Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
Metalworking (rec.crafts.metalworking) Discuss various aspects of working with metal, such as machining, welding, metal joining, screwing, casting, hardening/tempering, blacksmithing/forging, spinning and hammer work, sheet metal work. |
Reply |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
OT What's your take? OT
Do you think this fiasco will pass Sunday?
I hope and pray reason will prevail. But I thought McCain would win. Go figger. Steve |
#2
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
OT What's your take? OT
On Thu, 18 Mar 2010 18:49:44 -0700, the infamous "Steve B"
scrawled the following: Do you think this fiasco will pass Sunday? Those fools just might do it. I hope and pray reason will prevail. In WASHINGTON, D.C.? What were you thinking? ------------------- If it passes, I'll bet you can count the seconds before a 2nd American Revolution starts thundering through our country. I think I'll stock up on groceries and get more water today, JIC. -- Adults are obsolete children. --Dr. Seuss (Theodore Geisel, 1904-1991) -- |
#3
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
OT What's your take? OT
Larry Jaques wrote:
On Thu, 18 Mar 2010 18:49:44 -0700, the infamous "Steve B" scrawled the following: Do you think this fiasco will pass Sunday? Those fools just might do it. I hope and pray reason will prevail. In WASHINGTON, D.C.? What were you thinking? ------------------- If it passes, I'll bet you can count the seconds before a 2nd American Revolution starts thundering through our country. I think I'll stock up on groceries and get more water today, JIC. -- Adults are obsolete children. --Dr. Seuss (Theodore Geisel, 1904-1991) -- There is so much money involved, I doubt they can keep their hands off. -- Richard Lamb http://www.home.earthlink.net/~cavelamb/ |
#4
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
OT What's your take? OT
In , on Thu, 18 Mar 2010 18:49:44
-0700, Steve B, wrote: Do you think this fiasco will pass Sunday? I hope and pray reason will prevail. But I thought McCain would win. Go figger. In one thread, you've got a bunch of people all clamoring for a police state, then this one decrying government intervention. The power to require ID is the same power to require health care. "Go figger." Indeed. |
#5
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
OT What's your take? OT
I hope (but do not pray) that reason will prevail and that everyone
would have access to some level of medical care. i |
#6
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
OT What's your take? OT
On Fri, 19 Mar 2010 08:08:16 -0700, Larry Jaques
wrote: On Thu, 18 Mar 2010 18:49:44 -0700, the infamous "Steve B" scrawled the following: Do you think this fiasco will pass Sunday? Those fools just might do it. I hope and pray reason will prevail. In WASHINGTON, D.C.? What were you thinking? ------------------- If it passes, I'll bet you can count the seconds before a 2nd American Revolution starts thundering through our country. I think I'll stock up on groceries and get more water today, JIC. And some extra ammo...... -- Adults are obsolete children. --Dr. Seuss (Theodore Geisel, 1904-1991) "First Law of Leftist Debate The more you present a leftist with factual evidence that is counter to his preconceived world view and the more difficult it becomes for him to refute it without losing face the chance of him calling you a racist, bigot, homophobe approaches infinity. This is despite the thread you are in having not mentioned race or sexual preference in any way that is relevant to the subject." Grey Ghost |
#7
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
OT What's your take? OT
On 3/18/2010 6:49 PM, Steve B wrote:
Do you think this fiasco will pass Sunday? I hope and pray reason will prevail. But I thought McCain would win. Go figger. Steve Not so hard really. You just don't understand the issue you're talking about. That explains why you were wrong about McCain as you were about Bush and Obama. You just have lousy judgment. You prove it once again with this point of view. The current system is in the process of failing. Nothing is going to stop that, so the wise thing to do is change it before it collapses. That is what the Democrats are in the process of doing. The ignorant people are so afraid of changing they are ****ting their pants. The rest of us welcome the change from a corrupt, inefficient, and unfair system to a much more rational one. The problem is that you can't see that. And you listen to way too much republican propaganda. If you could you'd not have your usual off target prediction. I predict the bill passes. Want to bet who's right? Hawke |
#8
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
OT What's your take? OT
Do you think this fiasco will pass Sunday? Those fools just might do it. I hope and pray reason will prevail. In WASHINGTON, D.C.? What were you thinking? ------------------- If it passes, I'll bet you can count the seconds before a 2nd American Revolution starts thundering through our country. I think I'll stock up on groceries and get more water today, JIC. And some extra ammo...... I don't know why. You have nothing anybody would want to take. That means you have nothing to protect or fear. The last thing you'll ever need is more ammo. Food, yeah. Hawke |
#9
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
OT What's your take? OT
Gunner Asch fired this volley in
: And some extra ammo...... Look what Harry Reid Hid deep in the Health Care Bill Unbelievable - Harry Reid Hidden deep in the Health Care Bill this passage. They never stop, they will keep trying to shove this down our throats until they get it through...pass this on to everyone... Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada is proving once again the maxim that darkness hates the light. Buried in his massive amendment to the Senate version of Obamacare is Reid's anti-democratic poison pill designed to prevent any future Congress from repealing the central feature of this monstrous legislation! Beginning on page 1,000 of the measure, Section 3403 reads in part: ". it shall not be in order in the Senate or the House of Representatives to consider any bill, resolution, amendment or conference report that would repeal or otherwise change this subsection." In other words, if President Barack Obama signs this measure into law, no future Senate or House will be able to change a single word of Section 3403, regardless whether future Americans or their representatives in Congress wish otherwise!! Note that the subsection at issue here concerns the regulatory power of the Independent Medicare Advisory Board (IMAB) to "reduce the per capita rate of growth in Medicare spending." That is precisely the kind of open-ended grant of regulatory power that effectively establishes the IMAB as the ultimate arbiter of the cost, quality and quantity of health care to be made available to the American people. And Reid wants the decisions of this group of unelected federal bureaucrats to be untouchable for all time. No wonder the majority leader tossed aside assurances that senators and the public would have at least 72 hours to study the text of the final Senate version of Obamacare before the critical vote on cloture. And no wonder Reid was so desperate to rush his amendment through the Senate, even scheduling the key tally on it at 1 a.m., while America slept. True to form, Reid wanted to keep his Section 3403 poison pill secret for as long as possible, just as he negotiated his bribes for the votes of Senators Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, Ben Nelson of Nebraska and Bernie Sanders of Vermont behind closed doors. The final Orwellian touch in this subversion of democratic procedure is found in the ruling of the Reid-controlled Senate Parliamentarian that the anti-repeal provision is not a change in Senate rules, but rather of Senate "procedures." Why is that significant? Because for 200 years, changes in the Senate's standing rules have required approval by two- thirds of those voting, or 67 votes rather than the 60 Reid's amendment received. Reid has flouted two centuries of standing Senate rules to pass a measure in the dead of night that no senator has read, and part of which can never be changed. If this is not tyranny, then what is? LLoyd |
#10
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
OT What's your take? OT
"Lloyd E. Sponenburgh" lloydspinsidemindspring.com wrote in message
. 3.70... Gunner Asch fired this volley in : And some extra ammo...... Look what Harry Reid Hid deep in the Health Care Bill Unbelievable - Harry Reid Hidden deep in the Health Care Bill this passage. They never stop, they will keep trying to shove this down our throats until they get it through...pass this on to everyone... Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada is proving once again the maxim that darkness hates the light. Buried in his massive amendment to the Senate version of Obamacare is Reid's anti-democratic poison pill designed to prevent any future Congress from repealing the central feature of this monstrous legislation! (snip) What scholars (not!) are you cutting and pasting this from? This has been in the bill for months and it does not mean that no future congress can repeal this section. see here for the facts http://www.factcheck.org/2010/01/med...-unrepealable/ |
#11
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
OT What's your take? OT
On Fri, 19 Mar 2010 19:35:58 -0500, "Lloyd E. Sponenburgh"
lloydspinsidemindspring.com wrote: In other words, if President Barack Obama signs this measure into law, no future Senate or House will be able to change a single word of Section 3403, regardless whether future Americans or their representatives in Congress wish otherwise!! As far as I know, an act of Congress cannot limit the actions of a future Congress. -- Ned Simmons |
#12
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
OT What's your take? OT
"Lloyd E. Sponenburgh" lloydspinsidemindspring.com wrote in message . 3.70... Gunner Asch fired this volley in : And some extra ammo...... Look what Harry Reid Hid deep in the Health Care Bill Unbelievable - Harry Reid Hidden deep in the Health Care Bill this passage. They never stop, they will keep trying to shove this down our throats until they get it through...pass this on to everyone... Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada is proving once again the maxim that darkness hates the light. Buried in his massive amendment to the Senate version of Obamacare is Reid's anti-democratic poison pill designed to prevent any future Congress from repealing the central feature of this monstrous legislation! Beginning on page 1,000 of the measure, Section 3403 reads in part: ". it shall not be in order in the Senate or the House of Representatives to consider any bill, resolution, amendment or conference report that would repeal or otherwise change this subsection." In other words, if President Barack Obama signs this measure into law, no future Senate or House will be able to change a single word of Section 3403, regardless whether future Americans or their representatives in Congress wish otherwise!! snip This is not true, Lloyd. It's an amateurish misreading of the text by RedState, which was in turn picked up by Sarah ("Death Panel") Palin, our Idiot-in-Chief. Then the Washington Times and the right-wing blogosphere revved up their engines and drove over the cliff. Here's the real story. This kind of *rules* limitation has been done several times in the past. It is not a *legislation* limitation. Congress can overturn the whole thing any time they want to, with a regular vote: http://www.neutralsource.org/content/blog/detail/1452/ It is not Constitutional for Congress to pass a law that says future congresses can't overturn it. It wouldn't stand up if they tried. -- Ed Huntress |
#13
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
OT What's your take? OT
For those interested in estimating chances of Obamacare legislation
passing, here's an interesting page: http://www.intrade.com/jsp/intrade/t...elConID=709242 Intrade is a prediction market, and participants, who are betting with real money, currently estimate the chance of it passing as 84%. i |
#14
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
OT What's your take? OT
"Ed Huntress" fired this volley in
: It is not Constitutional for Congress to pass a law that says future congresses can't overturn it. It wouldn't stand up if they tried. I already knew that. This is a regularly-circulated chain letter from the abjectly right-ish folks who can't actually figure out how to go vote. I do. I will. November 2012... the end of an error. G LLoyd |
#15
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
OT What's your take? OT
"Lloyd E. Sponenburgh" lloydspinsidemindspring.com wrote in message . 3.70... "Ed Huntress" fired this volley in : It is not Constitutional for Congress to pass a law that says future congresses can't overturn it. It wouldn't stand up if they tried. I already knew that. This is a regularly-circulated chain letter from the abjectly right-ish folks who can't actually figure out how to go vote. Ah, it would have helped if you'd added a smiley or something. I thought you actually believed that stuff. -- Ed Huntress |
#16
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
OT What's your take? OT
On Mar 19, 9:25*pm, Ignoramus4239
wrote: For those interested in estimating chances of Obamacare legislation passing, here's an interesting page: http://www.intrade.com/jsp/intrade/t...elConID=709242 Intrade is a prediction market, and participants, who are betting with real money, currently estimate the chance of it passing as 84%. i So does Intrade have any predictions on the 2010 elections? Is Reid likely to be reelected? Dan |
#17
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
OT What's your take? OT
On Mar 19, 9:22*pm, "Ed Huntress" wrote:
"Lloyd E. Sponenburgh" lloydspinsidemindspring.com wrote in messagenews:Xns9D40D18DF3337lloydspmindspringcom@2 16.168.3.70... Gunner Asch fired this volley in : And some extra ammo...... Look what Harry Reid Hid deep in the Health Care Bill *Unbelievable - Harry Reid Hidden deep in the Health Care Bill this passage. *They never stop, they will keep trying to shove this down our throats until they get it through...pass this on to everyone... *Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada is proving once again the maxim that darkness hates the light. *Buried in his massive amendment to the Senate version of Obamacare is Reid's anti-democratic poison pill designed to prevent any future Congress from repealing the central feature of this monstrous legislation! *Beginning on page 1,000 of the measure, Section 3403 reads in part: ". it shall not be in order in the Senate or the House of Representatives to consider any bill, resolution, amendment or conference report that would repeal or otherwise change this subsection." *In other words, if President Barack Obama signs this measure into law, no future Senate or House will be able to change a single word of Section 3403, regardless whether future Americans or their representatives in Congress wish otherwise!! snip This is not true, Lloyd. It's an amateurish misreading of the text by RedState, which was in turn picked up by Sarah ("Death Panel") Palin, our Idiot-in-Chief. Then the Washington Times and the right-wing blogosphere revved up their engines and drove over the cliff. Here's the real story. This kind of *rules* limitation has been done several times in the past. It is not a *legislation* limitation. Congress can overturn the whole thing any time they want to, with a regular vote: http://www.neutralsource.org/content/blog/detail/1452/ It is not Constitutional for Congress to pass a law that says future congresses can't overturn it. It wouldn't stand up if they tried. -- Ed Huntress If that is the case, why did they bother to put the words in the bill? Dan |
#18
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
OT What's your take? OT
On Fri, 19 Mar 2010 12:47:57 -0500, the infamous Ignoramus4239
scrawled the following: I hope (but do not pray) that reason will prevail and that everyone would have access to some level of medical care. And you trust CONgresscritters to accomplish that? GET REAL, Ig. -- Adults are obsolete children. --Dr. Seuss (Theodore Geisel, 1904-1991) -- |
#19
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
OT What's your take? OT
wrote in message ... On Mar 19, 9:22 pm, "Ed Huntress" wrote: "Lloyd E. Sponenburgh" lloydspinsidemindspring.com wrote in messagenews:Xns9D40D18DF3337lloydspmindspringcom@2 16.168.3.70... Gunner Asch fired this volley in : And some extra ammo...... Look what Harry Reid Hid deep in the Health Care Bill Unbelievable - Harry Reid Hidden deep in the Health Care Bill this passage. They never stop, they will keep trying to shove this down our throats until they get it through...pass this on to everyone... Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada is proving once again the maxim that darkness hates the light. Buried in his massive amendment to the Senate version of Obamacare is Reid's anti-democratic poison pill designed to prevent any future Congress from repealing the central feature of this monstrous legislation! Beginning on page 1,000 of the measure, Section 3403 reads in part: ". it shall not be in order in the Senate or the House of Representatives to consider any bill, resolution, amendment or conference report that would repeal or otherwise change this subsection." In other words, if President Barack Obama signs this measure into law, no future Senate or House will be able to change a single word of Section 3403, regardless whether future Americans or their representatives in Congress wish otherwise!! snip This is not true, Lloyd. It's an amateurish misreading of the text by RedState, which was in turn picked up by Sarah ("Death Panel") Palin, our Idiot-in-Chief. Then the Washington Times and the right-wing blogosphere revved up their engines and drove over the cliff. Here's the real story. This kind of *rules* limitation has been done several times in the past. It is not a *legislation* limitation. Congress can overturn the whole thing any time they want to, with a regular vote: http://www.neutralsource.org/content/blog/detail/1452/ It is not Constitutional for Congress to pass a law that says future congresses can't overturn it. It wouldn't stand up if they tried. -- Ed Huntress If that is the case, why did they bother to put the words in the bill? Dan It's all procedural. There are several explanations around the Web, but if you've followed federal legislation over the past few years, you'll see several similar uses of that phrasing. It keeps certain provisions in the bill from being nibbled away by gerbils. It does NOT keep it from being overturned at the drop of a hat, should Congress so desire. -- Ed Huntress |
#20
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
OT What's your take? OT
On 2010-03-20, wrote:
On Mar 19, 9:25?pm, Ignoramus4239 wrote: For those interested in estimating chances of Obamacare legislation passing, here's an interesting page: http://www.intrade.com/jsp/intrade/t...elConID=709242 Intrade is a prediction market, and participants, who are betting with real money, currently estimate the chance of it passing as 84%. i So does Intrade have any predictions on the 2010 elections? Is Reid likely to be reelected? I have not looked. Check it out and let us know. I am sure that there are some contracts regarding 2010 elections. http://www.intrade.com/jsp/intrade/trading/t_index.jsp For example, nomination of Palin is priced as a 23% chance. 2010 recession as 18%. Euro dropped in 2010 at 12%. A lot of interesting predictions are traded at intrade. i |
#21
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
OT What's your take? OT
On Fri, 19 Mar 2010 18:54:04 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote: On Mar 19, 9:22*pm, "Ed Huntress" wrote: "Lloyd E. Sponenburgh" lloydspinsidemindspring.com wrote in messagenews:Xns9D40D18DF3337lloydspmindspringcom@2 16.168.3.70... Gunner Asch fired this volley in : And some extra ammo...... Look what Harry Reid Hid deep in the Health Care Bill *Unbelievable - Harry Reid Hidden deep in the Health Care Bill this passage. *They never stop, they will keep trying to shove this down our throats until they get it through...pass this on to everyone... *Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada is proving once again the maxim that darkness hates the light. *Buried in his massive amendment to the Senate version of Obamacare is Reid's anti-democratic poison pill designed to prevent any future Congress from repealing the central feature of this monstrous legislation! *Beginning on page 1,000 of the measure, Section 3403 reads in part: ". it shall not be in order in the Senate or the House of Representatives to consider any bill, resolution, amendment or conference report that would repeal or otherwise change this subsection." *In other words, if President Barack Obama signs this measure into law, no future Senate or House will be able to change a single word of Section 3403, regardless whether future Americans or their representatives in Congress wish otherwise!! snip This is not true, Lloyd. It's an amateurish misreading of the text by RedState, which was in turn picked up by Sarah ("Death Panel") Palin, our Idiot-in-Chief. Then the Washington Times and the right-wing blogosphere revved up their engines and drove over the cliff. Here's the real story. This kind of *rules* limitation has been done several times in the past. It is not a *legislation* limitation. Congress can overturn the whole thing any time they want to, with a regular vote: http://www.neutralsource.org/content/blog/detail/1452/ It is not Constitutional for Congress to pass a law that says future congresses can't overturn it. It wouldn't stand up if they tried. -- Ed Huntress If that is the case, why did they bother to put the words in the bill? Dan Because those on the extreme left are both sneaky..notice its location..and stupid. Utterly stupid. Shrug...but they will be dead before long from all observations..so..shrug. Gunner "First Law of Leftist Debate The more you present a leftist with factual evidence that is counter to his preconceived world view and the more difficult it becomes for him to refute it without losing face the chance of him calling you a racist, bigot, homophobe approaches infinity. This is despite the thread you are in having not mentioned race or sexual preference in any way that is relevant to the subject." Grey Ghost |
#22
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
OT What's your take? OT
"Gunner Asch" wrote in message ... On Fri, 19 Mar 2010 18:54:04 -0700 (PDT), " wrote: On Mar 19, 9:22 pm, "Ed Huntress" wrote: "Lloyd E. Sponenburgh" lloydspinsidemindspring.com wrote in messagenews:Xns9D40D18DF3337lloydspmindspringcom@2 16.168.3.70... Gunner Asch fired this volley in : And some extra ammo...... Look what Harry Reid Hid deep in the Health Care Bill Unbelievable - Harry Reid Hidden deep in the Health Care Bill this passage. They never stop, they will keep trying to shove this down our throats until they get it through...pass this on to everyone... Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada is proving once again the maxim that darkness hates the light. Buried in his massive amendment to the Senate version of Obamacare is Reid's anti-democratic poison pill designed to prevent any future Congress from repealing the central feature of this monstrous legislation! Beginning on page 1,000 of the measure, Section 3403 reads in part: ". it shall not be in order in the Senate or the House of Representatives to consider any bill, resolution, amendment or conference report that would repeal or otherwise change this subsection." In other words, if President Barack Obama signs this measure into law, no future Senate or House will be able to change a single word of Section 3403, regardless whether future Americans or their representatives in Congress wish otherwise!! snip This is not true, Lloyd. It's an amateurish misreading of the text by RedState, which was in turn picked up by Sarah ("Death Panel") Palin, our Idiot-in-Chief. Then the Washington Times and the right-wing blogosphere revved up their engines and drove over the cliff. Here's the real story. This kind of *rules* limitation has been done several times in the past. It is not a *legislation* limitation. Congress can overturn the whole thing any time they want to, with a regular vote: http://www.neutralsource.org/content/blog/detail/1452/ It is not Constitutional for Congress to pass a law that says future congresses can't overturn it. It wouldn't stand up if they tried. -- Ed Huntress If that is the case, why did they bother to put the words in the bill? Dan Because those on the extreme left are both sneaky..notice its location.. That's a stupid thing to say, which you would not have engaged in if you actually read federal legislation over the past two decades. It's been used at least since 1990. This is a 2,000-page monster that you certainly haven't read. You don't know the appropriateness of the location of that provision, nor its context, nor even what it refers too. As usual, you're talking through your hat. ...and stupid. Utterly stupid. See above. You have no way of knowing, because you talk first, and look things up later to see what you said. Shrug...but they will be dead before long from all observations..so..shrug. Gunner |
#23
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
OT What's your take? OT
|
#24
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
OT What's your take? OT
On Mar 18, 9:49*pm, "Steve B" wrote:
Do you think this fiasco will pass Sunday? I hope and pray reason will prevail. *But I thought McCain would win. Go figger. Steve To whom or what are you praying, and do you think that entity values your tax dollar more than the health and lives of those who can't afford the current bull**** we call "health insurance?" |
#25
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
OT What's your take? OT
On Mar 19, 8:08*pm, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Fri, 19 Mar 2010 08:08:16 -0700, Larry Jaques wrote: On Thu, 18 Mar 2010 18:49:44 -0700, the infamous "Steve B" scrawled the following: Do you think this fiasco will pass Sunday? Those fools just might do it. I hope and pray reason will prevail. In WASHINGTON, D.C.? *What were you thinking? ------------------- If it passes, I'll bet you can count the seconds before a 2nd American Revolution starts thundering through our country. I think I'll stock up on groceries and get more water today, JIC. And some extra ammo...... Are you at all serious about ANYTHING that you write? Do you really expect an "end of the world" over this legislation, which replaces, formalizes and funds some of the charity care which has kept you alive the past few years? Seriously? Maybe you should consider stocking up on tin foil. |
#26
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
OT What's your take? OT
Probably not this time. But, then, the socialists will keep
trying until they do enact it. Note, I didn't say "pass" the socialized medicine. I wrote "enact" it. They might deem it to been passed, or executive order, or some other trickery. But, they will keep trying until we lose the freedom to manage our own health care. -- Christopher A. Young Learn more about Jesus www.lds.org .. "Steve B" wrote in message news Do you think this fiasco will pass Sunday? I hope and pray reason will prevail. But I thought McCain would win. Go figger. Steve |
#27
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
OT What's your take? OT
Ignoramus4239 wrote:
For those interested in estimating chances of Obamacare legislation passing, here's an interesting page: http://www.intrade.com/jsp/intrade/t...elConID=709242 Intrade is a prediction market, and participants, who are betting with real money, currently estimate the chance of it passing as 84%. i So what is their accuracy of past predictions? 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 |
#28
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
OT What's your take? OT
"Ed Huntress" wrote:
"Lloyd E. Sponenburgh" lloydspinsidemindspring.com wrote in message .3.70... "Ed Huntress" fired this volley in : It is not Constitutional for Congress to pass a law that says future congresses can't overturn it. It wouldn't stand up if they tried. I already knew that. This is a regularly-circulated chain letter from the abjectly right-ish folks who can't actually figure out how to go vote. Ah, it would have helped if you'd added a smiley or something. I thought you actually believed that stuff. But Ed, they are trying to pass this on a one vote margin in the Senate and according to an earlier link: The Examiner takes issue with this language: ### Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Dec 24 2009: LIMITATION ON CHANGES TO THIS SUBSECTION – It shall not be in order in the Senate or the House of Representatives to consider any bill, resolution, amendment, or conference report that would repeal or otherwise change this subsection. But that does not mean that "no future Senate or House will be able to change a single word" of the section, as The Examiner says. The paragraph is followed directly by this one: Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Dec 24 2009: WAIVER – This paragraph may be waived or suspended in the senate only by the affirmative votes of three-fifths of the Members, duly chosen and sworn. he intent is to make this cost-saving mechanism difficult to repeal, but not impossible. "If they want to repeal this provision they need a supermajority," said Bill Dauster, deputy staff director and general counsel of the Senate Finance Committee. The bill’s Democratic drafters fear that Congress can’t be trusted to make necessary Medicare cost reductions on its own. "The reasoning is that the Senate is not going to make the cuts that are necessary otherwise." ### So as they are maneuvering, they want to pass on 51 and require 60 to revoke it? Can I assume that the 60 number to revoke is meaningless? As in another senate with a willing house can take it down with a simple majority vote? Wes |
#29
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
OT What's your take? OT
On Fri, 19 Mar 2010 20:25:29 -0500, the infamous Ignoramus4239
scrawled the following: For those interested in estimating chances of Obamacare legislation passing, here's an interesting page: http://www.intrade.com/jsp/intrade/t...elConID=709242 Intrade is a prediction market, and participants, who are betting with real money, currently estimate the chance of it passing as 84%. Happily, it's down 1.9 points today. -- If we attend continually and promptly to the little that we can do, we shall ere long be surprised to find how little remains that we cannot do. -- Samuel Butler |
#30
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
OT What's your take? OT
"Wes" wrote in message ... "Ed Huntress" wrote: "Lloyd E. Sponenburgh" lloydspinsidemindspring.com wrote in message 8.3.70... "Ed Huntress" fired this volley in : It is not Constitutional for Congress to pass a law that says future congresses can't overturn it. It wouldn't stand up if they tried. I already knew that. This is a regularly-circulated chain letter from the abjectly right-ish folks who can't actually figure out how to go vote. Ah, it would have helped if you'd added a smiley or something. I thought you actually believed that stuff. But Ed, they are trying to pass this on a one vote margin in the Senate and according to an earlier link: The Examiner takes issue with this language: ### Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Dec 24 2009: LIMITATION ON CHANGES TO THIS SUBSECTION - It shall not be in order in the Senate or the House of Representatives to consider any bill, resolution, amendment, or conference report that would repeal or otherwise change this subsection. But that does not mean that "no future Senate or House will be able to change a single word" of the section, as The Examiner says. The paragraph is followed directly by this one: Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Dec 24 2009: WAIVER - This paragraph may be waived or suspended in the senate only by the affirmative votes of three-fifths of the Members, duly chosen and sworn. he intent is to make this cost-saving mechanism difficult to repeal, but not impossible. "If they want to repeal this provision they need a supermajority," said Bill Dauster, deputy staff director and general counsel of the Senate Finance Committee. The bill's Democratic drafters fear that Congress can't be trusted to make necessary Medicare cost reductions on its own. "The reasoning is that the Senate is not going to make the cuts that are necessary otherwise." ### So as they are maneuvering, they want to pass on 51 and require 60 to revoke it? Nope. It still requires only 51 (in the Senate) to overturn the entire bill. Can I assume that the 60 number to revoke is meaningless? As in another senate with a willing house can take it down with a simple majority vote? It has the status of House rules, but nothing in the House rules can preempt Congress's ability to overturn any legislation. They can change a rule at any time, and they can overturn a bill at any time. Again, it's procedural, and amounts to a House rule. It cannot preclude future congresses from overturning it by a simple majority vote. But they'd have to overturn the rule as well as the legislation. It really isn't worth getting worked up about. It's an attempt to keep underhanded amendments from defeating the function of the legislation by the back door. It's been done before. -- Ed Huntress |
#31
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
OT What's your take? OT
On 2010-03-20, Wes wrote:
Ignoramus4239 wrote: For those interested in estimating chances of Obamacare legislation passing, here's an interesting page: http://www.intrade.com/jsp/intrade/t...elConID=709242 Intrade is a prediction market, and participants, who are betting with real money, currently estimate the chance of it passing as 84%. i So what is their accuracy of past predictions? Some things are inherently unpredictable or have a probability of an event change because of something. But their estimates have been very good, in general. i |
#32
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
OT What's your take? OT
"Ed Huntress" fired this volley in
: It really isn't worth getting worked up about. It's an attempt to keep underhanded amendments from defeating the function of the legislation by the back door. It's been done before. You didn't quite word that right, Ed. It's an UNDERHANDED attempt to keep amendments from the defeating the function... LLoyd |
#34
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
OT What's your take? OT
"Lloyd E. Sponenburgh" lloydspinsidemindspring.com wrote in message .70... "Ed Huntress" fired this volley in : It really isn't worth getting worked up about. It's an attempt to keep underhanded amendments from defeating the function of the legislation by the back door. It's been done before. You didn't quite word that right, Ed. It's an UNDERHANDED attempt to keep amendments from the defeating the function... LLoyd Nope, I had it right, Lloyd. If you do some checking, you'll see that this phrasing has been used for similar purposes in the past. The "amendments" we're talking about are irrelevant, and sneaky, snipes taken at the legislation by adding an amendment to an unrelated bill. It's been decades since I studied this stuff in college but I remember one issue that was related to it. After the Civil Rights Act was passed, some southern legislators tried to sneak an amendment into a military funding bill that would have gutted the CRA. Who can vote against a military funding bill in the middle of a war? That kind of sneakiness is exactly what these provisions are intended to prevent. And it's really a moderate, and weak protection. If Congress wants to be forthright and vote specifically about provisions of this bill at some time in the future, or even completely overturn it, they can do so. Of course, people opposed to the bill are going to scream bloody murder. Some of their bag of tricks have become complicated, because they'd have to come out in the open with their opposition. Of course, they're probably among those who have used these procedural methods in the past, on other issues. They're counting on us not noticing There's a LOT of that going on with the health care bill. -- Ed Huntress |
#35
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
OT What's your take? OT
On Mar 20, 12:43*am, cavelamb wrote:
wrote: If that is the case, why did they bother to put the words in the bill? * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Dan The language to which opponents refer, and which the Washington Examiner explicitly cited, changes the rules of each House to limit Congress' ability to change the recommendations of the Board. I thought that changing the rules of the House required a super majority. Dan |
#36
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
OT What's your take? OT
" wrote:
I thought that changing the rules of the House required a super majority. IIRC, the current House rules committe has a 2xD+1 to 1xR ratio favoring the majority party and voting on anything brought to the floor is a simple majority. Wes |
#37
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
OT What's your take? OT
"Ignoramus4239" wrote in message ... I hope (but do not pray) that reason will prevail and that everyone would have access to some level of medical care. i We do now. |
#38
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
OT What's your take? OT
On Mar 19, 9:22*pm, "Ed Huntress" wrote:
This is not true, Lloyd. It's an amateurish misreading of the text by RedState, which was in turn picked up by Sarah ("Death Panel") Palin, our Idiot-in-Chief. Then the Washington Times and the right-wing blogosphere revved up their engines and drove over the cliff. -- Ed Huntress- - Show quoted text - There you go again, Ed. You make fun of Sarah Palin for her "Death Panel" statements, just after you admit that those death panels already exist - "They're called Medical Directors in the insurance industry." The federal government wants to be in the health care business and will be before too long - anyone who thinks the public option has been forgotten simply isn't paying attention. And when we do get there, we will have bureaucrats making the same decisions that are made by the insurance companies' Medical Directors. There will always have to be someone to say "no", and sometimes that will be to an expensive procedure that might prolong a life. So, which is it? Was Sarah on target, or will the taxpayers be footing the bill for every possible procedure and drug that might even slightly benefit a patient? You can't have it both ways. John Martin |
#39
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
OT What's your take? OT
"John Martin" wrote in message ... On Mar 19, 9:22 pm, "Ed Huntress" wrote: This is not true, Lloyd. It's an amateurish misreading of the text by RedState, which was in turn picked up by Sarah ("Death Panel") Palin, our Idiot-in-Chief. Then the Washington Times and the right-wing blogosphere revved up their engines and drove over the cliff. -- Ed Huntress- - Show quoted text - There you go again, Ed. Yup, and at my age, I'm glad still to be going, John. You make fun of Sarah Palin for her "Death Panel" statements, just after you admit that those death panels already exist - "They're called Medical Directors in the insurance industry." Sarah has an inkling that *someone* must be making these life-and-death decisions, because we're already at the point where some people are dying because they don't get proper treatment that we all know is available. But either she didn't know (most likely) or didn't care (another possibility) that she was aimed in the wrong direction. It must be socialism, she thinks, because socialism is always evil and capitalism is always virtuous, in her Alice-through-the-looking-glass, world. Now government is going to be overt about it: the life-choice consultations, which have been a function of hospitals and their ethics boards for decades, suddenly are going to become government-controlled "death squads" in her wacky imagination. The death squads, as always, are upper-level staff in private insurance companies. Her hubris, or ignorance, or the weakness of a mind that allows it to be vicitimized by ideology, led her to conclude that it was all the fault of the government rather than an economic necessity of doing business in the topsy-turvey world of medical "markets." She has the certainty of the born-again, John. That is to say, she has a weak mind that obtains absolutist certainty by marrying herself to an ideology or a religion. So she's taken a nutty interpretation of something that exists because of the economics of the INSURANCE industry, and attributed it to GOVERNMENT by, first, a misunderstanding what the new committees are and do, and, secondly, because she can't believe that the virtuous insurance industry actually is doing what she fears so much. She has no idea of what the bill actually says. People are just feeding her one-liners. And she's a fool. The federal government wants to be in the health care business and will be before too long - anyone who thinks the public option has been forgotten simply isn't paying attention. And when we do get there, we will have bureaucrats making the same decisions that are made by the insurance companies' Medical Directors. There will always have to be someone to say "no", and sometimes that will be to an expensive procedure that might prolong a life. At least we can vote them out. The insurance companies own you. Until a few days ago, they could make those life-and-death decisions any way they want -- and what they often "want" is to improve profits using any possible excuse. If you've been reading the news, you know that they just tried to pull off a trick by which newborn babies are denied coverage for "pre-existing conditions." So, which is it? Was Sarah on target, or will the taxpayers be footing the bill for every possible procedure and drug that might even slightly benefit a patient? Sarah is full of ****. The bubblehead remains as clueless as ever. As for footing the bill, you and I foot most of them already. And you apparently haven't studied the European models of what consumers can get as part of the program, and what's available to them at their own expense, with something like health care savings accounts or even private insurance. You can't have it both ways. Don't try to tell that to people like Gunner. He's been having it both ways for years. -- Ed Huntress |
#40
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
OT What's your take? OT
Ed Huntress wrote:
"John Martin" wrote in message ... On Mar 19, 9:22 pm, "Ed Huntress" wrote: This is not true, Lloyd. It's an amateurish misreading of the text by RedState, which was in turn picked up by Sarah ("Death Panel") Palin, our Idiot-in-Chief. Then the Washington Times and the right-wing blogosphere revved up their engines and drove over the cliff. -- Ed Huntress- - Show quoted text - There you go again, Ed. Yup, and at my age, I'm glad still to be going, John. You make fun of Sarah Palin for her "Death Panel" statements, just after you admit that those death panels already exist - "They're called Medical Directors in the insurance industry." Sarah has an inkling that *someone* must be making these life-and-death decisions, because we're already at the point where some people are dying because they don't get proper treatment that we all know is available. But either she didn't know (most likely) or didn't care (another possibility) that she was aimed in the wrong direction. It must be socialism, she thinks, because socialism is always evil and capitalism is always virtuous, in her Alice-through-the-looking-glass, world. Now government is going to be overt about it: the life-choice consultations, which have been a function of hospitals and their ethics boards for decades, suddenly are going to become government-controlled "death squads" in her wacky imagination. The death squads, as always, are upper-level staff in private insurance companies. Her hubris, or ignorance, or the weakness of a mind that allows it to be vicitimized by ideology, led her to conclude that it was all the fault of the government rather than an economic necessity of doing business in the topsy-turvey world of medical "markets." She has the certainty of the born-again, John. That is to say, she has a weak mind that obtains absolutist certainty by marrying herself to an ideology or a religion. So she's taken a nutty interpretation of something that exists because of the economics of the INSURANCE industry, and attributed it to GOVERNMENT by, first, a misunderstanding what the new committees are and do, and, secondly, because she can't believe that the virtuous insurance industry actually is doing what she fears so much. She has no idea of what the bill actually says. People are just feeding her one-liners. And she's a fool. The federal government wants to be in the health care business and will be before too long - anyone who thinks the public option has been forgotten simply isn't paying attention. And when we do get there, we will have bureaucrats making the same decisions that are made by the insurance companies' Medical Directors. There will always have to be someone to say "no", and sometimes that will be to an expensive procedure that might prolong a life. At least we can vote them out. The insurance companies own you. Until a few days ago, they could make those life-and-death decisions any way they want -- and what they often "want" is to improve profits using any possible excuse. If you've been reading the news, you know that they just tried to pull off a trick by which newborn babies are denied coverage for "pre-existing conditions." So, which is it? Was Sarah on target, or will the taxpayers be footing the bill for every possible procedure and drug that might even slightly benefit a patient? Sarah is full of ****. The bubblehead remains as clueless as ever. As for footing the bill, you and I foot most of them already. And you apparently haven't studied the European models of what consumers can get as part of the program, and what's available to them at their own expense, with something like health care savings accounts or even private insurance. HAHAHAHA................ Speaking of Sarah: Levi Johnston pitches antidote to Sarah Palin Alaska series Levi's re-loading! Levi Johnston, Sarah Palin's grandbaby-daddy and the bane of her existence, is pitching his own docu-series in which HE will introduce viewers to Alaska. The news comes just days after Discovery Networks announced that its TLC network would air "Sarah Palin's Alaska" in which SHE would introduce us to Alaska. Yes, TV is about to erupt in warring Palin-clan docu-series. Life could not get better. "If I could wave my magic wand I would want it to premiere at the exact same hour, minute, and second as Sarah Palin's does," Stuart Krasnow, the executive producer of Levi's series, told The TV Column. Levi's show, tentatively titled "Levi Johnston's Final Frontier," is " 'Jersey Shore' on ice," Krasnow said. http://voices.washingtonpost.com/tvb...l?hpid=artslot -- John R. Carroll |