Mee too!

" Are you referring to the Heritage Foundation plan developed over two decades"

Never heard of it. Irrelevent to my point anyways. I specifically pointed out the lack of evidence that the law would reduce healthcare costs and the lack of addressing defensive medicine.

"Your contention that there are few Republican fruitcakes is laughable!"

More than a few Democratic ones as well. Namely, Naggy Pelosi. Now that we've passed the bill, do you think she knows what's in it yet?

"Further your name calling of Pelosi just further shows your immaturity and lack of knowledge when it comes to this matter."

No, she is definitely an incompentent babbling fool *by choice*. She spends more time bragging about herself as a 'female in power' than doing her job. Even if she was replaced by another Democratic woman I would be satisfied to see her go. Anyone but her.

"Once the plan actually takes effect and we see if these measure work then you can bitch. Unless you are a fortune teller I'm not interested in your ridiculous claims. The 33 times and resulting hundreds of millions of taxpayers dollars the Republicans have wasted trying to overturn Obamacare has however been a huge and total waste of money."

If you read my original statement, I was making exactly *your* point. I was countering the Democract's rubbish claim that they decreased healthcare costs over the next decade. In actuality, they can't know that, as you just said. Thanks for supporting my point.

"However, you base everything on assumptions which have, of course, not yet come to pass. The legislation has for the most part not even taken effect and results that would not be seen for a decade at a minimum. Yet you always ignore things like the economic crash in 2008 and the huge health care costs right now that to a great part are due to 30,000,000,000 people without insurance."

I am *not* making assumptions. The *Democrats* are making assumptions. They're already calling victory on "fixing" healthcare. The TRUTH is that we don't know that. And their motivation for doing so is already tarnished. They didn't address defensive medicine, which had a much strong potential to decrease costs.

"I'm not surprised that you have never heard of the actual origins of the legislation that your party was originally responsible for and instead only repeat propaganda. Instead you blame liberals when it is your party who is to blame if your point is true."

The bill was 2,074 pages long. GOP or Democrat constructed doesn't matter to me. A bill that long with that many clauses, sections, and subsections is an ugly tangled mess.

"A lie is one thing an estimation is another. Get a dictionary or watch Fox to see what actual lies are."

lol---typical liberal assault on truth: distort and revise the original statement so that any subsequent reference becomes a "lie".

"watch Fox to see what actual lies are"

Why should I watch Fox? I'm surrounded by perfect examples right here at Current. :D

"Yes you are. You are basing this on propaganda. The Dems are basing it on the results of the plan that was instituted by Romney in Mass. Perhaps you should actually ook up facts and stop just spitting out right wing talking points."

No you can't conclude that. Yes I agree it was based on Romey's plan. That's factual history. But I *can* call BS on the Dem's claim the law was a victory for the American people. When they call it a victory, *they* are making an assumption. I'm attacking their unfounded assumption, not the law itself (except for the tort reform issue, which is also fact).

So far, in the absence of statistical data, the only thing left is common sense. The 30 million people added to healthcare you mentioned...roughly half of that is due to an expansion of Medicaid. So there you have it; a massive increase in another government program. Is the much-hyped "preventive medicine" going to offset the massive increase in government dollars getting sucked into Medicaid? I doubt it---and I have every reason to be skeptical.

"Clearly you have never been exposed to western laws. You should stop trying to "play" at politics and g back to your video games."

Our original Constitution was about 6 pages long. It's something the average American can read and understand in a short time.

When laws hundreds and thousands of pages long are passed, it leads to massive distrust of the government. And it should. Everybody becomes a criminal, because all it takes is some lawyer to find some obsure little clause buried deep in the document to file a lawsuit against someone else. The healthcare bill, at 2,074 pages long, is inherently a poorly written bill.

"Hoover and the Great Depression: Bush and the Great Recession. Enough said."

No, not enough said. Connect the dots. Black Tuesday occured only months after Hoover took office. By that standard, Obama is essentially responsible for the current recession. I can't deny the facts with Bush, however. He should have left things alone. Carter, however, failed to take action to prevent a recession. He was a Democrat.

The GOP set it up to. Then did nothing to stop it. Once again wall street, oil companies were behind it too...The GOP is blame lot for all the depression that happen this country and world. Because of there shareholders

"The GOP set it up to. Then did nothing to stop it. Once again wall street, oil companies were behind it too...The GOP is blame lot for all the depression that happen this country and world. Because of there shareholders"

Your assessment is not entirely accurate. There were no oil companies involved. It was mortgage/housing crisis. If oil was involved, those companies are so rich they would *not* have needed a bailout.

The GOP is *not* all to blame. The top Democrats (such as Barney Frank) totally supported the GOP's policies. Democrats are playing politics by blaming the GOP when the Democrats were fully supportive of the GOP economic policies.

"False and only a Republican would say this."

Wrong again. You're so eager to pounce you incorrectly read my statement:

"The Great Depression occurred WHILE Hoover was President"

Well, duh! I didn't say it didn't. But it started mere months after he took office---there was nothing he could have done to prevent it. The Bubble had been growing for years before he became president. He could have passed regulatory legislation, but it would have had little effect. Even if it did work, he would have been labeled a rain cloud that ruined the economic boom party. It was a lose-lose scenerio for him.

"The Great Recession occurred WHILE Bush was President. Only a Republican would push or pull those dates back or forward to other President's terms!"

What you failed to understand was that BOTH Obama and Hoover inherited a bad economy. Hoover's just wasn't apparent until a few months after he took office. *If* the economy crashed only months after *Obama* took office, everybody WELL KNOWS the Dems would be blaming the previous administration for every little bit of it.

"You may claim ten to twelve months of a Presidential term doesn't count however, a President's term is only four years so if you are going to discount the whole first year why not discount it all when you don't like it?"

Because the bubble was forming for years. The Bubble didn't start forming after Hoover took office. With *this* president in *this* circumstance, I don't hold him responsible though he was the official scapegoat.

"Further all Presidents have little effect on the economy. So if you are going to claim Hoover couldn't have stopped the Great Depression don't be a hypocrite and hold other Presidents responsible for their economies either."

Presidents have little affect on recovoring an economy from a depression. In contrast, the catastrophic results of an economic policy they put in place may not be felt for a decade or more later. In that respect they have a significant effect.

With that said, I don't hold president's responsible who inherited the economic policies of a previous presidents. That includes Hoover and Obama.

"Of course you will be alone on this. Presidents are responsible for what happens during their terms just like ship captains are responsible for what happens on their ships."

Somebody has to be the scapegoat, whether it's merited or not.

"What you fail to understand is that Hoover instituted policies that helped crash the economy. Read history. This is a well known undebatable fact."

Falsehood. Just looking into this I find no basis for your claim that Hoover instituted policies that helped crash the economy. In fact, reading history has convinced me more than ever that Hoover was aware that speculation was out of control. He even asked that laws be passed addressing these issues---the complete opposite of what your claiming:

http://www.ecommcode.com/hoover/hooveronline/hoover_bio/pres.htm

How true..It is a matter of his party and maybe the color of man skin....Plus they want make sure this dosen't happen again. This would have happen if a woman and she was dnc too. They fiqure if GOP did it first they could keep man of color uncontrol and the same with a woman, it is a power of white man...

"We are now EXPORTING oil to China. The pipeline is not going to be used for national oil supplies but only for oil company profits."

Well obviously. We are a capitalist economy. The purpose of a company is to make a profit. lol.

"Until these oil companies can come up with real safety and pollution standards that they will follow and use the oil for we the people the pipeline should not go through."

Commerica airplane wrecks get lots negative media attention, but flying is still statistically the safest way to travel. Compared to transportation via road or train per volume of oil transported, pipelines are very safe and clean.

"This is the claim. We need to the pipeline to become "oil independent." "

It's not my claim. I'm aware the US is already becoming oil independent regardless of the pipeline.

"It only creates about a thousand temporary jobs and far less permanent jobs and is extremely risky from a ecological standpoint."

It is not extremely risky. It's much safer than transportation by rail or train per volume of crude transported. It brings resources and dollars into *our* industries since the crude will be processed at American refineries. Jobs are only a small motivation for building the pipeline.

"So if it is not to establish "domestic oil independence," then it is a pointless project."

What's wrong with boosting domestic oil supply or increasing exports? Why are we only trying to meet the minimum bar? That only slows the growth of our economy. Jobs and economics are not the issue; the only issue some folks are raising are environmental concerns. Not all those opposed are on the same page. Some say ecological concerns like you, and others just flat out hate oil because burning it generate CO2. The latter will just oppose any expansion of the petroleum industry whether it's a pipeline or new well. But I consider these issues minimal and don't justify blocking the project from going forward.

"This is ridiculous and simply a baseless opinion yet again."

No---you're completely making stuff up yourself. LOL Look at the facts yourself:

http://www.pipeline101.com/HSSE/safety.html

"You should really start looking up facts before making statements."

O.o As should you.

"Pipelines spill all the time. Rail (which by the way is the same thing as train), has very infrequent spills."

No they don't. Read the article yourself. Trucks are far more dangerous (which is what I meant to say instead of "rail"). And trains are safe but transport much less volume.

Undeniably, per volume of oil transported, pipelines are safest and most efficient. Environmentalists do *themselves* and *their cause* a huge disservice by prohibiting pipelines.

And that would be?

The Democrats of course.

Thanks Leen61, and I believe their lying is a bi-product of greed!

They desperately need to justify their greed, so the lies follow (even to them-selves), absolutely, agree 100%!

It sure is, kenny!

Yes, tonight we can maybe start to get some kind of effort to bring these a-holes to trial!

Absolutely correct!

dream on

That would be a challenge! :)

so very true

Just tell old crabby, you will send him a pinup of Paul (aka Eddie Munster) Ryan, in a thong. (LOL)

ROFLMVO!!!!

LMAO!!!

my mother always said, misery loves company. (LOL)

100% correct!

Good one! :)

Actually my posting has dropped 95%, like I stated 3 weeks ago. I have decided to drop by every once in a while to set things straight.

It will just make my occasional posts more important....he..he..:)

Thanks for the reply. Hope you have a relaxing day.

wow tough crowd when you get down voted for saying thank you and wishing someone a nice day.

Now kenny, our resident troll is going to have a bitch fit, for talking about his idol. (LOL)

Your probably right, so far he hasn't showed!

You very correct, I'm still waiting for that FDR moment from Obama!

Gathering up his cut and paste Faux-Noise approved propaganda-clip library to vomit up all over this thread like he does every one where shows up.

His radiated brain is constantly malfunctioning! :)

It's not the Republicans that are the real problem. It's people like the resident troll who have decided they want to believe in Republican greatness, and that Ronald Reagan in particular did great things for the country, so any evidence to the contrary, no matter how legitimate, must be wrong.

I suspect this is why conservatism and Christianity are so compatible. The point of both conservatism and Christianity is to believe what you want to, even without the evidence to back it up.

Here is how Christian conservatives think:

I have a poodle in my lap that is actually a grey wolf changed into a poodle using the evolutionary process, but my religious leaders say there is no such thing as evolution, so I have to willingy ignore the facts looking me right in the face, and probably licking it. I have a creature that man created using the evolutionary process in my possession, but my faith says I don’t, so I don’t.

Not one dime of money has trickled down from the top in 40 years, but my chosen party says “Trickle Down” works, so I have to willingly ignore the facts. My faith in my political party says trickle down works, so it does. Even if it has never happened

Not one job has been created by giving tax breaks to the “Job Creators”, but my chosen party says that giving them tax breaks does create jobs, so I have to willingly ignore the fact that it never has, and continue to believe the party line. My faith in my political party says tax breaks for the rich creates jobs, so they do. Even if it has never happened.

Ronald Reagan took the United States from the world’s largest lender to the world’s largest debtor in less than 3,000 days, but conservative political leaders say that Republican conservatism is good for the country so conservative voters have to willingly ignore the facts. They have faith in their chosen religion and they have faith in their chosen political party. They have been taught from an early age that evidence does not matter. If you have faith in something, that is all it takes for your beliefs to be true. Religion, politics, or anything else they CHOOSE to believe is true, simply because they believe it.

Too much radiation from sitting to close to the tv all the years eating up the Faux-Noise propaganda (no Fukishima required).

That too, but mostly Japan!

Well and truly said!

excellent comment jim!!!