Snerk of the week
 

thunder wrote:
On Mon, 17 Aug 2009 08:03:53 -0400, Lu Powell wrote:


Now, what's the party line in light of this from Bloomerg?

I don't know what the party line is, but, IMO, Obama better start playing
hardball or his Presidency is going to become a wasted one. His bi-
partisan efforts have failed. The Republicans aren't playing. It's time
for him to control his party, and start ramming legislation down the
Party of No's throat. To allow a small minority to control this debate
is a major mistake.

From what I've heard, the republicans weren't invited to play. It's
good to see that O's "ram it down the throats" tactic is meeting
resistance.

Snerk of the week
 

On Mon, 17 Aug 2009 09:23:14 -0400, JustWait wrote:


So maybe anti-trust legislation, Tort reform should be the basis for a
"rework", not taking it over and running it into the ground...

The reason for the success of the capitalist system, is competition. So,
I don't have any problems with strong anti-trust legislation. Tort
reform is another matter. I could see setting a threshold before
allowing a lawsuit, but if some incompetent doctor botches an operation,
making me a paraplegic, or worse, dead, I want the ability to sue. My
family will need to be provided for. I don't understand people wanting
to give up their rights, to protect incompetence.

Snerk of the week
 

On Mon, 17 Aug 2009 09:28:20 -0400, J i m wrote:


From what I've heard, the republicans weren't invited to play. It's
good to see that O's "ram it down the throats" tactic is meeting
resistance.

Well, regardless of Obama's successes or failures, the Republicans aren't
coming back. Demographics will tell you that. Until Republicans become
an inclusive party, they are in the wilderness, where they belong.

Snerk of the week
 

In article ,
says...

thunder wrote:
On Mon, 17 Aug 2009 08:03:53 -0400, Lu Powell wrote:


Now, what's the party line in light of this from Bloomerg?

I don't know what the party line is, but, IMO, Obama better start playing
hardball or his Presidency is going to become a wasted one. His bi-
partisan efforts have failed. The Republicans aren't playing. It's time
for him to control his party, and start ramming legislation down the
Party of No's throat. To allow a small minority to control this debate
is a major mistake.

From what I've heard, the republicans weren't invited to play. It's
good to see that O's "ram it down the throats" tactic is meeting
resistance.

The facts are strong. They haven't even been allowed at the table in
most cases, except to watch.. The far left here can't believe that
because Rachael Maddow (man, one ugly bitch) didn't report it yet.. Of
course MSNBC being owned by GE, who stands to make Billions over time on
the health care records end wouldn't let her even if she had the class
to really report facts...

--
Wafa free since 2009

Snerk of the week
 

On Mon, 17 Aug 2009 09:25:22 -0400, JustWait wrote:


Yeah, dozens of amendments, all squashed.. Biparitzan my ass... Just
because he says it doesn't mean it's true. The dems are not allowing the
repubs a say, they won and they keep reminding us of that.. Bipartizan?
snerk how rediculous...

They weren't all squashed. Isakson's "death panel" made it in. ;-)

Snerk of the week
 

In article ,
says...

On Mon, 17 Aug 2009 09:23:14 -0400, JustWait wrote:


So maybe anti-trust legislation, Tort reform should be the basis for a
"rework", not taking it over and running it into the ground...

The reason for the success of the capitalist system, is competition. So,
I don't have any problems with strong anti-trust legislation. Tort
reform is another matter. I could see setting a threshold before
allowing a lawsuit, but if some incompetent doctor botches an operation,
making me a paraplegic, or worse, dead, I want the ability to sue. My
family will need to be provided for. I don't understand people wanting
to give up their rights, to protect incompetence.

Nobody here wants to give up that right, just want to get it back to
reality so doctors can be doctors again...

--
Wafa free since 2009

Snerk of the week
 

In article ,
says...

On Mon, 17 Aug 2009 09:28:20 -0400, J i m wrote:


From what I've heard, the republicans weren't invited to play. It's
good to see that O's "ram it down the throats" tactic is meeting
resistance.

Well, regardless of Obama's successes or failures, the Republicans aren't
coming back. Demographics will tell you that. Until Republicans become
an inclusive party, they are in the wilderness, where they belong.

Yeah, let's just have one party rule.. I just don't get the math though
with slightly over 50% voting for Obama... You are suggesting nearly
half of the population being repub, they are though? Like I said, only
if freedom of speech is quelled by keeping email lists or bills like the
fairness act. Still doesn't mean half of America just should sit and let
the elite limosine liberals run our lives..

--
Wafa free since 2009

Snerk of the week
 

In article ,
says...

On Mon, 17 Aug 2009 09:25:22 -0400, JustWait wrote:


Yeah, dozens of amendments, all squashed.. Biparitzan my ass... Just
because he says it doesn't mean it's true. The dems are not allowing the
repubs a say, they won and they keep reminding us of that.. Bipartizan?
snerk how rediculous...

They weren't all squashed. Isakson's "death panel" made it in. ;-)

So, now you don't support the end of life panels??? Sounds like all you
really care about is squashing the competition and forcing your party
views on everybody.. So, are you like Harry and Al Gore, just think you
are smarter so we should all just shut up and pay up???

--
Wafa free since 2009

Snerk of the week
 

On Mon, 17 Aug 2009 09:39:46 -0400, JustWait wrote:


Nobody here wants to give up that right, just want to get it back to
reality so doctors can be doctors again...

Well, what kind of tort reform are you talking about? The only tort
reform I ever hear about is capping damage awards.

If doctors have a bitch about malpractice insurance, they should take it
up with their insurance providers, because, frankly, there are quite a
few doctors that shouldn't be practicing medicine.

Snerk of the week
 

On Mon, 17 Aug 2009 09:58:13 -0400, JustWait wrote:


So, now you don't support the end of life panels??? Sounds like all you
really care about is squashing the competition and forcing your party
views on everybody.. So, are you like Harry and Al Gore, just think you
are smarter so we should all just shut up and pay up???

No, actually, I think end of life counseling is a good idea, voluntary of
course. Living wills are prudent, and put the decisions in the hands of
the individual, where they belong, not in the hands of grieving loved
ones, who under the emotional stress of the moment, have enough on their
plate.