the rich are doing OK thank god!!
 

In article ,
says...

"Secular Humoresque" wrote in message
...
In article ,
says...

"Secular Humoresque" wrote in message
...
In article ,
says...

On 10/7/10 8:03 AM, Jim wrote:
On 10/7/2010 7:58 AM, Harry® wrote:

She's about as slippery as a greased pig. She won't let facts or
logic
stand in her way.

I'm the real Harry, and I post from a PC or a MAC, as virtually
everyone
knows. If a post is attributed to me, and it isn't from a PC or a
MAC,
it's from an ID spoofer who hasn't the balls to post with his
current
IDBoatless Harry
###


It is obvious you are not "the real Harry," but just another of the
weak
personality morons who can only get attention here by posing as
another
poster. If you were posting under your own "handle," hardly anyone
would
pay attention to you. Other posters here claim you are either
flajim,
loogy, or tosk. That's probably the case, since all three of them
are
very similar in many ways.


I can certainly understand why flajim, loogy or tosk would not want to
post as flajim, loogy or tosk. All three are candidates for the
scoops.

I think it's time to call Hertvik's wife and tell her what he did to
John. That should straighten things out.

Who's going to do that... a coward who hides behind another's ID??
Careful, the light of day may hit you when you crawl out from under that
rock.

Sorry, you are the coward little buddy. Hide behind an ID?? Is your real
name YukonBound? I've stated here for years that anybody that doesn't
post using their real name is a pussy. As far as a ball-less coward,
that would be you. YOU were the one who stated here that you were going
to call someone's wife, then backed down like a scared little girl.

That you, freak?

Don, you should quit trying. You're just making yourself look stupid.

the rich are doing OK thank god!!
 

wrote in message
...
On Thu, 7 Oct 2010 00:47:08 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-0...elections.html

You said "hidden"

Yes. So, please tell us who is contributing money to the US Chamber of
Commerce and how that money is being kept separated from the funds that
group is throwing at attack ads for Republicans.

http://thinkprogress.org/2010/10/05/...mber-commerce/

It is no different than the 537s for the unions, banks and the trial
lawyers. If you just want to say there is too much bribe money in
politics, where do I sign?

This is much different in the volume of money esp. My recollection is that
537s had to disclose contributors. That has now changed and opened up the
flood gates.

the rich are doing OK thank god!!
 

wrote in message
...
On Thu, 7 Oct 2010 00:47:08 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

Again, with Reid's office. Please show us some citation that describes
this
secret meeting in his office.

Did you ever watch "Obama's Deal" on PBS (Frontline). I am sure it is
still up on PBS.ORG



The synopsis seems to indicate the normal course of events for getting
legislation done, except that there's a corrosive environment promulgated by
Republicans. I see no mention of any secret meeting in Reid's office.

the rich are doing OK thank god!!
 

wrote in message
...
On Thu, 07 Oct 2010 05:59:17 -0400, Secular Humoresque
wrote:

On 10/7/10 2:05 AM, wrote:
On Wed, 6 Oct 2010 18:39:57 -0700,
wrote:




What does Karl Rove have to do with a health care bill written in
Harry Reids office?

It wasn't "written in Harry Reid's office." Nice try. The
Republicans
made
lots of contributions, as did Democrats, and unfortunately too many
lobbyists and not enough regular people.

Bull****, the bill that came from the Democrats in the senate was
written without any input from the republicans. Nice try tho.

Completely untrue.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezr...ealth_car.html

Nice try with an alternate set of facts.

Those are "ideas" the GOP still did not have anyone around when the
bill was written.

Yet those "ideas" were part of the bill. So, the Democrats who wrote
the
final draft didn't just use their own ideas. QED

Of the "five" Ezra says are in the bill he really only cited 3. There
is no real tort reform and the fifth was not even defined. I agree
they threw a few bones in there to try to get a GOP vote or two but
the fact remains the GOP was not in there helping to write this bill.
Normally these kinds of things come out of a bipartisan committee, not
the Senate Majority leader's office.


It should be obvious even to you that no matter what was in that bill,
the Republicans wouldn't have voted for it if it represented any sort of
progress because, as we know, the Republicans are doing whatever they
can to prevent *any* legislative accomplishments for the current
president.

The country would have been far better off if Obama had just said, "We
gave the Republicans their chance many times, **** 'em."

The bill that finally was passed is too compromised and is nothing more
than a beginning in a process that will take decades. We're not going to
resolve our medical insurance catastrophes until we get the private
for-profit sector out of the primary medical insurance business. There
should be nothing sacrosanct about "profit making" when it doesn't serve
the public's interest. The United States does not exist for the purpose
of corporate profit.
\

They passed the bill they though they could hold all 60 democratic
votes with. If they had leaned any more to the left they would have
walked away with nothing. I still think nothing may have been better
and take another swing at it.
The real problem is that the insurance companies bribed enough
democrats that their success was going to be assured. Everything else
was window dressing. All this bill did was deliver 20 million more
paying customers to the insurers. There was no help with the price and
the taxpayer picked up a little more of it. The money still goes to
the same weasels you guys hate.

No, that's not "all it did." That's just a talking point and has no basis in
reality.

the rich are doing OK thank god!!
 

wrote in message
...
On Thu, 7 Oct 2010 10:37:05 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:


wrote in message
. ..
On Thu, 7 Oct 2010 00:47:08 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-0...elections.html

You said "hidden"

Yes. So, please tell us who is contributing money to the US Chamber of
Commerce and how that money is being kept separated from the funds that
group is throwing at attack ads for Republicans.

http://thinkprogress.org/2010/10/05/...mber-commerce/

It is no different than the 537s for the unions, banks and the trial
lawyers. If you just want to say there is too much bribe money in
politics, where do I sign?

This is much different in the volume of money esp. My recollection is that
537s had to disclose contributors. That has now changed and opened up the
flood gates.


There are lots of ways hidden ways to funnel corporate money into
politics and both parties use them. Do you know about opensecrets.org?

Sure... but they don't have access to the actual data.

the rich are doing OK thank god!!
 

wrote in message
...
On Thu, 7 Oct 2010 11:45:20 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:


wrote in message
. ..
On Thu, 7 Oct 2010 00:47:08 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

Again, with Reid's office. Please show us some citation that describes
this
secret meeting in his office.

Did you ever watch "Obama's Deal" on PBS (Frontline). I am sure it is
still up on PBS.ORG



The synopsis seems to indicate the normal course of events for getting
legislation done, except that there's a corrosive environment promulgated
by
Republicans. I see no mention of any secret meeting in Reid's office.


You didn't watch the same show I did then or you were in the bathroom.
They even name the UHC lobbyists who wrote the bill.
Nobody said it was a secret meeting either. That was just where the
text of the bill came from.

If I get a minute I will clip out that segment and put it up on my web
site as an MP3.

I never said I watched the show. I looked at the synopsis.

So, it's somehow immoral to meet in someone's office? It's not clear that
they actually did meet there, but it sure is a great Republican talking
point... it's REID's fault!

the rich are doing OK thank god!!
 

wrote in message
...
On Thu, 7 Oct 2010 11:46:09 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

They passed the bill they though they could hold all 60 democratic
votes with. If they had leaned any more to the left they would have
walked away with nothing. I still think nothing may have been better
and take another swing at it.
The real problem is that the insurance companies bribed enough
democrats that their success was going to be assured. Everything else
was window dressing. All this bill did was deliver 20 million more
paying customers to the insurers. There was no help with the price and
the taxpayer picked up a little more of it. The money still goes to
the same weasels you guys hate.

No, that's not "all it did." That's just a talking point and has no basis
in
reality.


There are lots of things in that bill but in the end they all funnel
right into the same pipe. There is still no alternative to the
existing insurance/medco establishment so there is no reason to expect
any savings.
I am not defending the GOP position but the democrats caved into it
anyway because they couldn't hold 60 senators either if they tried
public option.


There was never a serious plan to replace the existing establishment. Again,
that's just right-wing paranoia. No single payer legislation was every
seriously considered... and I'm not defending that either.

Public opinion is actually in favor of much better legislation and much more
in line with a single payer system when you break it down into
understandable language.

the rich are doing OK thank god!!
 

wrote in message
...
On Thu, 7 Oct 2010 13:04:51 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

There are lots of ways hidden ways to funnel corporate money into
politics and both parties use them. Do you know about opensecrets.org?

Sure... but they don't have access to the actual data.

They have the actual numbers reported to the government but you are
right that details from bundlers are unavailable.
That is true for both parties although your blinders only allow you to
see good things about democrats and bad things about republicans.
I have no problem seeing both of them being weasels.

Except that the Republicans are getting (as website said) 8:1 on the money.
And, we can't see the foreign interest money, which would be illegal if
discovered.

the rich are doing OK thank god!!
 

wrote in message
...
On Thu, 7 Oct 2010 13:06:46 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

The synopsis seems to indicate the normal course of events for getting
legislation done, except that there's a corrosive environment
promulgated
by
Republicans. I see no mention of any secret meeting in Reid's office.


You didn't watch the same show I did then or you were in the bathroom.
They even name the UHC lobbyists who wrote the bill.
Nobody said it was a secret meeting either. That was just where the
text of the bill came from.

If I get a minute I will clip out that segment and put it up on my web
site as an MP3.

I never said I watched the show. I looked at the synopsis.

Yet you still feel competent to refute the findings. Amazing.
Bear in mind this is PBS, not Fox.

The synopsis was misleading? Well, ok.


So, it's somehow immoral to meet in someone's office? It's not clear that
they actually did meet there, but it sure is a great Republican talking
point... it's REID's fault!

It is immoral to write a bill behind closed doors that affects the
whole country

That's pretty much how legislation has been done for the last, what, 100
years? more?

So, if it was behind closed doors, then it was hidden? Just checking.

the rich are doing OK thank god!!
 

wrote in message
...
On Thu, 7 Oct 2010 16:42:01 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

If I get a minute I will clip out that segment and put it up on my web
site as an MP3.

I never said I watched the show. I looked at the synopsis.

Yet you still feel competent to refute the findings. Amazing.
Bear in mind this is PBS, not Fox.

The synopsis was misleading? Well, ok.

I am just saying you can't put all of a 56 minute show in a 3 line
synopsis.
I have it ripped into an MP3 file and I will clip out the part I am
talking about later tonight. Maybe you should hear the deal they made
with Billy Touzin too (the Pharma lobbyist)
I can put the whole 56 minutes on my web site if you like. (burn you a
CD or whatever) It is pretty interesting.

I can probably get it... I think I found a link to view it directly. I'm
sure it's interesting! Sort of like making sausage. :)