On Mar 22, 5:03*pm, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Mon, 22 Mar 2010 12:40:05 -0500, Ignoramus7894





wrote:
My own opinion, which is worth what you pay for it, it that this
legislative victory is also a political victory for Democrats, for two
reasons.

1. This is a more minor reason, but passage of this law removes the
factor of annoyance about uncertainty in the minds of voters and also
shows that Democrats are capable of accomplishing a large legislative
change. Just because the uncertainty is over, causes some relief in
the minds of voters and that is a favorable factor.

More briefly, now we cannot say that "Obama administration
accomplished nothing".

2. There is a large constituency of people, like parents of young
adults lacking coverage, people with substandard health insurance
policies, and so on, who would eventually realize the benefits of this
change. When they do, they will, presumably, support its
sponsors.

Also, people like me, who have health insurance, but realize that they
would likely lose it when they *really* need it, would also be
favorably inclined towards it.

3. The people negatively affected are those young healthy well paid
people who have to shoulder some of the costs. While some of them
might realize that one day they may become old and unhealthy and not
so well paid, even if they do not, extra taxes will be a drop in the
bucket and not a hot button issue like gun control.

The healthcare reform has every potential of becoming a sacred
political cow, like Medicare, and create a pro-Democrat constituency
where none previously existed.

Aside from elections, here's one more point that I want to make.

4. As Warren Buffett pointed out, our health care costs are 14-16% of
GDP and are much higher than for other industrialized nations, which
badly affects our competitive standing. The healthcare law has some
chances of reducing that percentage.

i

Oh hell yes.

And then those that are forced to buy insurance will simply kill
Leftwing Extremists that have been unconstitutionaly driven to force
others *to pay for someone elses insurance.

But hey...Leftwingers are going to be killed in hummm about 2 yrs, give
or take a little bit..so its a moot issue.

"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- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Are you saying that President Obama is going to be killed within 2
years?

Have you presented your evidence to the Secret Service?

They would be very interested in knowing that you have guns too.

TMT

"Too_Many_Tools" wrote in message
...
On Mar 22, 5:03 pm, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Mon, 22 Mar 2010 12:40:05 -0500, Ignoramus7894





wrote:
My own opinion, which is worth what you pay for it, it that this
legislative victory is also a political victory for Democrats, for two
reasons.

1. This is a more minor reason, but passage of this law removes the
factor of annoyance about uncertainty in the minds of voters and also
shows that Democrats are capable of accomplishing a large legislative
change. Just because the uncertainty is over, causes some relief in
the minds of voters and that is a favorable factor.

More briefly, now we cannot say that "Obama administration
accomplished nothing".

2. There is a large constituency of people, like parents of young
adults lacking coverage, people with substandard health insurance
policies, and so on, who would eventually realize the benefits of this
change. When they do, they will, presumably, support its
sponsors.

Also, people like me, who have health insurance, but realize that they
would likely lose it when they *really* need it, would also be
favorably inclined towards it.

3. The people negatively affected are those young healthy well paid
people who have to shoulder some of the costs. While some of them
might realize that one day they may become old and unhealthy and not
so well paid, even if they do not, extra taxes will be a drop in the
bucket and not a hot button issue like gun control.

The healthcare reform has every potential of becoming a sacred
political cow, like Medicare, and create a pro-Democrat constituency
where none previously existed.

Aside from elections, here's one more point that I want to make.

4. As Warren Buffett pointed out, our health care costs are 14-16% of
GDP and are much higher than for other industrialized nations, which
badly affects our competitive standing. The healthcare law has some
chances of reducing that percentage.

i

Oh hell yes.

And then those that are forced to buy insurance will simply kill
Leftwing Extremists that have been unconstitutionaly driven to force
others to pay for someone elses insurance.

But hey...Leftwingers are going to be killed in hummm about 2 yrs, give
or take a little bit..so its a moot issue.

"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- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -
/
/Are you saying that President Obama is going to be killed within 2
/years?
/
/Have you presented your evidence to the Secret Service?
/
/They would be very interested in knowing that you have guns too.
/
/TMT

I was hoping he would be assassinated before signing the Planned Parenthood
health care abortion bill. But according to the good book, liberals would
prevail, check, homosexuality would be rampant, check, and in the end God
will come back and put them all in their place, hell, though his arms are
open and willing to accept whoever repents and comes to him.

RogerN

I was hoping he would be assassinated before signing the Planned Parenthood
health care abortion bill. But according to the good book, liberals would
prevail, check, homosexuality would be rampant, check, and in the end God
will come back and put them all in their place, hell, though his arms are
open and willing to accept whoever repents and comes to him.

RogerN



Funny, I hear the exact same thing from the Muslims. According to them
you're an infidel. If I was you I'd repent and go to Allah unless you
want to burn in hell for eternity. Lucky for me I don't have to worry. I
think both Christians and Muslims are full of ****.

Hawke

On Mar 24, 6:46*am, "RogerN" wrote:
"Too_Many_Tools" wrote in message

...
On Mar 22, 5:03 pm, Gunner Asch wrote:



On Mon, 22 Mar 2010 12:40:05 -0500, Ignoramus7894

wrote:
My own opinion, which is worth what you pay for it, it that this
legislative victory is also a political victory for Democrats, for two
reasons.

1. This is a more minor reason, but passage of this law removes the
factor of annoyance about uncertainty in the minds of voters and also
shows that Democrats are capable of accomplishing a large legislative
change. Just because the uncertainty is over, causes some relief in
the minds of voters and that is a favorable factor.

More briefly, now we cannot say that "Obama administration
accomplished nothing".

2. There is a large constituency of people, like parents of young
adults lacking coverage, people with substandard health insurance
policies, and so on, who would eventually realize the benefits of this
change. When they do, they will, presumably, support its
sponsors.

Also, people like me, who have health insurance, but realize that they
would likely lose it when they *really* need it, would also be
favorably inclined towards it.

3. The people negatively affected are those young healthy well paid
people who have to shoulder some of the costs. While some of them
might realize that one day they may become old and unhealthy and not
so well paid, even if they do not, extra taxes will be a drop in the
bucket and not a hot button issue like gun control.

The healthcare reform has every potential of becoming a sacred
political cow, like Medicare, and create a pro-Democrat constituency
where none previously existed.

Aside from elections, here's one more point that I want to make.

4. As Warren Buffett pointed out, our health care costs are 14-16% of
GDP and are much higher than for other industrialized nations, which
badly affects our competitive standing. The healthcare law has some
chances of reducing that percentage.

i

Oh hell yes.

And then those that are forced to buy insurance will simply kill
Leftwing Extremists that have been unconstitutionaly driven to force
others to pay for someone elses insurance.

But hey...Leftwingers are going to be killed in hummm about 2 yrs, give
or take a little bit..so its a moot issue.

"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- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

/
/Are you saying that President Obama is going to be killed within 2
/years?
/
/Have you presented your evidence to the Secret Service?
/
/They would be very interested in knowing that you have guns too.
/
/TMT

I was hoping he would be assassinated before signing the Planned Parenthood
health care abortion bill. *But according to the good book, liberals would
prevail, check, homosexuality would be rampant, check, and in the end God
will come back and put them all in their place, hell, though his arms are
open and willing to accept whoever repents and comes to him.

RogerN

Still waiting for you to point out the exact wording in the bill that
funds abortions.

"RogerN" wrote in message
m...

"Too_Many_Tools" wrote in message
...
On Mar 22, 5:03 pm, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Mon, 22 Mar 2010 12:40:05 -0500, Ignoramus7894





wrote:
My own opinion, which is worth what you pay for it, it that this
legislative victory is also a political victory for Democrats, for two
reasons.

1. This is a more minor reason, but passage of this law removes the
factor of annoyance about uncertainty in the minds of voters and also
shows that Democrats are capable of accomplishing a large legislative
change. Just because the uncertainty is over, causes some relief in
the minds of voters and that is a favorable factor.

More briefly, now we cannot say that "Obama administration
accomplished nothing".

2. There is a large constituency of people, like parents of young
adults lacking coverage, people with substandard health insurance
policies, and so on, who would eventually realize the benefits of this
change. When they do, they will, presumably, support its
sponsors.

Also, people like me, who have health insurance, but realize that they
would likely lose it when they *really* need it, would also be
favorably inclined towards it.

3. The people negatively affected are those young healthy well paid
people who have to shoulder some of the costs. While some of them
might realize that one day they may become old and unhealthy and not
so well paid, even if they do not, extra taxes will be a drop in the
bucket and not a hot button issue like gun control.

The healthcare reform has every potential of becoming a sacred
political cow, like Medicare, and create a pro-Democrat constituency
where none previously existed.

Aside from elections, here's one more point that I want to make.

4. As Warren Buffett pointed out, our health care costs are 14-16% of
GDP and are much higher than for other industrialized nations, which
badly affects our competitive standing. The healthcare law has some
chances of reducing that percentage.

i

Oh hell yes.

And then those that are forced to buy insurance will simply kill
Leftwing Extremists that have been unconstitutionaly driven to force
others to pay for someone elses insurance.

But hey...Leftwingers are going to be killed in hummm about 2 yrs, give
or take a little bit..so its a moot issue.

"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- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -
/
/Are you saying that President Obama is going to be killed within 2
/years?
/
/Have you presented your evidence to the Secret Service?
/
/They would be very interested in knowing that you have guns too.
/
/TMT

I was hoping he would be assassinated before signing the Planned
Parenthood health care abortion bill.

Ah, there's those good ol' Christian values again, in full song.

--
Ed Huntress

"rangerssuck" wrote in message
...
On Mar 24, 6:46 am, "RogerN" wrote:
"Too_Many_Tools" wrote in message

...
On Mar 22, 5:03 pm, Gunner Asch wrote:



On Mon, 22 Mar 2010 12:40:05 -0500, Ignoramus7894

wrote:
My own opinion, which is worth what you pay for it, it that this
legislative victory is also a political victory for Democrats, for two
reasons.

1. This is a more minor reason, but passage of this law removes the
factor of annoyance about uncertainty in the minds of voters and also
shows that Democrats are capable of accomplishing a large legislative
change. Just because the uncertainty is over, causes some relief in
the minds of voters and that is a favorable factor.

More briefly, now we cannot say that "Obama administration
accomplished nothing".

2. There is a large constituency of people, like parents of young
adults lacking coverage, people with substandard health insurance
policies, and so on, who would eventually realize the benefits of this
change. When they do, they will, presumably, support its
sponsors.

Also, people like me, who have health insurance, but realize that they
would likely lose it when they *really* need it, would also be
favorably inclined towards it.

3. The people negatively affected are those young healthy well paid
people who have to shoulder some of the costs. While some of them
might realize that one day they may become old and unhealthy and not
so well paid, even if they do not, extra taxes will be a drop in the
bucket and not a hot button issue like gun control.

The healthcare reform has every potential of becoming a sacred
political cow, like Medicare, and create a pro-Democrat constituency
where none previously existed.

Aside from elections, here's one more point that I want to make.

4. As Warren Buffett pointed out, our health care costs are 14-16% of
GDP and are much higher than for other industrialized nations, which
badly affects our competitive standing. The healthcare law has some
chances of reducing that percentage.

i

Oh hell yes.

And then those that are forced to buy insurance will simply kill
Leftwing Extremists that have been unconstitutionaly driven to force
others to pay for someone elses insurance.

But hey...Leftwingers are going to be killed in hummm about 2 yrs, give
or take a little bit..so its a moot issue.

"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- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

/
/Are you saying that President Obama is going to be killed within 2
/years?
/
/Have you presented your evidence to the Secret Service?
/
/They would be very interested in knowing that you have guns too.
/
/TMT

I was hoping he would be assassinated before signing the Planned
Parenthood
health care abortion bill. But according to the good book, liberals would
prevail, check, homosexuality would be rampant, check, and in the end God
will come back and put them all in their place, hell, though his arms are
open and willing to accept whoever repents and comes to him.

RogerN
/
/Still waiting for you to point out the exact wording in the bill that
/funds abortions.

If you want the exact wording feel free to read the ~3000 page bill
yourself, I got my info from lawyers and both Republicans and Democrats.
Why do you suppose it is that pro-life Democrats opposed this bill until
Obama bought their votes?

Taxpayers will be required to pay for healthcare insurance. The healthcare
insurance will include reproductive coverage. Reproductive coverage will
include abortions.

"The individual mandate - forcing Americans to purchase health insurance
under penalty of law - violates the Commerce Clause of the U.S.
Constitution. Most Americans do not want this plan. That includes millions
of pro-life Americans who don't want to be forced to purchase a health care
package that funds abortion."

http://www.aclj.org/media/pdf/Health...ortionMemo.pdf

Pro-life Democrats didn't want to sign the bill because of the abortion
coverage. Stupak wanted language included that excluded taxpayer dollars to
be used for abortions, Planned Parenthood said it was unacceptable. Stupak
didn't get his amendment included. Planned Parenthood posted on their
website "Victory" because the healthcare bill got passed and didn't exclude
funding abortions with taxpayer money.

RogerN

I was hoping he would be assassinated before signing the Planned
Parenthood health care abortion bill.

Ah, there's those good ol' Christian values again, in full song.


What do you expect? The truth is that virtually every heinous crime
committed in the U.S. is done by a Christian. Atheists are actually very
law abiding folks and god never tells them to do bad things like he does
Christians.

Hawke

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"RogerN" wrote in message
m...

snip
/
/Are you saying that President Obama is going to be killed within 2
/years?
/
/Have you presented your evidence to the Secret Service?
/
/They would be very interested in knowing that you have guns too.
/
/TMT

I was hoping he would be assassinated before signing the Planned
Parenthood health care abortion bill.

Ah, there's those good ol' Christian values again, in full song.

--
Ed Huntress

Shouldn't we love good and hate evil? Should America have a health care
bill that the majority don't want, shoved down their throat for the
political benefit of the President. Now we have more bad laws in this land
just because Obama wants it. Obama made special bribe deals with Democrats
to get the votes he wanted, he's buying votes with taxpayer money. I don't
understand how you don't have a problem with this. But then again, a woman
having an abortion isn't killing a person but someone killing a pregnant
woman is charged with killing 2 people, and you buy into that. If it isn't
a person it isn't in either case, if it is person, it is in both cases. The
law has it both ways currently and they can't both be right. If it is a
person, as it is if someone kills a pregnant woman, then all the abortions
that have happened in this country is killing a person.

RogerN

"Hawke" wrote in message
...

I was hoping he would be assassinated before signing the Planned
Parenthood health care abortion bill.

Ah, there's those good ol' Christian values again, in full song.


What do you expect? The truth is that virtually every heinous crime
committed in the U.S. is done by a Christian. Atheists are actually very
law abiding folks and god never tells them to do bad things like he does
Christians.

Hawke

Here's a response from a post similar to your statement showing how wrong
you are. The response was to some atheist claiming Hitler was killing in
the name of religion.


"You mention Hitler as your prime example. That's interesting since Hiter
said, as noted in the book "Hitler's Secret Conversations 1941-1944, With an
introductory essay on The Mind of Adolf Hitler by H.R. Trevor-Roper", that
religion is an
"...organized lie [that] must be smashed. The State must remain the absolute
master. When I was younger, I thought it was necessary to set about
[destroying religion] ...with dynamite. I've since realized there's room for
a little subtlety... . The final state must be... in St. Peter's Chair, a
senile officiant; facing him a few sinister old women... The young and
healthy are on our side... it's impossible to eternally hold humanity in
bondage and lies... . [It] was only between the sixth and eighth centuries
that Christianity was imposed upon our peoples... . Our peoples had
previously succeeded in living all right without this religion. I have six
divisions of SS men absolutely indifferent in matters of religion. It doesn't
prevent them from going to their death with serenity in their souls."

Hitler was opposed to much of the Church. He felt their morality was an
obsticle to their racist government policies and their eugenics programs.

Hitler did kill more people than the murder happy Stalin, but...

Mao murdered more than both Hitler and Stalin. Mao's self professed atheist
Government was responsible for the most deaths. There was clearly more
deaths committed by Mao's atheistic government. His attrocities account for
77 million or more
(http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=47616)

The death count is higher for atheistic governments, than Hitler's reign
alone: fact. There are over 4 Billion deaths due to atheistic governments in
the 20th century (http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat8.htm): fact. The
numbers of this deathcount far overshadows Hitler's Anti-Jewish and and
Anti-Christian attrocities (which were terrible).

Hitler was terrible, but he disliked organized religion. Mao's atheistic
government killed more than Hitler's government."

"RogerN" wrote in message
m...

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"RogerN" wrote in message
m...

snip
/
/Are you saying that President Obama is going to be killed within 2
/years?
/
/Have you presented your evidence to the Secret Service?
/
/They would be very interested in knowing that you have guns too.
/
/TMT

I was hoping he would be assassinated before signing the Planned
Parenthood health care abortion bill.

Ah, there's those good ol' Christian values again, in full song.

--
Ed Huntress

Shouldn't we love good and hate evil?

Sure. But you don't get to murder people because you've decided they're
evil. In fact, there are plenty of people who think that people who
fantasize about killing people they don't like are *themselves* evil. If you
put your thoughts into action, and then apply the Roger rule, you die, too.

Should America have a health care bill that the majority don't want,
shoved down their throat for the political benefit of the President.

You're 10 hours behind the times, Roger. A USA Today/Gallup poll today
showed that 49% approved of the passage of the health care reform bill; 40%
oppose it. 48% describe it as a "good first step." Only 31% thought it
"makes the wrong type of changes."

Of course, if you'd really paid attention to the poll details over the past
few months, this would be no surprise. Substantial majorities have favored
the individual elements of the bill for a long time now. Now that it's
passed, they're giving their judgment on its passage.

Now we have more bad laws in this land just because Obama wants it.

That's nonsense. First, your judgment of what is good and bad is, at best,
based on a flimsy knowledge of the industry and what affects this bill will
have upon it. Mine is only a little better, having spent several years
working in the industry from the business side. It's a big, tough job to
figure it all out.

Second, it isn't just because Obama wants it. Roughly half of the people in
the country want it; many in the other half will, when they get more
comfortable with it and understand it better. It's like the poll today; now
that it's passed, it's no longer a big uncertainty. Now people can think
about what it means rather than what a mess politics has made of it.

Obama made special bribe deals with Democrats to get the votes he wanted,
he's buying votes with taxpayer money. I don't understand how you don't
have a problem with this.

That's politics. It happens all the time. If the Republicans weren't being
such pricks, playing the party-line game, and cared more about the people in
this country than the freaking insurance industry, the back room deals would
not have been necessary.

But then again, a woman having an abortion isn't killing a person but
someone killing a pregnant woman is charged with killing 2 people, and you
buy into that.

We've been over this before. I don't agree with your assessment or your
judgment of it.

If it isn't a person it isn't in either case, if it is person, it is in
both cases. The law has it both ways currently and they can't both be
right. If it is a person, as it is if someone kills a pregnant woman,
then all the abortions that have happened in this country is killing a
person.

Nonsense.

--
Ed Huntress

On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 16:40:02 -0700, Hawke
wrote:


I was hoping he would be assassinated before signing the Planned
Parenthood health care abortion bill.

Ah, there's those good ol' Christian values again, in full song.


What do you expect? The truth is that virtually every heinous crime
committed in the U.S. is done by a Christian. Atheists are actually very
law abiding folks and god never tells them to do bad things like he does
Christians.

Hawke


Rather like the argument that potato's are poison - after all everyone
who ate potatoes in 1900 died.

John B.

On Mar 24, 7:26*pm, "RogerN" wrote:
"rangerssuck" wrote in message

...
On Mar 24, 6:46 am, "RogerN" wrote:



"Too_Many_Tools" wrote in message

....
On Mar 22, 5:03 pm, Gunner Asch wrote:

On Mon, 22 Mar 2010 12:40:05 -0500, Ignoramus7894

wrote:
My own opinion, which is worth what you pay for it, it that this
legislative victory is also a political victory for Democrats, for two
reasons.

1. This is a more minor reason, but passage of this law removes the
factor of annoyance about uncertainty in the minds of voters and also
shows that Democrats are capable of accomplishing a large legislative
change. Just because the uncertainty is over, causes some relief in
the minds of voters and that is a favorable factor.

More briefly, now we cannot say that "Obama administration
accomplished nothing".

2. There is a large constituency of people, like parents of young
adults lacking coverage, people with substandard health insurance
policies, and so on, who would eventually realize the benefits of this
change. When they do, they will, presumably, support its
sponsors.

Also, people like me, who have health insurance, but realize that they
would likely lose it when they *really* need it, would also be
favorably inclined towards it.

3. The people negatively affected are those young healthy well paid
people who have to shoulder some of the costs. While some of them
might realize that one day they may become old and unhealthy and not
so well paid, even if they do not, extra taxes will be a drop in the
bucket and not a hot button issue like gun control.

The healthcare reform has every potential of becoming a sacred
political cow, like Medicare, and create a pro-Democrat constituency
where none previously existed.

Aside from elections, here's one more point that I want to make.

4. As Warren Buffett pointed out, our health care costs are 14-16% of
GDP and are much higher than for other industrialized nations, which
badly affects our competitive standing. The healthcare law has some
chances of reducing that percentage.

i

Oh hell yes.

And then those that are forced to buy insurance will simply kill
Leftwing Extremists that have been unconstitutionaly driven to force
others to pay for someone elses insurance.

But hey...Leftwingers are going to be killed in hummm about 2 yrs, give
or take a little bit..so its a moot issue.

"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- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

/
/Are you saying that President Obama is going to be killed within 2
/years?
/
/Have you presented your evidence to the Secret Service?
/
/They would be very interested in knowing that you have guns too.
/
/TMT

I was hoping he would be assassinated before signing the Planned
Parenthood
health care abortion bill. But according to the good book, liberals would
prevail, check, homosexuality would be rampant, check, and in the end God
will come back and put them all in their place, hell, though his arms are
open and willing to accept whoever repents and comes to him.

RogerN

/
/Still waiting for you to point out the exact wording in the bill that
/funds abortions.

If you want the exact wording feel free to read the ~3000 page bill
yourself, I got my info from lawyers and both Republicans and Democrats.
Why do you suppose it is that pro-life Democrats opposed this bill until
Obama bought their votes?

Taxpayers will be required to pay for healthcare insurance. *The healthcare
insurance will include reproductive coverage. *Reproductive coverage will
include abortions.

"The individual mandate - forcing Americans to purchase health insurance
under penalty of law - violates the Commerce Clause of the U.S.
Constitution. *Most Americans do not want this plan. *That includes millions
of pro-life Americans who don't want to be forced to purchase a health care
package that funds abortion."

http://www.aclj.org/media/pdf/Health...ortionMemo.pdf

Pro-life Democrats didn't want to sign the bill because of the abortion
coverage. *Stupak wanted language included that excluded taxpayer dollars to
be used for abortions, Planned Parenthood said it was unacceptable. *Stupak
didn't get his amendment included. *Planned Parenthood posted on their
website "Victory" because the healthcare bill got passed and didn't exclude
funding abortions with taxpayer money.

RogerN

So, all you can do is cite someone else's rhetoric about the bill, but
you are unable to point to a single paragraph, sentence, phrase or
even a single word in the bill that justifies your hateful thoughts.

Thank goodness you're such a free thinker.

"rangerssuck" wrote in message
...
On Mar 24, 7:26 pm, "RogerN" wrote:
"rangerssuck" wrote in message

...
On Mar 24, 6:46 am, "RogerN" wrote:



"Too_Many_Tools" wrote in message

...
On Mar 22, 5:03 pm, Gunner Asch wrote:

On Mon, 22 Mar 2010 12:40:05 -0500, Ignoramus7894

wrote:
My own opinion, which is worth what you pay for it, it that this
legislative victory is also a political victory for Democrats, for
two
reasons.

1. This is a more minor reason, but passage of this law removes the
factor of annoyance about uncertainty in the minds of voters and also
shows that Democrats are capable of accomplishing a large legislative
change. Just because the uncertainty is over, causes some relief in
the minds of voters and that is a favorable factor.

More briefly, now we cannot say that "Obama administration
accomplished nothing".

2. There is a large constituency of people, like parents of young
adults lacking coverage, people with substandard health insurance
policies, and so on, who would eventually realize the benefits of
this
change. When they do, they will, presumably, support its
sponsors.

Also, people like me, who have health insurance, but realize that
they
would likely lose it when they *really* need it, would also be
favorably inclined towards it.

3. The people negatively affected are those young healthy well paid
people who have to shoulder some of the costs. While some of them
might realize that one day they may become old and unhealthy and not
so well paid, even if they do not, extra taxes will be a drop in the
bucket and not a hot button issue like gun control.

The healthcare reform has every potential of becoming a sacred
political cow, like Medicare, and create a pro-Democrat constituency
where none previously existed.

Aside from elections, here's one more point that I want to make.

4. As Warren Buffett pointed out, our health care costs are 14-16% of
GDP and are much higher than for other industrialized nations, which
badly affects our competitive standing. The healthcare law has some
chances of reducing that percentage.

i

Oh hell yes.

And then those that are forced to buy insurance will simply kill
Leftwing Extremists that have been unconstitutionaly driven to force
others to pay for someone elses insurance.

But hey...Leftwingers are going to be killed in hummm about 2 yrs,
give
or take a little bit..so its a moot issue.

"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- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

/
/Are you saying that President Obama is going to be killed within 2
/years?
/
/Have you presented your evidence to the Secret Service?
/
/They would be very interested in knowing that you have guns too.
/
/TMT

I was hoping he would be assassinated before signing the Planned
Parenthood
health care abortion bill. But according to the good book, liberals
would
prevail, check, homosexuality would be rampant, check, and in the end
God
will come back and put them all in their place, hell, though his arms
are
open and willing to accept whoever repents and comes to him.

RogerN

/
/Still waiting for you to point out the exact wording in the bill that
/funds abortions.

If you want the exact wording feel free to read the ~3000 page bill
yourself, I got my info from lawyers and both Republicans and Democrats.
Why do you suppose it is that pro-life Democrats opposed this bill until
Obama bought their votes?

Taxpayers will be required to pay for healthcare insurance. The healthcare
insurance will include reproductive coverage. Reproductive coverage will
include abortions.

"The individual mandate - forcing Americans to purchase health insurance
under penalty of law - violates the Commerce Clause of the U.S.
Constitution. Most Americans do not want this plan. That includes millions
of pro-life Americans who don't want to be forced to purchase a health
care
package that funds abortion."

http://www.aclj.org/media/pdf/Health...ortionMemo.pdf

Pro-life Democrats didn't want to sign the bill because of the abortion
coverage. Stupak wanted language included that excluded taxpayer dollars
to
be used for abortions, Planned Parenthood said it was unacceptable. Stupak
didn't get his amendment included. Planned Parenthood posted on their
website "Victory" because the healthcare bill got passed and didn't
exclude
funding abortions with taxpayer money.

RogerN
\
\So, all you can do is cite someone else's rhetoric about the bill, but
\you are unable to point to a single paragraph, sentence, phrase or
\even a single word in the bill that justifies your hateful thoughts.
\
\Thank goodness you're such a free thinker.

I guess I missed my chance to review it during the 5 days Obama promised it
would be on his desk before he signed it, and is seems like only yesterday.
If I understand correctly, the senate passed the senate version, the house
passed the house version, and Obama signed the Senate version. Actually
searching tonight I can't find a single paragraph, sentence, phrase, or even
a single word from whatever version Obama signed.

RogerN

On Mar 24, 11:10*pm, "RogerN" wrote:
"rangerssuck" wrote in message

...
On Mar 24, 7:26 pm, "RogerN" wrote:



"rangerssuck" wrote in message

...
On Mar 24, 6:46 am, "RogerN" wrote:

"Too_Many_Tools" wrote in message

....
On Mar 22, 5:03 pm, Gunner Asch wrote:

On Mon, 22 Mar 2010 12:40:05 -0500, Ignoramus7894

wrote:
My own opinion, which is worth what you pay for it, it that this
legislative victory is also a political victory for Democrats, for
two
reasons.

1. This is a more minor reason, but passage of this law removes the
factor of annoyance about uncertainty in the minds of voters and also
shows that Democrats are capable of accomplishing a large legislative
change. Just because the uncertainty is over, causes some relief in
the minds of voters and that is a favorable factor.

More briefly, now we cannot say that "Obama administration
accomplished nothing".

2. There is a large constituency of people, like parents of young
adults lacking coverage, people with substandard health insurance
policies, and so on, who would eventually realize the benefits of
this
change. When they do, they will, presumably, support its
sponsors.

Also, people like me, who have health insurance, but realize that
they
would likely lose it when they *really* need it, would also be
favorably inclined towards it.

3. The people negatively affected are those young healthy well paid
people who have to shoulder some of the costs. While some of them
might realize that one day they may become old and unhealthy and not
so well paid, even if they do not, extra taxes will be a drop in the
bucket and not a hot button issue like gun control.

The healthcare reform has every potential of becoming a sacred
political cow, like Medicare, and create a pro-Democrat constituency
where none previously existed.

Aside from elections, here's one more point that I want to make.

4. As Warren Buffett pointed out, our health care costs are 14-16% of
GDP and are much higher than for other industrialized nations, which
badly affects our competitive standing. The healthcare law has some
chances of reducing that percentage.

i

Oh hell yes.

And then those that are forced to buy insurance will simply kill
Leftwing Extremists that have been unconstitutionaly driven to force
others to pay for someone elses insurance.

But hey...Leftwingers are going to be killed in hummm about 2 yrs,
give
or take a little bit..so its a moot issue.

"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- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

/
/Are you saying that President Obama is going to be killed within 2
/years?
/
/Have you presented your evidence to the Secret Service?
/
/They would be very interested in knowing that you have guns too.
/
/TMT

I was hoping he would be assassinated before signing the Planned
Parenthood
health care abortion bill. But according to the good book, liberals
would
prevail, check, homosexuality would be rampant, check, and in the end
God
will come back and put them all in their place, hell, though his arms
are
open and willing to accept whoever repents and comes to him.

RogerN

/
/Still waiting for you to point out the exact wording in the bill that
/funds abortions.

If you want the exact wording feel free to read the ~3000 page bill
yourself, I got my info from lawyers and both Republicans and Democrats..
Why do you suppose it is that pro-life Democrats opposed this bill until
Obama bought their votes?

Taxpayers will be required to pay for healthcare insurance. The healthcare
insurance will include reproductive coverage. Reproductive coverage will
include abortions.

"The individual mandate - forcing Americans to purchase health insurance
under penalty of law - violates the Commerce Clause of the U.S.
Constitution. Most Americans do not want this plan. That includes millions
of pro-life Americans who don't want to be forced to purchase a health
care
package that funds abortion."

http://www.aclj.org/media/pdf/Health...ortionMemo.pdf

Pro-life Democrats didn't want to sign the bill because of the abortion
coverage. Stupak wanted language included that excluded taxpayer dollars
to
be used for abortions, Planned Parenthood said it was unacceptable. Stupak
didn't get his amendment included. Planned Parenthood posted on their
website "Victory" because the healthcare bill got passed and didn't
exclude
funding abortions with taxpayer money.

RogerN

\
\So, all you can do is cite someone else's rhetoric about the bill, but
\you are unable to point to a single paragraph, sentence, phrase or
\even a single word in the bill that justifies your hateful thoughts.
\
\Thank goodness you're such a free thinker.

I guess I missed my chance to review it during the 5 days Obama promised it
would be on his desk before he signed it, and is seems like only yesterday.
If I understand correctly, the senate passed the senate version, the house
passed the house version, and Obama signed the Senate version. *Actually
searching tonight I can't find a single paragraph, sentence, phrase, or even
a single word from whatever version Obama signed.

RogerN

So again, your threats of violence are founded on rhetoric of others
rather than on your reading of the words. You'd actually be willing to
kill and to die based on what you read of someone's opinion on their
web site? With no facts to back it up?

"Hawke" wrote in message
...

I was hoping he would be assassinated before signing the Planned
Parenthood health care abortion bill.

Ah, there's those good ol' Christian values again, in full song.


What do you expect? The truth is that virtually every heinous crime
committed in the U.S. is done by a Christian. Atheists are actually very
law abiding folks and god never tells them to do bad things like he does
Christians.

Hawke


Sometimes when in discussion with atheists or people resisting Christianity,
or religion in general you will hear the claim that religion has been the
cause of the most human suffering and death in the world. Typically, events
like the Crusades, the so-called "witch hunts" and the Inquisition will be
trotted out as proof. And many Christians will shrink back or will say
something like, "Even so, Christianity as it was espoused by Christ is
non-violent." Although it is true that Christianity as espoused by Christ
was to be spread not by the sword (as Islam is designed), but by the Word,
by mere preaching. But why should we allow the atheist to even use the
Crusades and such as evidence in their claim that most human suffering and
death has been caused by religion. It plainly is not true.

What I want to do is offer a detailed listing of human death from the 18th
century through the 20th century and see if the claim is true. Yes, we'll
also look at the Crusades, the witch hunts and the Inquisition.




DEATH TOLLS

18th Century Slave Trade

a.. Atlantic slave trade: ca. 5,000,000 transported and 8,100,000 died.
b.. Islamic slave trade: ca. 1,300,000 transported and 2,000,000 died.
I mean, what else do you expect when according to many evolutionary
theories, Africans are considered less than human, as if they are merely one
rung up from the apes themselves. It must have been easy for fellow hairless
apes to do this to other hairless apes.

Seven Years War (1755-63)

a.. 1 million, 300,000
French Revolution and Napoleonic Wars (1792-1802)

a.. Estimated 3-4 million
And these wars were supposed to be about bringing "freedom" to civilized
men.

War of the Spanish Succession (1701-13)

a.. 1 million, 324,300
Yet another non-religious war

As we leave the 1700s don't forget all of the many, many other events -- all
non-religious where hairless apes killed other hairless apes.

On to the 19th century...

19th Century Slave Trade

a.. Atlantic slave trade: ca. 1.6M transported and 2.5M deaths.
b.. Islamic slave trade: ca. 2M transported and 3M died.
Venezuela, power struggles (1830-1903)

a.. 1 million
Taiping Rebellion (1850-64)

a.. 20-30 million dead.
Aren't Asians supposed to be some of the most advanced hairless apes
according to evolution???

Colonial El Niño Famines (1876-1900)

a.. 31-61 million
American Civil War (1861-65)

a.. Over 600,000
Just how "civil" was that war?

Paraguay, War of the Triple Alliance (1864-70)

a.. Over 1 million or more than 80% of its population
Maybe it gets better when we get to the 20th century??? I mean, mankind
becomes so much more advanced....well at least advanced at killing each
other.

a.. WWI (1914-18)= 15 million (half of that is non-military death) and
this is a low estimate
b.. Russian Civil War (1917-22) = 9 million
c.. Soviet Union, Stalin's regime (1924-53) = 20-51 million (the Soviets
were decidedly "atheistic", right?)
d.. WWII (1937-45) = 55 million (yet another non-religious war)
e.. Post-War Expulsion of Germans from East Europe (1945-47) = 2 million,
100,000
f.. Chinese Civil War (1945-49) = 2 million, 500,000 (another not so
"civil" war)
g.. People's Republic of China, Mao Zedong's regime (1949-1975) = 40
million (again an "atheist" thing)
h.. Tibet (1950 et seq.) = 600,000 (China imposing "atheism" on others)
i.. Korean War (1950-53) = 2 million, 800,000
j.. North Korea (1948 et seq.) = 1 million, 663,000 (not even warring,
just imposing "atheism" on its own people)
k.. Rwanda and Burundi (1959-95) = 1 million 350,000
l.. Second Indochina War [including Vietnam] (1960-75) = 3 million,
500,000
m.. Ethiopia (1962-92) = 1 million, 400,000
n.. Afghanistan (1979-2001) = 1 million, 800,000 (Soviets trying to impose
"atheism" again)
o.. Sudan (1983 et seq.) = 1 million, 900,000 (no more slave trade deaths,
so they start killing each other??)
p.. Kinshasa Congo (1998 et seq.) = 3 million 800,000
Shall I go on?

Just to be fair, how about those "Crusades"??? (which in reality was less
about Christianity and more about securing wealth) Certainly that had to be
the biggest death toll, since according to atheists, most people have died
due to "religions". Or how about the "Witch hunts" or the Inquisition? That
should really push up the numbers eh?

a.. Crusades (1095-1291) = 1-5 million
b.. Witch Hunts (1400-1800) = est 20-100 thousand
c.. Spanish Inquisition (1478-1834) = est 32 thousand
Wow, I guess the hairless apes have Christians beat when it comes to
killing. So you see, the claim that most human suffering has been caused by
religion, is just plain false. Don't let anyone use this argument ever
again.

sources:
http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/wars18c.htm
http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/wars19c.htm
http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat1.htm
http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat2.htm
http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat0.htm

"rangerssuck" wrote in message
...
On Mar 24, 6:46 am, "RogerN" wrote:
"Too_Many_Tools" wrote in message

...
On Mar 22, 5:03 pm, Gunner Asch wrote:



On Mon, 22 Mar 2010 12:40:05 -0500, Ignoramus7894

wrote:
My own opinion, which is worth what you pay for it, it that this
legislative victory is also a political victory for Democrats, for two
reasons.

1. This is a more minor reason, but passage of this law removes the
factor of annoyance about uncertainty in the minds of voters and also
shows that Democrats are capable of accomplishing a large legislative
change. Just because the uncertainty is over, causes some relief in
the minds of voters and that is a favorable factor.

More briefly, now we cannot say that "Obama administration
accomplished nothing".

2. There is a large constituency of people, like parents of young
adults lacking coverage, people with substandard health insurance
policies, and so on, who would eventually realize the benefits of this
change. When they do, they will, presumably, support its
sponsors.

Also, people like me, who have health insurance, but realize that they
would likely lose it when they *really* need it, would also be
favorably inclined towards it.

3. The people negatively affected are those young healthy well paid
people who have to shoulder some of the costs. While some of them
might realize that one day they may become old and unhealthy and not
so well paid, even if they do not, extra taxes will be a drop in the
bucket and not a hot button issue like gun control.

The healthcare reform has every potential of becoming a sacred
political cow, like Medicare, and create a pro-Democrat constituency
where none previously existed.

Aside from elections, here's one more point that I want to make.

4. As Warren Buffett pointed out, our health care costs are 14-16% of
GDP and are much higher than for other industrialized nations, which
badly affects our competitive standing. The healthcare law has some
chances of reducing that percentage.

i

Oh hell yes.

And then those that are forced to buy insurance will simply kill
Leftwing Extremists that have been unconstitutionaly driven to force
others to pay for someone elses insurance.

But hey...Leftwingers are going to be killed in hummm about 2 yrs, give
or take a little bit..so its a moot issue.

"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- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

/
/Are you saying that President Obama is going to be killed within 2
/years?
/
/Have you presented your evidence to the Secret Service?
/
/They would be very interested in knowing that you have guns too.
/
/TMT

I was hoping he would be assassinated before signing the Planned
Parenthood
health care abortion bill. But according to the good book, liberals would
prevail, check, homosexuality would be rampant, check, and in the end God
will come back and put them all in their place, hell, though his arms are
open and willing to accept whoever repents and comes to him.

RogerN
\
\Still waiting for you to point out the exact wording in the bill that
\funds abortions.
\

I don't have the bill but here's something from a eMail I got from Planned
Parenthood and it confirms what I have heard from ACLJ.ORG . I sent a
"Thank you" letter to my Democrat representative from the Planned Parenthood
link except I changed the content of my letter :-)

"Dear Roger,

Thank you for sending a message to your representative.

This truly is a historic moment for the American people. Thanks
to supporters like you, Congress passed a health care reform
bill that will extend coverage to tens of millions of women and
families, and we were able to keep the Stupak abortion ban out
of the final legislation!

....

Sincerely,

Cecile Richards, President
Planned Parenthood Federation of America"

On Mar 25, 1:23*am, "RogerN" wrote:
"rangerssuck" wrote in message

...
On Mar 24, 6:46 am, "RogerN" wrote:



"Too_Many_Tools" wrote in message

....
On Mar 22, 5:03 pm, Gunner Asch wrote:

On Mon, 22 Mar 2010 12:40:05 -0500, Ignoramus7894

wrote:
My own opinion, which is worth what you pay for it, it that this
legislative victory is also a political victory for Democrats, for two
reasons.

1. This is a more minor reason, but passage of this law removes the
factor of annoyance about uncertainty in the minds of voters and also
shows that Democrats are capable of accomplishing a large legislative
change. Just because the uncertainty is over, causes some relief in
the minds of voters and that is a favorable factor.

More briefly, now we cannot say that "Obama administration
accomplished nothing".

2. There is a large constituency of people, like parents of young
adults lacking coverage, people with substandard health insurance
policies, and so on, who would eventually realize the benefits of this
change. When they do, they will, presumably, support its
sponsors.

Also, people like me, who have health insurance, but realize that they
would likely lose it when they *really* need it, would also be
favorably inclined towards it.

3. The people negatively affected are those young healthy well paid
people who have to shoulder some of the costs. While some of them
might realize that one day they may become old and unhealthy and not
so well paid, even if they do not, extra taxes will be a drop in the
bucket and not a hot button issue like gun control.

The healthcare reform has every potential of becoming a sacred
political cow, like Medicare, and create a pro-Democrat constituency
where none previously existed.

Aside from elections, here's one more point that I want to make.

4. As Warren Buffett pointed out, our health care costs are 14-16% of
GDP and are much higher than for other industrialized nations, which
badly affects our competitive standing. The healthcare law has some
chances of reducing that percentage.

i

Oh hell yes.

And then those that are forced to buy insurance will simply kill
Leftwing Extremists that have been unconstitutionaly driven to force
others to pay for someone elses insurance.

But hey...Leftwingers are going to be killed in hummm about 2 yrs, give
or take a little bit..so its a moot issue.

"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- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

/
/Are you saying that President Obama is going to be killed within 2
/years?
/
/Have you presented your evidence to the Secret Service?
/
/They would be very interested in knowing that you have guns too.
/
/TMT

I was hoping he would be assassinated before signing the Planned
Parenthood
health care abortion bill. But according to the good book, liberals would
prevail, check, homosexuality would be rampant, check, and in the end God
will come back and put them all in their place, hell, though his arms are
open and willing to accept whoever repents and comes to him.

RogerN

\
\Still waiting for you to point out the exact wording in the bill that
\funds abortions.
\

I don't have the bill but here's something from a eMail I got from Planned
Parenthood and it confirms what I have heard from ACLJ.ORG . *I sent a
"Thank you" letter to my Democrat representative from the Planned Parenthood
link except I changed the content of my letter :-)

"Dear Roger,

Thank you for sending a message to your representative.

This truly is a historic moment for the American people. Thanks
to supporters like you, Congress passed a health care reform
bill that will extend coverage to tens of millions of women and
families, and we were able to keep the Stupak abortion ban out
of the final legislation!

...

Sincerely,

Cecile Richards, President
Planned Parenthood Federation of America"

And still, all you have is hearsay. Yes, the "Stupack abortion ban"
was kept out of the bill, but only because there was absolutely no
need for it in the first place, as this bill does not fund abortions.
But you already knew that.

You've been duped by the right wingers, who have taken your religious
beliefs and played them against your sense of right and wrong.

"rangerssuck" wrote in message
...
On Mar 25, 1:23 am, "RogerN" wrote:
"rangerssuck" wrote in message

...
On Mar 24, 6:46 am, "RogerN" wrote:



"Too_Many_Tools" wrote in message

...
On Mar 22, 5:03 pm, Gunner Asch wrote:

On Mon, 22 Mar 2010 12:40:05 -0500, Ignoramus7894

wrote:
My own opinion, which is worth what you pay for it, it that this
legislative victory is also a political victory for Democrats, for
two
reasons.

1. This is a more minor reason, but passage of this law removes the
factor of annoyance about uncertainty in the minds of voters and also
shows that Democrats are capable of accomplishing a large legislative
change. Just because the uncertainty is over, causes some relief in
the minds of voters and that is a favorable factor.

More briefly, now we cannot say that "Obama administration
accomplished nothing".

2. There is a large constituency of people, like parents of young
adults lacking coverage, people with substandard health insurance
policies, and so on, who would eventually realize the benefits of
this
change. When they do, they will, presumably, support its
sponsors.

Also, people like me, who have health insurance, but realize that
they
would likely lose it when they *really* need it, would also be
favorably inclined towards it.

3. The people negatively affected are those young healthy well paid
people who have to shoulder some of the costs. While some of them
might realize that one day they may become old and unhealthy and not
so well paid, even if they do not, extra taxes will be a drop in the
bucket and not a hot button issue like gun control.

The healthcare reform has every potential of becoming a sacred
political cow, like Medicare, and create a pro-Democrat constituency
where none previously existed.

Aside from elections, here's one more point that I want to make.

4. As Warren Buffett pointed out, our health care costs are 14-16% of
GDP and are much higher than for other industrialized nations, which
badly affects our competitive standing. The healthcare law has some
chances of reducing that percentage.

i

Oh hell yes.

And then those that are forced to buy insurance will simply kill
Leftwing Extremists that have been unconstitutionaly driven to force
others to pay for someone elses insurance.

But hey...Leftwingers are going to be killed in hummm about 2 yrs,
give
or take a little bit..so its a moot issue.

"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- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

/
/Are you saying that President Obama is going to be killed within 2
/years?
/
/Have you presented your evidence to the Secret Service?
/
/They would be very interested in knowing that you have guns too.
/
/TMT

I was hoping he would be assassinated before signing the Planned
Parenthood
health care abortion bill. But according to the good book, liberals
would
prevail, check, homosexuality would be rampant, check, and in the end
God
will come back and put them all in their place, hell, though his arms
are
open and willing to accept whoever repents and comes to him.

RogerN

\
\Still waiting for you to point out the exact wording in the bill that
\funds abortions.
\

I don't have the bill but here's something from a eMail I got from Planned
Parenthood and it confirms what I have heard from ACLJ.ORG . I sent a
"Thank you" letter to my Democrat representative from the Planned
Parenthood
link except I changed the content of my letter :-)

"Dear Roger,

Thank you for sending a message to your representative.

This truly is a historic moment for the American people. Thanks
to supporters like you, Congress passed a health care reform
bill that will extend coverage to tens of millions of women and
families, and we were able to keep the Stupak abortion ban out
of the final legislation!

...

Sincerely,

Cecile Richards, President
Planned Parenthood Federation of America"
/
/And still, all you have is hearsay. Yes, the "Stupack abortion ban"
/was kept out of the bill, but only because there was absolutely no
/need for it in the first place, as this bill does not fund abortions.
/But you already knew that.
/
/You've been duped by the right wingers, who have taken your religious
/beliefs and played them against your sense of right and wrong.

Then why didn't they want the Stupak abortion ban, if, as you're claiming,
it's already there, "no need for it". Did you believe Nancy Pelosi's lies?
Why, when Stupak wanted anti-abortion in the bill, didn't he get what he
wanted instead of Obama signing an executive order, that he can remove any
time?

I see your point and I thank you for being reasonable, but here's the facts.
They (Pelosi for one) claim that abortion isn't covered by taxpayer money.
Stupak, a Democrat, wants it in writing, just so there is no question. They
refuse to give it to him in writing, why? Why does Planned Parenthood say
it is a victory that it is without the Stupak abortion ban? Sorry to say
but I'm afraid that your party had duped you.

RogerN

RogerN wrote:
"rangerssuck" wrote in message
...
On Mar 25, 1:23 am, "RogerN" wrote:
"rangerssuck" wrote in message

...
On Mar 24, 6:46 am, "RogerN" wrote:



"Too_Many_Tools" wrote in message


...
On Mar 22, 5:03 pm, Gunner Asch wrote:

On Mon, 22 Mar 2010 12:40:05 -0500, Ignoramus7894

Then why didn't they want the Stupak abortion ban, if, as you're
claiming, it's already there, "no need for it".

Because any amendment to the bill would have required that it be sent back
to the Senate to be voted on again Roger.
The Senate Republicans would have filibustered the bill.


Did you believe
Nancy Pelosi's lies? Why, when Stupak wanted anti-abortion in the
bill, didn't he get what he wanted instead of Obama signing an
executive order, that he can remove any time?

I see your point and I thank you for being reasonable, but here's the
facts. They (Pelosi for one) claim that abortion isn't covered by
taxpayer money. Stupak, a Democrat, wants it in writing, just so
there is no question. They refuse to give it to him in writing, why?

Because any amendment to the bill would have required that it be sent back
to the Senate to be voted on again Roger.
The Senate Republicans would have filibustered the bill.

Why does Planned Parenthood say it is a victory that it is without
the Stupak abortion ban? Sorry to say but I'm afraid that your party
had duped you.

You are indeed sorry. In an earlier post you demonstrated that you don't
even have a grip on what actually happened Roger.
The Senate passed their version of the bill. The House passed theirs.
Rather than conference the bill, it went to reconciliation. The House passed
the Senate bill and then the budget reconciliation.
The reconciliation package went to the Senate and while every attempt to
amend the bill was voted down, the Parliamentarian found two technical
flaws. The reconciliation package, with the flawed language removed, was
then passed by the Senate and the House will take it up tonight. Pelosi has
indicated that it will pass and if it does, Obama will then sign it into
law.

HTH
But I doubt it.

--
John R. Carroll

On Mar 25, 6:38*pm, "RogerN" wrote:
"rangerssuck" wrote in message

...
On Mar 25, 1:23 am, "RogerN" wrote:



"rangerssuck" wrote in message

...
On Mar 24, 6:46 am, "RogerN" wrote:

"Too_Many_Tools" wrote in message

....
On Mar 22, 5:03 pm, Gunner Asch wrote:

On Mon, 22 Mar 2010 12:40:05 -0500, Ignoramus7894

wrote:
My own opinion, which is worth what you pay for it, it that this
legislative victory is also a political victory for Democrats, for
two
reasons.

1. This is a more minor reason, but passage of this law removes the
factor of annoyance about uncertainty in the minds of voters and also
shows that Democrats are capable of accomplishing a large legislative
change. Just because the uncertainty is over, causes some relief in
the minds of voters and that is a favorable factor.

More briefly, now we cannot say that "Obama administration
accomplished nothing".

2. There is a large constituency of people, like parents of young
adults lacking coverage, people with substandard health insurance
policies, and so on, who would eventually realize the benefits of
this
change. When they do, they will, presumably, support its
sponsors.

Also, people like me, who have health insurance, but realize that
they
would likely lose it when they *really* need it, would also be
favorably inclined towards it.

3. The people negatively affected are those young healthy well paid
people who have to shoulder some of the costs. While some of them
might realize that one day they may become old and unhealthy and not
so well paid, even if they do not, extra taxes will be a drop in the
bucket and not a hot button issue like gun control.

The healthcare reform has every potential of becoming a sacred
political cow, like Medicare, and create a pro-Democrat constituency
where none previously existed.

Aside from elections, here's one more point that I want to make.

4. As Warren Buffett pointed out, our health care costs are 14-16% of
GDP and are much higher than for other industrialized nations, which
badly affects our competitive standing. The healthcare law has some
chances of reducing that percentage.

i

Oh hell yes.

And then those that are forced to buy insurance will simply kill
Leftwing Extremists that have been unconstitutionaly driven to force
others to pay for someone elses insurance.

But hey...Leftwingers are going to be killed in hummm about 2 yrs,
give
or take a little bit..so its a moot issue.

"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- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

/
/Are you saying that President Obama is going to be killed within 2
/years?
/
/Have you presented your evidence to the Secret Service?
/
/They would be very interested in knowing that you have guns too.
/
/TMT

I was hoping he would be assassinated before signing the Planned
Parenthood
health care abortion bill. But according to the good book, liberals
would
prevail, check, homosexuality would be rampant, check, and in the end
God
will come back and put them all in their place, hell, though his arms
are
open and willing to accept whoever repents and comes to him.

RogerN

\
\Still waiting for you to point out the exact wording in the bill that
\funds abortions.
\

I don't have the bill but here's something from a eMail I got from Planned
Parenthood and it confirms what I have heard from ACLJ.ORG . I sent a
"Thank you" letter to my Democrat representative from the Planned
Parenthood
link except I changed the content of my letter :-)

"Dear Roger,

Thank you for sending a message to your representative.

This truly is a historic moment for the American people. Thanks
to supporters like you, Congress passed a health care reform
bill that will extend coverage to tens of millions of women and
families, and we were able to keep the Stupak abortion ban out
of the final legislation!

...

Sincerely,

Cecile Richards, President
Planned Parenthood Federation of America"

/
/And still, all you have is hearsay. Yes, the "Stupack abortion ban"
/was kept out of the bill, but only because there was absolutely no
/need for it in the first place, as this bill does not fund abortions.
/But you already knew that.
/
/You've been duped by the right wingers, who have taken your religious
/beliefs and played them against your sense of right and wrong.

Then why didn't they want the Stupak abortion ban, if, as you're claiming,
it's already there, "no need for it". *Did you believe Nancy Pelosi's lies?
Why, when Stupak wanted anti-abortion in the bill, didn't he get what he
wanted instead of Obama signing an executive order, that he can remove any
time?

I see your point and I thank you for being reasonable, but here's the facts.
They (Pelosi for one) claim that abortion isn't covered by taxpayer money..
Stupak, a Democrat, wants it in writing, just so there is no question. *They
refuse to give it to him in writing, why? *Why does Planned Parenthood say
it is a victory that it is without the Stupak abortion ban? *Sorry to say
but I'm afraid that your party had duped you.

RogerN

You need to read the rules on reconcilliation. ANY amendment, even the
unnecessary, redundant Stupak one, pretty much would mean that they
would have to start over. And THAT is why the Democrats fought against
it. Stupak was trying to kill the entire bill.

"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
...
RogerN wrote:
"rangerssuck" wrote in message
...
On Mar 25, 1:23 am, "RogerN" wrote:
"rangerssuck" wrote in message

...
On Mar 24, 6:46 am, "RogerN" wrote:



"Too_Many_Tools" wrote in message


...
On Mar 22, 5:03 pm, Gunner Asch wrote:

On Mon, 22 Mar 2010 12:40:05 -0500, Ignoramus7894

Then why didn't they want the Stupak abortion ban, if, as you're
claiming, it's already there, "no need for it".

Because any amendment to the bill would have required that it be sent back
to the Senate to be voted on again Roger.
The Senate Republicans would have filibustered the bill.


Did you believe
Nancy Pelosi's lies? Why, when Stupak wanted anti-abortion in the
bill, didn't he get what he wanted instead of Obama signing an
executive order, that he can remove any time?

I see your point and I thank you for being reasonable, but here's the
facts. They (Pelosi for one) claim that abortion isn't covered by
taxpayer money. Stupak, a Democrat, wants it in writing, just so
there is no question. They refuse to give it to him in writing, why?

Because any amendment to the bill would have required that it be sent back
to the Senate to be voted on again Roger.
The Senate Republicans would have filibustered the bill.

So Obama would have been held to his bi-partisan promise? How terrible!

Why does Planned Parenthood say it is a victory that it is without
the Stupak abortion ban? Sorry to say but I'm afraid that your party
had duped you.

You are indeed sorry. In an earlier post you demonstrated that you don't
even have a grip on what actually happened Roger.
The Senate passed their version of the bill. The House passed theirs.
Rather than conference the bill, it went to reconciliation. The House
passed
the Senate bill and then the budget reconciliation.
The reconciliation package went to the Senate and while every attempt to
amend the bill was voted down, the Parliamentarian found two technical
flaws. The reconciliation package, with the flawed language removed, was
then passed by the Senate and the House will take it up tonight. Pelosi
has
indicated that it will pass and if it does, Obama will then sign it into
law.

HTH
But I doubt it.

--
John R. Carroll


But I keep getting people like you or Ed to explain it and take me in a full
circle back to what I said in the first place. Has reconciliation ever been
used for this significant of a power grab by the Government? Is it
constitutional for Congress to pass a bill mandating citizens to buy
something from private companies? Why couldn't we wait for a Health Care
that the majority wanted? Why the rush to cram Obamacare down our throats?
You explained it but you didn't explain it, you explained that if the
Democratic Stupak amendment was added, it would have to be voted on again,
so? Is their something wrong with passing a bill that the majority of
Americans want, both Democrats and Republicans? But instead Obama cancels
trips to force his crappy bill upon us. Why not vote on a basic health care
plan that the majority agree on and take the more difficult issues
separately? Yeah, I know, but isn't what's good for our country more
important than what any political party wants? Like I heard, the only thing
bi-partisan about the bill was the opposition to it.

With all the bad laws in this land, I personally feel that something this
big is worth doing right, even if it takes more time to do it right. Is
this about healthcare or about Obama? Or is it about political parties? I
hope they prove me wrong for the sake of our country, I guess all I can do
is wait and see.

RogerN

On Mar 25, 8:16*pm, "RogerN" wrote:
"John R. Carroll" wrote in ...





RogerN wrote:
"rangerssuck" wrote in message
....
On Mar 25, 1:23 am, "RogerN" wrote:
"rangerssuck" wrote in message

....
On Mar 24, 6:46 am, "RogerN" wrote:

"Too_Many_Tools" wrote in message

....
On Mar 22, 5:03 pm, Gunner Asch wrote:

On Mon, 22 Mar 2010 12:40:05 -0500, Ignoramus7894

Then why didn't they want the Stupak abortion ban, if, as you're
claiming, it's already there, "no need for it".

Because any amendment to the bill would have required that it be sent back
to the Senate to be voted on again Roger.
The Senate Republicans would have filibustered the bill.

Did you believe
Nancy Pelosi's lies? Why, when Stupak wanted anti-abortion in the
bill, didn't he get what he wanted instead of Obama signing an
executive order, that he can remove any time?

I see your point and I thank you for being reasonable, but here's the
facts. They (Pelosi for one) claim that abortion isn't covered by
taxpayer money. Stupak, a Democrat, wants it in writing, just so
there is no question. *They refuse to give it to him in writing, why?

Because any amendment to the bill would have required that it be sent back
to the Senate to be voted on again Roger.
The Senate Republicans would have filibustered the bill.

So Obama would have been held to his bi-partisan promise? *How terrible!





Why does Planned Parenthood say it is a victory that it is without
the Stupak abortion ban? *Sorry to say but I'm afraid that your party
had duped you.

You are indeed sorry. In an earlier post you demonstrated that you don't
even have a grip on what actually happened Roger.
The Senate passed their version of the bill. The House passed theirs.
Rather than conference the bill, it went to reconciliation. The House
passed
the Senate bill and then the budget reconciliation.
The reconciliation package went to the Senate and while every attempt to
amend the bill was voted down, the Parliamentarian found two technical
flaws. The reconciliation package, with the flawed language removed, was
then passed by the Senate and the House will take it up tonight. Pelosi
has
indicated that it will pass and if it does, Obama will then sign it into
law.

HTH
But I doubt it.

--
John R. Carroll

But I keep getting people like you or Ed to explain it and take me in a full
circle back to what I said in the first place. *Has reconciliation ever been
used for this significant of a power grab by the Government? *Is it
constitutional for Congress to pass a bill mandating citizens to buy
something from private companies? *Why couldn't we wait for a Health Care
that the majority wanted? *Why the rush to cram Obamacare down our throats?
You explained it but you didn't explain it, you explained that if the
Democratic Stupak amendment was added, it would have to be voted on again,
so? *Is their something wrong with passing a bill that the majority of
Americans want, both Democrats and Republicans? *But instead Obama cancels
trips to force his crappy bill upon us. *Why not vote on a basic health care
plan that the majority agree on and take the more difficult issues
separately? *Yeah, I know, but isn't what's good for our country more
important than what any political party wants? *Like I heard, the only thing
bi-partisan about the bill was the opposition to it.

With all the bad laws in this land, I personally feel that something this
big is worth doing right, even if it takes more time to do it right. *Is
this about healthcare or about Obama? *Or is it about political parties? *I
hope they prove me wrong for the sake of our country, I guess all I can do
is wait and see.

RogerN

Roger, Roger, Roger...It's always gonna be something with you, isn't
it. A few hours ago, it was about Obama the Nazi Baby Killer, and now
it's about Senate rules? Once again, very slowly this time:

Had the Stupak (or any other amendment been added in the house
reconcilliation process, the bill would have been returned to the full
senate for a vote which would have then required a 60 vote
"supermajority" to pass, as the Republicans promised to fillibuster.
Avoiding amendments allowed the bill to pass witha simple majority in
the Senate.

There's nothing unconstitutional about it. Nothing illegal. The GOP
may not like it, but they practically invented it. That's how the Bush
tax cuts for the richest Americans were passed, over the objections of
the Democrats.

As for what the "majority" wants, well, obviously, the majority of
Congressmen and Senators want it, otherwise we wouldn't be having this
discussion. Those are the duly elected representatives of the people,
doing their jobs. If, on the other hand, you prefer public opinion
polls rather than legislative votes (as prescribed in the
Constitution), then take a look at this:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washing...avorable_N.htm
[
WASHINGTON — More Americans now favor than oppose the health care
overhaul that President Obama signed into law Tuesday, a USA TODAY/
Gallup Poll finds — a notable turnaround from surveys before the vote
that showed a plurality against the legislation.
By 49%-40%, those polled say it was "a good thing" rather than a bad
one that Congress passed the bill. Half describe their reaction in
positive terms — as "enthusiastic" or "pleased" — while about four in
10 describe it in negative ways, as "disappointed" or "angry."

The largest single group, 48%, calls the legislation "a good first
step" that needs to be followed by more action. And 4% say the bill
itself makes the most important changes needed in the nation's health
care system.
]

RogerN wrote:
"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
...
RogerN wrote:
"rangerssuck" wrote in message

...
On Mar 25, 1:23 am, "RogerN" wrote:
"rangerssuck" wrote in message


...
On Mar 24, 6:46 am, "RogerN" wrote:



"Too_Many_Tools" wrote in message


...
On Mar 22, 5:03 pm, Gunner Asch wrote:

On Mon, 22 Mar 2010 12:40:05 -0500, Ignoramus7894

Then why didn't they want the Stupak abortion ban, if, as you're
claiming, it's already there, "no need for it".

Because any amendment to the bill would have required that it be
sent back to the Senate to be voted on again Roger.
The Senate Republicans would have filibustered the bill.


Did you believe
Nancy Pelosi's lies? Why, when Stupak wanted anti-abortion in the
bill, didn't he get what he wanted instead of Obama signing an
executive order, that he can remove any time?

I see your point and I thank you for being reasonable, but here's
the facts. They (Pelosi for one) claim that abortion isn't covered
by taxpayer money. Stupak, a Democrat, wants it in writing, just so
there is no question. They refuse to give it to him in writing,
why?

Because any amendment to the bill would have required that it be
sent back to the Senate to be voted on again Roger.
The Senate Republicans would have filibustered the bill.

So Obama would have been held to his bi-partisan promise? How
terrible!

A filibuster is an entirely partisan practice Roger.



But I keep getting people like you or Ed to explain it and take me in
a full circle back to what I said in the first place. Has
reconciliation ever been used for this significant of a power grab by
the Government?

Many times.
Iraq has cost Americans a trillion dollars Roger and that boondogle is just
money ****ed away.
The Bush tax cuts, another trillion and bthe were either done through
reconcilliation or supplemental appropriations.

Is it constitutional for Congress to pass a bill
mandating citizens to buy something from private companies?

It is.

Why
couldn't we wait for a Health Care that the majority wanted?

?
Have you forgotten the Democrats ran health-care reform as one of their
signature issues in 2008 and kicked ass at the polls?
You might also want to have a look at today's polling data Roger.

Why the
rush to cram Obamacare down our throats?

15 months of legistlative wrangling after 100 years of discussion isn't my
idea of rushing.

You explained it but you
didn't explain it, you explained that if the Democratic Stupak
amendment was added, it would have to be voted on again, so?

Because any amendment to the bill would have required that it be
sent back to the Senate to be voted on again Roger.
The Senate Republicans would have filibustered the bill.

Is their something wrong with passing a bill that the majority of
Americans want, both Democrats and Republicans? But instead Obama
cancels trips to force his crappy bill upon us.

Obama didn't get a vote on this Roger.
Wrong branch.
He hasn't been a member of the Senate for over a year now.

Why not vote on a
basic health care plan that the majority agree on and take the more
difficult issues separately? Yeah, I know, but isn't what's good for
our country more important than what any political party wants?

It is, and the Democrats did just exactly that.
Congress will continue to work over health care now that we have a law in
place until the US has a single payer system.
That is the difficult part and it remains to be done. Once it is, the United
States will finally have rejoined the rest of the civilized world.

Like
I heard, the only thing bi-partisan about the bill was the opposition
to it.

Two hundred of the Republican amendments offered in committee are in the
bill that passed Roger.
What Republicans did early on was make a political calculation.
They realized that passage of a bill by a Congress with a majority of
Democrats and signed by a Democrat President would mean to Republicans what
the passage of Social Security meant years back. They didn't get back into
the White House again until Eisenhower.
In other words, they have been trying to protect their political hides, not
pass meaningful legislation.
Between now and November, this is going to become more and more obvious to
voters.
It's an off year election and the economy is down but let me clue you in.
Should the economy be trending upward in a more positive fashion on the jobs
front by the next election, and it almost certainly will, Republicans might
have great difficulty at the polls. The Republican party is also in the
process of eating their own right now Roger.
Just look at Utah and the Republican caucus. They might actually throw out
their Republican INCUMBENT in a fit of pique.


With all the bad laws in this land, I personally feel that something
this big is worth doing right, even if it takes more time to do it
right.

I watched John Boehner from the well of the House this evening and he's
apparently back on his meds.
Now that we actually have a law, Congress will work like hell to make sure
that shortcomings are addressed as they are revealed.
That was exactly what he said, but not really what he meant. His threatening
statements regarding defunding were idiocy and he knows it. The apocalypse
predicted didn't materialize and it won't. I'll be interested to see how
Republicans explain away that because the facts aren't on their side, never
were, and won't be going forward.

Is this about healthcare or about Obama?

Both.


Or is it about
political parties? I hope they prove me wrong for the sake of our
country, I guess all I can do is wait and see.

No, you can vote but thank God, only once.
You can also go out and see how many nut jobs like yourself you can collect
up and get them to the polls as well.

--
John R. Carroll

On 3/25/2010 5:16 PM, RogerN wrote:
"John R. wrote in message
...
RogerN wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Mar 25, 1:23 am, wrote:
wrote in message

...
On Mar 24, 6:46 am, wrote:



wrote in message


...
On Mar 22, 5:03 pm, Gunner wrote:

On Mon, 22 Mar 2010 12:40:05 -0500, Ignoramus7894

Then why didn't they want the Stupak abortion ban, if, as you're
claiming, it's already there, "no need for it".

Because any amendment to the bill would have required that it be sent back
to the Senate to be voted on again Roger.
The Senate Republicans would have filibustered the bill.


Did you believe
Nancy Pelosi's lies? Why, when Stupak wanted anti-abortion in the
bill, didn't he get what he wanted instead of Obama signing an
executive order, that he can remove any time?

I see your point and I thank you for being reasonable, but here's the
facts. They (Pelosi for one) claim that abortion isn't covered by
taxpayer money. Stupak, a Democrat, wants it in writing, just so
there is no question. They refuse to give it to him in writing, why?

Because any amendment to the bill would have required that it be sent back
to the Senate to be voted on again Roger.
The Senate Republicans would have filibustered the bill.

So Obama would have been held to his bi-partisan promise? How terrible!

Why does Planned Parenthood say it is a victory that it is without
the Stupak abortion ban? Sorry to say but I'm afraid that your party
had duped you.

You are indeed sorry. In an earlier post you demonstrated that you don't
even have a grip on what actually happened Roger.
The Senate passed their version of the bill. The House passed theirs.
Rather than conference the bill, it went to reconciliation. The House
passed
the Senate bill and then the budget reconciliation.
The reconciliation package went to the Senate and while every attempt to
amend the bill was voted down, the Parliamentarian found two technical
flaws. The reconciliation package, with the flawed language removed, was
then passed by the Senate and the House will take it up tonight. Pelosi
has
indicated that it will pass and if it does, Obama will then sign it into
law.

HTH
But I doubt it.

--
John R. Carroll


But I keep getting people like you or Ed to explain it and take me in a full
circle back to what I said in the first place. Has reconciliation ever been
used for this significant of a power grab by the Government? Is it
constitutional for Congress to pass a bill mandating citizens to buy
something from private companies? Why couldn't we wait for a Health Care
that the majority wanted? Why the rush to cram Obamacare down our throats?
You explained it but you didn't explain it, you explained that if the
Democratic Stupak amendment was added, it would have to be voted on again,
so? Is their something wrong with passing a bill that the majority of
Americans want, both Democrats and Republicans? But instead Obama cancels
trips to force his crappy bill upon us. Why not vote on a basic health care
plan that the majority agree on and take the more difficult issues
separately? Yeah, I know, but isn't what's good for our country more
important than what any political party wants? Like I heard, the only thing
bi-partisan about the bill was the opposition to it.

With all the bad laws in this land, I personally feel that something this
big is worth doing right, even if it takes more time to do it right. Is
this about healthcare or about Obama? Or is it about political parties? I
hope they prove me wrong for the sake of our country, I guess all I can do
is wait and see.

RogerN



You're missing the whole point here, Roger. This bill was passed
entirely legitimately. It was not rammed through anything. There were
solid majorities in both houses that voted for this bill. It was only
because of extreme opposition by the minority party that all this hassle
happened. Any bill that can get 59 senators to vote for it and gets well
over 200 congressmen to vote for it has wide support. In this case a
strong majority of senators wanted to pass the bill, a strong majority
of congressmen wanted to pass the bill, and the president wanted to pass
the bill. That should be an easy road to passing a bill. Those people
represent the will of the majority of the American people. What you had
was a concerted and intense opposition by a minority to stop the
majority from doing what it was elected to do. That is not democracy.
The minority is supposed to lose in a majority rule arena, and they did.
They just made it a real big deal and made a hell of a fuss because they
refused to accept what the majority wanted. Actually, the republicans
and their supporters should be ashamed of how they acted but since they
have no sense of shame that'll never happen. In fact, they're proud of
acting like asses.

Hawke