yeah...seriously

Yes, that is a bit better. "Tolerate" to me means you don't like something, but you'll live with it while holding your nose.

Funny how people can read someone's thoughts different. What I thought MBBF was trying to say was, I'm opposed to HCR, but if you are going to do something, shit or get off the toilet.

Given his history I'm not willing to see his criticism of the process as sincere. He doesn't like the bill, doesn't want it to pass and has praised some of the tactics employed to stop it. It's much more honest for him to shout "Hooray!" rather than pretend he's concern for the Dems.

To take a concept, apply it across the spectrum of lifestyles, and not be realistic about holding your nose in certain cases is very much a Pollyanna viewpoint.

Which is exactly what my point was of course.

Copenhagen summit has ended with no deal whatsoever. I can't believe that the President or the Congressmen who went to the summit even saw this situation deteriorating to this level or he never would have bothered to show up. Charlie Rangel rambled on this morning in Denmark about how Obama would unite the world and get a deal done. That apparantly will not happen and likely is dead in the water with no firm deadline for any agreement. This was a big plank in his campaign. It's certainly not a broken promise per se, but it's a promise that was not delivered.

I'm personally happy that we didn't have to dole out another $100B in taxpayer dollars to foreign countries. We've got enough issues at home.

premature spinster?

msnbc.com -

BREAKING NEWS: U.S., China, India reportedly reach ‘meaningful agreement’ at climate summit

Not sure that anybody really expected him to have much success with this, but if you want to paint INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION ON CLIMATE CHANGE WITH 190+ OTHER NATIONS as a huge plank in Obama's campaign...sure. Reality of the situation is that there are far too many variables, and far too many pressing issues at home, for the international segment of this to be a huge plank, or to even be damaging to him at all. I think domestic action on the environment and climate change and "green energy" was a far larger part of his plank than the International conference (and hey at least Obama showed up personally. Other President's probably would have sent like a 17th Undersecretary or something)

so McCain defended Lieberman's being cut off by Franken on the Senate floor when Lieberman asked for "a moment" eyond his allotted time to finish a speech saying that 'never' happens except it happened a few years ago by.....MCCAIn himself cutting someone off himself, Mike Dayton in 2002!

When will McCain announce that he's suspending his campaign until Lieberman gets his extra moment?

well at least the GOP wont be able to use the fiscal responsibility angle in their opposition...


or will they anyways?

I'm not sure that the CBO report guarantees that this will work financially over the long term, though I hope it does.

there is never guarantees but from what I read going out further on the calendar the savings go up.

So then this is a better bill than the single payer system?

I have no idea. Im just saying that the fiscal opposition should vanish.

You do realize that the CBO's claims are projections and could change and will mostly change for better or worse?

Understood but when you hang your hat on something to support your claim, when it later comes out the opposite of what you thought, its Bullshit to then say, "Well its not really right, accurate, etc."

Then you shouldnt have cited it when it was in your favor at first. since you did and thought it valid then, then its fair to consider it valid now.

How far does one have to bend over for energy companies and a political party to be gloating about something good for the environment not getting done? That somehow there are sides to whether we should want pollution pumped into the air is laughable.

DRILL BABY DRILL!!! SCIENCE IS BLASPHEMY!!! CONDOMS ARE MURDER!!!

gotta agree with you on this one RainMaker. sad commentary on us as a species...and i would say a pretty good reason why we no longer deserve to inhabit this planet...one can only hope that situation is rectified.

Which is of course a gross mischaracterization of the situation. There are plenty of people on the 'other' side of the issue that want a firm scientific resolution of the situation. Right now, we have very little firm evidence of climate change and whether it is even man-made.

You want to argue we should cut emissions or clean up general pollutants because we don't need that in our environment? Sounds great. Just don't force it down some people's throats in the form of flimsy science.

MBBF could you cite which science you find flimsy specifically?

I'd agree. You were definitely premature. There was little more than lip service. There was no 'meaningful agreement'. Obama can't just make a statement saying there was an agreement and make it so.

The Real Story Behind Obama's Copenhagen Deal

please...

now youre just a liar. Your statement was that there was "no deal whatsoever". That is a out and out lie. But in your world of spin I guess "no deal whatsoever" doesnt mean "no deal whatsoever" it means "well no deal that I like or Ill categorize as such."

par for the course for the spin land of MBBF

Is the deal far from perfect? yes

is it non binding? yes

does the deal leave much to improve upon? yes

is it a "deal"? yes.

your leadin in once again is misleading. Amazing. 150 pages of a thread filled with lies, spin, rhetoric, GOP talking points, Blog regurge, humbling errors, and not one iota of anything learned. I thought for sure you;d see the light after the Bowling shortbus mishap but alas.

gstelmack has done a great job of summarizing the flaws in the global warming argument. I'd suggest looking through some of his posts on the subject.

I, along with many others, have no problem addressing global warming if it truly exists. But there's been no firm scientific evidence that it does at this point. Most of it is presumptions based on flawed data. That's not a good enough reason to spend billions in taxpayer money and throttle back the world economy on a problem that may or may not exist.

That's what I thought.

Fair enough. You report back on the great impact that this 'agreement' makes on the world and its climate. It's awfully tough to make an impact when you have an agreement with very little agreement, but I'm willing to give it a chance.

If you're not willing to have an honest discussion, that's fine. I made the false assumption that you did. Apologies.

not fair enough. Now you say Very little to hedge yourself, when you shouldve chosen your words better in your leadin...you didnt.

the truth is what I like to deal with. You dont and have proven so time and again...

Here...

this is what your leadin shouldve been:

"Copenhagen ends with deal that is substantially less than what Obama had wanted or promised. The deal is nonbinding and disappointing to many countries involved who'd hoped for somehting much more substantial."

instead you chose to spin and lie.

That's politically correct BS. Nothing was achieved. The above statement still gives far more credit than what actually happened. Obama was trying to save his ass because he knew he was leaving Denmark doing little more than holding his jock. I suppose it could be spun to say it was a well-endowed jock, but it was still a jock.

There was agreement amongst all participants before this conference that unless a binding deal with firm deadlines was made, nothing would happen. There wasn't a binding agreement and there were no firm deadlines. Nothing will happen. The best option for those who support reform is to invest their resources into shoring up their scientific data to prove a direct correlation between temperature change and man-made cause of those changes. If the changes are going to be as drastic as they claim over the short-term, they should have plenty of opportunities to collect data to further their claim.

whatever, its pointless. Youre going to continue to be the same MBBF. You are what we thought you were.

No firm scientific evidence? Through various polls over 90% of climatologists believe in global warming. Not politicians, not message board posters, but actual people who have dedicated their life to the study of our climate. Would you be questioning heart treatment if it was viewed as favorable by over 90% of cardiologists?

You have not posted on the "flimsy evidence". And the "flimsy evidence" you state is not really seen as "flimsy" by the scientific community. The problem with your "I, along with many others" statement is that you're not a fucking scientist. You have not studied climatology, geology, or any of the other sciences involved in this. This is no different than the creationists running around discussing how flimsy the science is on evolution.

Not surprisingly, you've probably noticed that the people on your side of the aisle in this are the same people pushing for creationism in schools. The same people who feel the morning-after pill is abortion and that stem cell research is evil. I know there is this push to turn evolution and climatology into political debates, but it's simply put a science vs anti-science thing. Unfortunately one party has attached themselves to the anti-science constituency.

It wouldn't be a RainMaker argument without..............

No they don't. The "other" side is just energy and other large companies who have a vested financial interest in keeping the status quo. They've suckered a lot of mopes into backing them but that's nothing new. Over 90% of climatologists believe in global warming and have produced thousands of papers with tons of data. You can choose to ignore them just as creationists have chosen to ignore scientific data in regards to evolution.

And when did calling it bad to have pollutants and chemicals pumped into the air become flimsy science? Do you start your car with the garage door shut because those wackos who tell you it will kill you are basing their assesments on flimsy science?

I honestly didn't think there was a debate on whether people wanted clean air and water. This is regardless of the debate on global warming. I just assumed that if we had a choice of having less shit pumped into the air and water, we'd take it. I didn't know people were deepthroating some businesses so much that they'd be against that.

Look at the fucking groups and politicians who are pushing for creationism in schools. Guess what most of them have in common. If you disagree with the statement, let me know.

that's what really gets me - that somehow protecting the environment and making it cleaner has somehow become a political issue. really? you want to move to China to one of those cities where pollution is so bad that 5 year olds have lungs like those of people who have smoked here for 80 years (that's not based on any scientific evidence and is purely just trying to point out the horrible pollution problems in China)?

i don't get it. we have the technology to not pollute as much, so why is it a bad thing? because it costs more money? Last i checked - making businesses spend that money would benefit the economy.

And this is where the big disconnect comes into play. Anyone who assumes that big business will swallow any of these costs is not dealing in any form of reality. These costs are going to get passed directly to the consumer. We're going to pay for it and that will go over as well as a tax increase. We've already seen the backlash from the public in other countries who have implemented a cap and trade system when they saw their bills go up. You can be assured the same thing will happen here. Everyone wants to clean up the environment as long as they're not footing the bill. Eventually, it always gets passed to the individual taxpayers, no matter how it's structured.

i'm fine with it being passed to me. you should be too. the earth has given you plenty throughout your life...time for you to give a little back. and all it's asking for is a few bucks.

Costs being passed on to consumers (either end users or other companies) is the fundamental method of growth for the economy. If there were no reason to have to have more money, then there wouldn't be a need for growth.

But when those costs aren't justified, that's a big problem. I certainly don't disagreee with you in regard to how an economy works. That's Economics 101.

and since MBBf was able to just let this go and move on to his next spin mastering, here is an article with a differing opinion than his on Copenhagen.


So in this case, MBBF this article from CNN has called you a liar and I do too!

You think making the economy cleaner and taking better care of the Earth isn't justified?

Regardless of how close we may or may not be to screwing it up, and to what extent we are (or are not) experiencing global warming - you think that making the earth cleaner is a bad thing? i mean call me crazy but i'd rather have polar bears around, and i'd rather not have acid rain that is so bad that it corrodes the paint on my car, or makes it so that i can't go outside and take a handful of snow and eat it. Rather not have fish dying in rivers, or shit...rivers catching fire!

There was nothing in that article indicating a binding commitment or any firm deadlines. This was the concern before the conference. That people would claim a deal was done and ask them to submit additional information. With no one to hold their feet to the fire, nothing will be achieved. I appreciate your effort, but well wishes and glad-handing do not make an agreement.

I do think it's definitely justified. I've repeatedly stated on this board that it's a great thing to push towards a cleaner environment.

We can do both without any of this climate change nonsense.

Here is what I don't get. You wan't to let companies do whatever they want because it may hurt their bottom line.

It's akin to me crashing my car into your house. Getting out of the car, shrugging my shoulders and telling you that I'd love to pay for the damages, but that would hurt me financially. That financial loss to me would hurt other businesses in the area that I couldn't afford to shop at any longer and cost people jobs and money. So just throw a tarp up on the hole and deal with the consequences because my financial situation is much more important than your life.

The disconnect is this notion that major businesses with more revenues than the GDP of most nations can't figure out a way to slowly adapt to some new regulations. If there is money to be made, someone will find a way to make it. If these companies can't innovate and adapt, then they will go out of business and be replaced by those who can. You create the rules to benefit the country and the world as a whole and let the brightest people figure out how to play within those rules.

We had the same backlash when safety rules and regulations are placed on any industry. Whether it's pharmaceuticals, cars, or food. The automobile industry had the same complaints when the government started passing new safety standards many years ago. They then proceeded to go on to have some of their most profitable decades. Sometimes government has to step in for the greater good of the people to start up innovation in a field. Otherwise we continue on in the rut we're in with cars right now where MPG haven't gotten better in 25 years (while virtually every other technology on the planet has seen exponential gains).

I certainly don't think we should look at Carbon Cap and Trade given how SO2 Cap and Trade programs destroyed the economy as predicted by the energy lobby.

You open up competition and there will be a company who won't pass their costs on. You'll have companies who find out how to absorb the costs or even avoid them altogether. Innovation in a market can do wonders.

And pass-through costs are sometimes unavoidable. All our food is tested by the manufacturers to ensure we don't come down with disease. That is a cost that must be passed on to consumers. Are you opposed to regulations on testing of food since it causes pass-through costs to consumers? Lets go one step further, why should nuclear power plants be required to have safety personnel staffed when that is just passing extra costs on to our energy bills?

I'll ignore the rest of the post as it was based on this original fallacy. I do not want to let companies do whatever they want to avoid hurting their bottom line. I have no issues with environmental law to clean up the environment. There's a mountain of evidence that shows that the U.S. needs to work on enforcement of environmental laws along with passing a few new ones to close the loopholes. You can do all that with the backing of solid scientific evidence not in any way related to global warming to justify those changes.

Isn't it difficult to do both when you don't believe in what scientists who are experts in the field believe? Kind of like saying I think it's great to push healthy lives but I don't believe in doctors.

And all of that is justifiable with solid research. If it can be shown that it's a needed expense, I've got no problem with it. That doesn't exist with global warming.

MBBF could you cite which science you find nonsense specifically?

Define solid scientific evidence since you don't believe in the scientists who have degrees in the particular field of study. If you don't believe climatologists when it comes to the study of our climate, who do you propose be the people who provide the "solid scientific evidence"?

The problem right now is that we are asking successful Americans and Europeans to stop ramming their cars into other people's houses...and we are going to ask successful Americans and Europeans to pay for less fortunate people to stop ramming into other people's houses...*AND*...while we are at it, let's go ahead and ask successful Americans and Europeans to pay for China and India to not run their cars into people's houses. And not just the corrupt Americans and Europeans that have done a great job making America and Europe great, but the hard-working, innovative, and economic leaders of America and Europe as well.

That's obviously not the argument here. The research is not nearly adequate enough at this point given the many issues with scientist motivations and data collection issues.

I will say that I'm encouraged that the EPA will likely be getting involved soon with CO2 being classified as harmful to the environment by the administration. They require arguments with full data reveals on both side of the issue to be submitted before making any kinds of rulings. That's something that is desparately needed at this point.

As I stated before, gstelmack did a far better job summarizing the argument against global warming than I ever could. I'll see if I can track a few of his posts down if you are unable to find them.

What scientist motivations and data collection issues specifically have caused you to believe that the research is not nearly adequate?

It is the argument. You have stated that the science is flimsy while the scientists who are experts in the field state otherwise.

So I'm asking if you don't believe what climatologists have come up with, who is the trusted source in your mind for this science?

It's not necessary, I remember the posts. I was just wondering, for someone who blathers on incessantly like you do, if YOU actually believed any of it or if it was just background for your talking points.

seems like you're majorly splitting hairs MBBF. you're pro-environment and pro-environmental regulation, but anti "climate change."

if all the results of the "climate change" "nonsense" or whatever you want to call it, results in a net-positive for the environment though then isn't that a good thing? if so maybe you should spend less time railing against "climate change" and coming off as "anti-environment" and move on to other things?

Unfortunately though, the cars in China and India that are running into homes have an effect on us. The same for the less fortunate.

Isn't this similar to the wars going on that you and MBBF support? We are spending money and sacrificing lives in these countries because what is going on there has an effect on what happens here. It may not be fair, but it's part of life. We often have to do things in other countries or for the less fortunate because the consequences of doing nothing will have an impact on our quality of life.

I do believe that more research and release of data needs to be done. If it's an open and shut case, it should be relatively easy to produce all raw data and allow everyone to draw their own conclusions. Additional research shouldn't be that difficult, agreed?


I'm against passing laws and policies that may or may not be justified. That's much different than what you've implied here.

Oh, and you'll be happy to know that the polar bear population is in good standing.

Polar bears 'thriving as the Arctic warms up' - Telegraph

the best part of the article you cite is in paragraph two where they make the assumption that humans are having an effect on the global warming:


later and probably more importantly


Just put simply. MBBF is not to be believed on anything. The man is a spinster, a regurgitator, and usually wrong in his predictions (see the iran thread for a most recent one)

Here's where you and I differ. I don't think it's a misstep to post an article that presents both sides of the discussion in an article. I post it to allow people to draw their own conclusions based on what they read in the article. I knew exactly what I was posting when I put it up.

THE ISSUE is that you don't summarize both sides of the article, or reference that there are two sides, in your lead-in. you simply summarize the side that supports your position.

The basis of the article was not the critical side, but the side supporting an increase in population. Given that was the main context of the article, it's not a problem to summarize it as such. Perhaps a better point is that you should read the entire article posted, rather than assuming that the lead-in produced by the author of the article is the only one being presented in that article.

That's one area and a rather small one in regards to polar bear population. There are other areas with larger populations that have seen major declines like West Hudson Bay. A lot of the talk of declining population is based on future estimates by scientists (those evil people who make up stuff).

There is a bit of irony as you've railed against scientists for having agendas. You then post a news article from a conservative news outlet that cites a study paid for by a group of people who have a vested interest in it showing polar bears not being protected.

I don't disagree with your assessment. I'm glad that they represented it as such. It's a far more honest understanding of the situation when it's presented in this way. I posted an article that presented both sides of the argument and that's how the rest of this climate change debate should be handled. Open and honest representation of the situation.

:eek:

I...I don't even know how to respond to that. I'm speechless. You can't absolve yourself of responsibility for the impartiality of the "lead in" that you compose before you post the link.

I guess it makes sense on some level though, you can find an article, determine what the "critical side" or "main context" of the article is that supports what you want to prove and then post it with that as the lead in.

That's intellectual laziness to the Nth degree.

You can't take any news article or report or study in a vacuum. You have to consider (or at least be clear about up-fronting) the bias and the way in which that skews things.

Then again, that's my history-major self speaking, and I suppose it is an awfully high standard to hold someone to when posting links on a messageboard on the internet.

Still, my point stands about you not being able to absolve yourself of responsibility for the lead-up to the link that you post stands though.

I might have missed it but is nobody talking about the fact that Nebraska's senator was bribed ,or held the government hostage depending on which way you look at it, in order to pass the health care bill? I'm just amazed that this is even possible. 100% of it's cost to Nebraska? Forever? Are you kidding?

Those "less fortunate" will become only "more fortunate" while there is still money to be freely taken. The problem though, is eventually we run out of money. I'd say we have an issue that can be solved with capitalism, not in spite of capitalism.


Iraq and Afghanistan were primarily Americas problem and we primarily paid for it. The Europeans are already paying ungodly ammounts for gasoline and their economies have suffered greatly from it.

The Green movement is not simply an American problem. It's global. I'm finding that the "global" part of this effort generally finds itself just sitting around smoking their cigars and pointing their fingers at America. Basically, they ain't doing anything of significance...that's on us. I'm surprised that you honestly think this sounds like the right approach for a global issue.

The Earth was once covered with about a mile thick layer of ice. Did me and MBBF's carbon emissions cause that to melt? I am pretty sure there were no human beings around during the "de-icing"

There is no doubt that human beings are doing some damage to the environment, the question is why this is another "I’m fine with it being passed to me. you should be too. the earth has given you plenty throughout your life...time for you to give a little back. and all it's asking for is a few bucks." The same with health care "I'm fine paying a few more dollars so that everyone can have health care. We don't want everyone to die do we?”

How about I offer a solution of where this money comes from? The war in the middle East, the war on terror, and the war on drugs are absolute failures. More people are dying from these three wars than lack of health insurance. How about ending these and using that money to pay for health insurance and environmental measures? The democrats were critics of all of these until they got power, right?

Why do we have to keep adding programs while never eliminating the ones that either don't work at all (war on drugs) or are no longer effective or worth the money (war in Afghanistan)? Instead we get the same bullshit. Government getting larger, predictions about the new programs not costing anything (anyone without partisan blinders can see right through this line of bullshit), and nothing ever getting removed. That’s the problem.

And thats not even a Libertarian solution. It is just a common sense solution.

Wife: "I want a new car"
Husband: "Okay, well let's cut back on something and we can do it"

Government: "I want a new car"
Government: "Go ahead and buy it. We might make more money in a couple of years so we can pay for it then"

Thats okay. There aren't any corporate fat cats in Nebraska so them being treated differently isn't a big deal to this administration. Now if Texas wanted the same deal, can't do it.

Nope. Fucking redonkulous.

Nelson isn't even close to the only one using this bill to pad his state's coffers. Dodd and Landrieu are a couple others who are using the bill to land pork for their states. I'm sure I've missed some.

Your first paragraph is just crap and clearly ignores the broader (expected) climactic changes that the Earth has undergone through the years. Those changes were relatively normalized and expected due to other factors and are separate and distinct from the "global warming" issues that are manmade. You seem like an intelligent person - I honestly thought you were.

Your second paragraph I left out because it's just buildup.

I agree 100% with your third and fourth paragraphs (bolded). 100%. The reason we never end failing programs or policies is because there is too much federal $$ wrapped up in them. Those $$ provide jobs in Senator's home states, or Representative's home districts, they fund lobbyists to keep things going, etc.

But it is ridiculous. I agree with you there.

I am not a global warming doubter at all. I am just a realist about human nature and know that more taxes on me are not going to change what a guy does in India or China (or our own federal government!!!) and there are better ways of tackling the problem than the standard "tax the corporations". I was mocked (due to a paragraph about elephant tusks, of course ignoring the point of the article) when I presented a Libertarian viewpoint that the federal government is responsible for over 50% of the pollution. How about they clean up their act first and then ask the private industry to follow suit.

like i said - i agree with you 100% on the financial aspects of it.

as far as govt. responsibility - i don't see why they should have to clean up their act FIRST...they could clean it up at the same time I think.

Analogy (sometimes these work, sometimes they don't)...

My city decides to tax ALL of the homeowners (including those who take care of their houses) for not taking care of their property. (weeds, shutters falling off, cracks in driveways) The money will be used to fix up everyones houses. What I left out is that the city's property is worse than any of the homeowners and they won't even use most of this money to fix up the houses but waste it on some other project.

it sickens me that people in this country in this day & age can go bankrupt because somebody in their family falls sick...all in the name of protecting profits for somebody else.

it's fucking shameful.

Money can be cut from other areas. Some pointless wars is a good place to start. War on Drugs would be another. Then maybe legalizing something that people do regardless (online gambling) and making a few bucks off that.

Capitalism has its advantages and disadvantages. The problem with using capitalism to solve an issue for the world is that pollution isn't a problem for capitalism. Businesses work in their own best interests and nothing else. They would pump poison into your house if they legally could and it made them money. It is businesses job to look after the best interests of themselves and government to look after the best interests of their citizens. They work in conjunction and there is give and take.

We've had a capitalistic system for energy and automobiles. Over the last 25 years, cars haven't really improved much in terms of MPG. We haven't seen much advance at all in energy. When industries fail to innovate and advance our society technologically, sometimes the government has to step in and give them a nudge. No one is killing capitalism, just saying they have to play by a set of rules. If the companies out there can't make it happen under those rules, some others will come forward and do it.

It sucks that we won't get much help from other nations. I do think we should put pressure on in any way we can and use our power as leverage. Many of these countries are heavily invested in the United States and we can make those investments less profitable rather quickly. When you've got the most chips at the table, you've got control of the game. Obama has made the mistake of trying to appease these countries and beg for their help instead of dictating what's going to happen from here on out.

Regardless, sometimes you have to foot the bill when other countries can't or won't if it's in the best interest of your citizens. We frequently get involved in health matters in other countries when there is an outbreak of disease. We don't sit around and say "well if they won't pay for it themselves, why should we have to?". Reason being of course that the outbreak over there can spread over here and do us damage. Their disinterest is not a reason for us to be passive in doing what's best for our country.

I guess Obama is a capitalist now. In any event, call him what you want, but as long as American soldiers are in those places, I'd say the President of the United States doesn't think the reasons are pointless. So go talk to him about it. I think for the most part, the dreamer in Obama has been tempered by the reality of our foreign policy. So far I think he's making the right choices here.


This sounds more like your anger with politicians in general than with capitalism.


Which form of government does solve issues for the world?


Capitalism has actually been in charge of energy and automobiles for 100 years and it's worked out pretty well so far. I'd say that over-regulation, monopolies, and labor unions have fucked both industries. Those are not really capitalistic ideals. Perhaps we should reform but for the right reasons, not the wrong ones.


Welcome to what we should already know. The USA is #1 and the rest of the world (in some way or another) wants to be #1. That simple logic really. They won't just "be helpful". Ever, not unless something's in it for them. They have elections to win too, afterall.


Agreed. Sometimes we do have to go it alone. But if the only thing we end up doing is shooting ourselves in the head, I'm not going to support it.

Which ice age are you refering to? If you are refering to the last ice age, you would be wrong about no humans being around. If you are refering to 'snowball' earth, then I would have to say you would be correct.

The reality is more domestic than foreign. I really don't believe he feels the war in Afghanistan is necessary or doing much. But he also realizes there is a large percent of the population who wants to be fighting in wars they are too pussy to fight in themselves.

I think one that weighs the economic effects with those of the well-being of its citizens.

It has? We're 100 years in and still can't find a way to offer a car to the public not powered by fossil fuels and combustible engines. We haven't seen a MPG advance in 25 years and cars really haven't added much but some luxury features since the 50's. The biggest advance we've seen has been in the area of safety, which actually has more to do with the government forcing car companies into it than them doing it on their own.

Now take a look at the industry of air transportation. Look at the advances we've had in the last 100 years. It's quite embarassing to see the difference in innovation in the two.

And I wouldn't say a union or monopoly doesn't have capitalistic ideals. If a business achieved it's monopoly status by dominating its competition in the marketplace, that's as capatalistic as it gets. If a union is using its workers skills to negotiate a higher pay in a free market, how is that not capitalism? Unions and monopolies are negative aspects of capitalism that you are trying to pawn off as something else because you want the word to be pure.

Article about the Husker payoff included in the health care bill.

How Nebraska's Insurance Companies Stand To Profit From Ben Nelson's Compromises In Health Care Bill

Claim that White House is texting MSNBC's 'Morning Joe' hosts while they are on the air.........

The Radio Equalizer: Brian Maloney: MSNBC Libtalker: 'Morning Joe' Team Takes Direction From WH

You said there was no deal. That was a lie. You may not have been happy with the deal, as I am not happy with the deal but you lied. I didnt.

Now everyone please read the second link he posted in full. Schultz, surmises and suspects what MBBF 'claims', in the article, but it isn't proven it's just his speculation. Even so why should a PR person from the WH be able to email or text Journalists to give their opinion on something?

MBBF is as bad or worse than I think he's ever been on here.

I disagree. I'd actually like to give credit where credit is due - notice in the second link he prefaces it by saying "claim" and in the first one there's no editorializing.

KUDOS TO MBBF

I think it will be much more productive and lead to potentially better discussino about the substance of the links rather than the poster. At least I hope.

#1 is despicable. I don't think you'll find much disagreement that that was a straight-payoff. Then again, with the (R)'s becoming the "Party of No" and there being no attempt made by them to negotiate or reach a workable bipartisan solution, hands got forced. Not saying that makes it "okay" or anything, but I'm not sure you can place the entirety of the blame soley on the one party trying to get stuff done.

#2 is absolute 100% speculation. There's no basis in fact or anything. It's just complete conjecture. Complete non-story.

hmmm, maybe DT's right. I blew past Claim and attributed more weight to the word than perhaps I shouldve. Ill retract my vomit since the word "claim" was used. And here I am the word parser...missing out on that. Apologies.

Interesting Poll Results on the new Healthcare Bill (note the source of the poll please)


I happen to agree FWIW. It's not currently "healthcare reform" it's "health insurance mandate."

It's hard to dismiss the stance by the Republican party when they are the ones currently siding with the majority of Americans on this current bill. There's nothing wrong with saying 'No'. And we have a big difference of opinion on what constitutes 'trying to get stuff done'. Doing things for the sake of doing them isn't accomplishing anything. We also differ on what should be done when 'hands are forced'. I don't believe that the best way to resolve that is to give away billions in taxpayer dollars to secure votes. That's extremely counter-productive and doesn't "change" anything.

Claim that George Bush was involved in 9/11 planning.........

Bush' Complicit Role in 911 Attack -- HIGH TREASON

We disagree that the Republican party is siding with the majority of Americans on the need for healthcare reform. As far as this current bill - it's certainly very flawed. But the way to fix that and make it a better bill is not through a straight yes/no vote, but through submitting ideas and working to craft a better bill (something you admitted earlier that you were frustrated the Republicans hadn't done in this very case).

It's not "doing something for the sake of doing something." It's "doing something because the healthcare system in this country is broken - too many medical bankruptcies, too many people without coverage, too many people with coverage paying too high a % of their wages."

We don't differ on what should be done when hands are forced - I agree it's despicable. Not sure what the alternative was though given the situation. And it's disingenuous to pretend that it doesn't happen with every bill that goes through Congress to a degree. It's also disingenuous to say "billions" as if it was billions of dollars in one year.

That being said - if Republicans were willing to work with Democrats and actually engage in constructive dialogue and work to try to make a bipartisan bill then there wouldn't have had to be this massive giveaway to Nebraska.

Of course you'll say "they didn't want to work with them because they don't think there's a need for reform."

And that's where the majority of Americans disagree. And we can both cite polls till we're blue in the face that are slanted by their questions either way to show that.

Above and beyond that though, the number of uninsured, and the number of medical bankruptcies in this country, and the rising cost of health-insurance on the middle-class (which you are a member of let's not forget), seem to offer fairly ironclad proof that healthcare reform is long overdue.

Actually, the reason MPG hasn't improved is because the size of our cars and our "need" for high horsepower engines. Capitalists only give you what you want, so if you want an SUV or a mini-van with 300 horsepower so Mom can feel "safe" when she's trying to to yield into oncoming traffic on the highway, well, that's what you get. Seems that no one really wants a 45 MPG, 70 horsepower Volkswagen Rabbit anymore.

Well, that's somewhat of a "duh" statement. I'm for healthcare reform if that's the only stipulation in your question. When you start mentioning the specifics, that's where the support plummets.


I don't care what happens. I'm opposed to ALL palm-greasing on ALL sides and the only way to slow that down is to shame these people when they do it.


There's only so many ways you can be constructive when being handed a lousy bill. That doesn't justify giving away millions to one state to secure a vote. That's not constructive in any way.


I've mentioned it before in a previous discussion, but perhaps you missed it. I am not a member of the middle-class. I'm a taxpayer who's family income puts us in the top taxpayer bracket. I'm also soon to be a small business owner and this bill could directly effect how many people I will be hiring this summer when we open in addition to changes in my personal income. I'm Obama's personal piggybank.

#1 - We very much agree here.

#2 - Pretty much the same as #1, we agree here. Although I disagree there aren't ways to be constructive if handed a bill you disagree with. At worst though if you refuse to be constructive then you abrogate the right to complain about the outcome.

#3 - Nope, must have missed that.

Totally disagree with this. If you call it a shit sandwich and it's passed into law and people find out you were right, you certainly can complain about the outcome. Just because the people forcing through the shit sandwich law refused to believe you doesn't change that you called it a shit sandwich.

Edit: Assuming it actually becomes a shit sandwich of course. :)

The GOP wasn't just handed a bill they couldn't vote for. The Senate bill in particular was open to months of negotiations with the GOP, but they refused to negotiate in good faith. Voting against the final product isn't the problem(although I do wonder where the love of an up or down vote went). The problem is their complete refusal to play any part in the process other than hyperbolic fear mongers.

Which simply isn't the case. Even the democrats have mentioned that multiple amendments proposed by GOP members in both sides of the Senate have been accepted into the bill. The GOP as a whole is opposed to several major parts of the bill, but saying that they haven't participated is simply false.

From the very beginning the decision was made that obstructing and hopefully killing any health reform was better than compromising on anything.

At the very beginning of the process Obama had GOP leaders over to the White House to ask on what issues they were willing to compromise. Their answer was none.

During the Baucus negotiations Grassley said he could get everything he wanted in the bill and he'd still vote against it.

Seniority and committee assignments were threatened against anyone who voted for the HCR.

But of course this is just replaying the strategy from the nineties when Frank Luntz warned the GOP that a good healthcare reform bill could seriously harm the GOP for a generation or more.