7 years ago

    The article is essentially an argument in favor of the Law.

    Example:  "It seems reasonable to me that this could make people who are being responsible and paying their fair share kind of mad".

    The mandate that Big Brother knows what is good for you and that everyone should PAY into the system for the benefit of all... well that's socialism.

    This implies that people who can not afford or who chose not to have insurance are "irresponsible".

    Health care is not a right, it's a privileged.  And SICK CARE is not HEALTH CARE.

    People who think that the Government can make people healthy are clearly mistaken.  If the Government cared at all about Health Care they wouldn't let the Food Industry contaminate the Food Supply.

    And I support the rights of states to govern locally.

    1. profile image0
      yankeedoodleposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Am I to believe socialism in this country doesn't already exist? Seems to me anyone on social security, disability, medicare, medicaide, etc are all, what could be considered, socialism. If a person loses their health insurance and can't afford the cobra irresponsible? If a plant closes and a person can't find gainful employment irresponsiblee because they have to choose between health care and food? If you were to lose your job and unable to afford insurance make you irresponsible? How many folks with insurance even know, much less can afford their deductible? or what the lifetime cap is? How many insured have insurance but can't afford to use it? Every American has the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. So if health care is a right, then who gives those deciding the Right to choose who lives or dies (young and old)?

  9. theirishobserver. profile image60
    theirishobserver.posted 7 years ago

    Can it be repealed smile

    1. Doug Hughes profile image59
      Doug Hughesposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Sure - if Republicans gain 20% more seats in the Senate and nearly the same in the House AND they win the White House BEFORE the provisions providing health care (and subsides for employers) kicks in fully in 2014. Once in place, this is likely to be popular.  Repeal the bill? -the end of the world is more likely.

  10. leeberttea profile image53
    leebertteaposted 7 years ago

    Does anyone in these threads ever stick to the subject?

  11. profile image0
    Madame Xposted 7 years ago

    Sometimes. They meander. Sometimes it's legitimate meandering and sometimes it's plain old hijacking smile

  12. habee profile image95
    habeeposted 7 years ago

    I believe the "night and day" comment was use of hyperbole. Obama does love the public attention. Out of his first year in office, there were only 21 days when he didn't have a press conference or public appearance. He didn't spend as much time on vacation as W, but O played a lot more golf. Here's the scoop from CBS:

    http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162- … 03544.html

    1. Randy Godwin profile image94
      Randy Godwinposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Hyperbole seems to run rampant on these threads.  Not very helpful for proving a point though.

  13. habee profile image95
    habeeposted 7 years ago

    Arthur, I respect your honesty! As for Doug, he's actually a Hollywood television scout. He's now on the prowl for four women to star in the new version of "The Golden Girls."

    1. Doug Hughes profile image59
      Doug Hughesposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      You had to tell EVERYONE???!!!! Now I will be mobbed by women offering whatever in exchange for an audition - and I'm almost out of Viagra.

      1. PrettyPanther profile image84
        PrettyPantherposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        Doug, you must be quite the dynamic individual to have garnered such negative attention.  People are afraid of you. Do you feel special?  lol

        1. Doug Hughes profile image59
          Doug Hughesposted 7 years agoin reply to this

          You don't understand. It looks like negative attention but Habee is one of my fans!  What my non-fans say doesn't bear repeating...

          I have a personality like your avitar, but I'm misundertood. (sigh)

          1. PrettyPanther profile image84
            PrettyPantherposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            Yeah, habee's cool.  My reply really wasn't meant for her.  She's a sweetie as far as I can tell.

            So, we can start calling you "pussycat."  lol

      2. habee profile image95
        habeeposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        Doug, I think you can get it at a big discount by ordering online!

        And ladies, forget about playing Rose - that role's mine!

  14. habee profile image95
    habeeposted 7 years ago

    Yeah, Doug kinda grows on ya! We agree on very little, actually, but I still like him! If the dems and repubs in DC could get along like this, imagine what we could get accomplished??

    1. Doug Hughes profile image59
      Doug Hughesposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      I agree we don't agree on much, but you have an unmistakable affinity for truth. You are willing to look at ideas that don't seem to fit in the usual  conservative narrative.  From such an attitude McCain worked with Feingold (and he's LIBERAL)  on camapign finance reform - Bush worked with Kennedy on Education issues. The fact is bipartisanship to SOLVE problems has a long and noble history. Til now.

      Tomorrow we can begin disagreeing abut why that is.. For the moment, I will just agree with Rose.  Still 3 slots open and the vigra is going fast.

  15. habee profile image95
    habeeposted 7 years ago

    Aww...thanks, PP! Hmmm...that doesn't sound very nice, does it? lol

  16. PrettyPanther profile image84
    PrettyPantherposted 7 years ago

    You can call me PP anytime!  I promise not to report you.  lol

  17. PrettyPanther profile image84
    PrettyPantherposted 7 years ago

    Suspicions are one thing; to publicly accuse another hubber of being a government shill is another.

    Of course you don't need evidence to think; but airing your suspicions on a public forum without evidence leads others to question your judgment.

    I give you credit for being honest, though.  Truce?  smile

  18. PrettyPanther profile image84
    PrettyPantherposted 7 years ago

    "Paranoia is transmissible from mind to mind, but it does not go by the route of reason. It can therefore change its rationalization while remaining essentially the same."
    — William Nicholls (A History of Hate)

  19. Ralph Deeds profile image66
    Ralph Deedsposted 7 years ago

    Those of you who are concerned about health care reform may want to catch "Doctor Knock, or the Triumph of Medicine" which is currently playing at the Mint Theater in New York City. It's a revival of a 1923 French play spoofing the medical profession.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/12/theat … amp;st=cse

    http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2010/05/12/theater/12knock1/12knock1-articleLarge.jpg

  20. JON EWALL profile image71
    JON EWALLposted 7 years ago

    hubbers

    Well the CBO finally came up with a partial estimate of the cost in the healthcare bill. Sorry to say the white house, Obama and the Dem's estimates were way low.
    The difference is in the $ 100 billions more cost and in some parts of the bill it was impossible to calculate the additional cost.
    There will be more states that will join in the future.
    The press and the news medias have been silent for some time, wonder why
    P s Let's not forget that the student loan take over was in the bill, that cost has not been checked as yet..

    1. Randy Godwin profile image94
      Randy Godwinposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Was that "Oh Happy Day" playing in the background?  And are you sure that isn't a photo of Teddy Kennedy you are using for your profile pic?

      1. JON EWALL profile image71
        JON EWALLposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        96Randy Godwin

        YOU ARE SO RIGHT ON THE SONG AND PIC

 
working