"John R. Carroll" wrote:

You might be right George but, for myself, I don't think the ground has
shifted even a little bit.
One of the hallmarks of Obama's first year in office has been that he has
largely shared the reins of power with the senior party professionals.

Of one party.
--
"Additionally as a security officer, I carry a gun to protect
government officials but my life isn't worth protecting at home
in their eyes." Dick Anthony Heller

Wes wrote:
"John R. Carroll" wrote:

You might be right George but, for myself, I don't think the ground
has shifted even a little bit.
One of the hallmarks of Obama's first year in office has been that
he has largely shared the reins of power with the senior party
professionals.

Of one party.


Yeah but not by his choice Wes.
Ten, or even as few as five, Republicans in the Senate could have changed
the landscape of health-care reform in ways that would have produced a good
solid piece of legislation. They could have written their own ticket wihin
broad limits. Just look at what a single Democrat - Ben Nelson - got for his
vote if you doubt that. It wouldn't have been possible had his vote been
less important and Democrats didn't create that situation. They couldn't
have.

The real question in my mind is just whose side are the Republican's on
anyway?
It's murder if you can pull someone to safety and don't act.
Boehner and McConnell are really missing the boat politically speaking right
now.
They could easily steal 100 percent of the health-care thunder for
Republican's if they were really concerned about what was best for America
as opposed to what was best for the moneyed interests that have bought and
paid for them. That they won't is a genuine failure of leadership on their
part and a further demonstration of the cowardice gripping our country.

Believe me, if the current attempt to reform health-care goes up in smoke
the fire will burn both sides equally.


--
John R. Carroll

"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
...
Wes wrote:
"John R. Carroll" wrote:

You might be right George but, for myself, I don't think the ground
has shifted even a little bit.
One of the hallmarks of Obama's first year in office has been that
he has largely shared the reins of power with the senior party
professionals.

Of one party.


Yeah but not by his choice Wes.
Ten, or even as few as five, Republicans in the Senate could have changed
the landscape of health-care reform in ways that would have produced a
good
solid piece of legislation. They could have written their own ticket wihin
broad limits. Just look at what a single Democrat - Ben Nelson - got for
his
vote if you doubt that. It wouldn't have been possible had his vote been
less important and Democrats didn't create that situation. They couldn't
have.

The real question in my mind is just whose side are the Republican's on
anyway?
It's murder if you can pull someone to safety and don't act.
Boehner and McConnell are really missing the boat politically speaking
right
now.
They could easily steal 100 percent of the health-care thunder for
Republican's if they were really concerned about what was best for America
as opposed to what was best for the moneyed interests that have bought and
paid for them. That they won't is a genuine failure of leadership on their
part and a further demonstration of the cowardice gripping our country.

Believe me, if the current attempt to reform health-care goes up in smoke
the fire will burn both sides equally.

The only ones who benefit from killing health care reform are Big Pharma,
the health care insurance companies, and medical equipment manufacturers.

That's why it's insane to just oppose it outright. The current bill is a
political loser but the Republicans have offered nothing substantial as an
alternative. Even their own analyses show that tort reform, for example,
would only cut costs by 5%. The OMB says 2% - 3%, and those figures were
revised upward by a huge amount in 2009 from what they had been in 2008.

It is completely nuts. It's a political game, with the Dems screwing it up
badly, and the Republicans screwing the rest of us.

--
Ed Huntress

Ed Huntress wrote:
"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
...
Wes wrote:
"John R. Carroll" wrote:

You might be right George but, for myself, I don't think the ground
has shifted even a little bit.
One of the hallmarks of Obama's first year in office has been that
he has largely shared the reins of power with the senior party
professionals.
Of one party.

Yeah but not by his choice Wes.
Ten, or even as few as five, Republicans in the Senate could have changed
the landscape of health-care reform in ways that would have produced a
good
solid piece of legislation. They could have written their own ticket wihin
broad limits. Just look at what a single Democrat - Ben Nelson - got for
his
vote if you doubt that. It wouldn't have been possible had his vote been
less important and Democrats didn't create that situation. They couldn't
have.

The real question in my mind is just whose side are the Republican's on
anyway?
It's murder if you can pull someone to safety and don't act.
Boehner and McConnell are really missing the boat politically speaking
right
now.
They could easily steal 100 percent of the health-care thunder for
Republican's if they were really concerned about what was best for America
as opposed to what was best for the moneyed interests that have bought and
paid for them. That they won't is a genuine failure of leadership on their
part and a further demonstration of the cowardice gripping our country.

Believe me, if the current attempt to reform health-care goes up in smoke
the fire will burn both sides equally.

The only ones who benefit from killing health care reform are Big Pharma,
the health care insurance companies, and medical equipment manufacturers.

That's why it's insane to just oppose it outright. The current bill is a
political loser but the Republicans have offered nothing substantial as an
alternative. Even their own analyses show that tort reform, for example,
would only cut costs by 5%. The OMB says 2% - 3%, and those figures were
revised upward by a huge amount in 2009 from what they had been in 2008.

It is completely nuts. It's a political game, with the Dems screwing it up
badly, and the Republicans screwing the rest of us.



If you look at it historically we're right back in 1860. Just reverse
the names of the parties and it's basically the same. The only
difference is the issue then was slavery and now it's health care for
all. I'll use conservatives instead of republicans/democrats to keep it
simple. Prior to the Civil war the conservatives were intent on keeping
the right to own slaves a permanent one. Their opponents were trying to
make reforms that would end that institution. There was no middle
ground. You were either for it or against it. Health care is the same.
You either are for it or you are not. Just like now the numbers were on
the side of the reformers but a wealthy and powerful minority was able
to prevent the majority from prevailing. No matter what the majority did
they could not make the reform of slavery happen. So strong and united
were the conservatives that they couldn't be budged from their position.
In that case it took a war to change their minds.

Flash forward to today and it's the same damn thing with the majority of
Americans wanting to reform health care and just like in the 1860s it's
the conservatives standing united in the way of progress. When it comes
to conservatives it really is true that the more things change the more
they stay the same. So are we going to have to kick their asses again
like we did in the Civil War?

Hawke

"John R. Carroll" wrote:

Yeah but not by his choice Wes.
Ten, or even as few as five, Republicans in the Senate could have changed
the landscape of health-care reform in ways that would have produced a good
solid piece of legislation. They could have written their own ticket wihin
broad limits. Just look at what a single Democrat - Ben Nelson - got for his
vote if you doubt that. It wouldn't have been possible had his vote been
less important and Democrats didn't create that situation. They couldn't
have.


I watched C-Span while the various related commitees did their work. Republican
suggestions kept get voted down. Maybe the dems should have tried to work with the
republicans.

Wes
--
"Additionally as a security officer, I carry a gun to protect
government officials but my life isn't worth protecting at home
in their eyes." Dick Anthony Heller

Who was it, I think Harry Reed? Right after the Scott Brown
election, he was on the air saying the people wanted us to
work together. I couldn't help but think what a total
hypocrite.

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..


"Wes" wrote in message
...

I watched C-Span while the various related commitees did
their work. Republican
suggestions kept get voted down. Maybe the dems should have
tried to work with the
republicans.

Wes
--
"Additionally as a security officer, I carry a gun to
protect
government officials but my life isn't worth protecting at
home
in their eyes." Dick Anthony Heller

Wes wrote:
"John R. Carroll" wrote:

Yeah but not by his choice Wes.
Ten, or even as few as five, Republicans in the Senate could have
changed the landscape of health-care reform in ways that would have
produced a good solid piece of legislation. They could have written
their own ticket wihin broad limits. Just look at what a single
Democrat - Ben Nelson - got for his vote if you doubt that. It
wouldn't have been possible had his vote been less important and
Democrats didn't create that situation. They couldn't have.


I watched C-Span while the various related commitees did their work.
Republican suggestions kept get voted down. Maybe the dems should
have tried to work with the republicans.

Ten Republican's could have gotten anything they wanted included Wes.
Just look at what Stupack did. What a dunce. It hasn't been legal for the US
govt. to pay for an elective aboirtion for several decades.
I've forgotten the ammendment but it passed in 1979.

Hell, in the military they don't even issue contraceptive pills or anything
else.
That's pretty odd considering we have units that are sometimes combat
innefective due to pregnancy.
Ever read GO1? Pregnancy is an automatic Article 15, or it used to be.

Somebody should have read General Order One to the goofball General in
Afghanistan that got all busy over pregnant Marines.
He signed the thing at Change of Command.

--
John R. Carroll