PDA

View Full Version : APP - Healthcare chances better?



Jarod
09-02-2009, 08:33 AM
From what I am seeing, this Congressional break has been good for healthcare's chances.

The attitude and mood seems to have shifted to a better place for the passage of a meaningfull Obama backed bill.

Lets hope I am right, we will see when Congress comes back.

When do they come back?

uscitizen
09-02-2009, 11:29 AM
I expect something will be passed. However I expect it to benefit industry more than citizens.

cawacko
09-02-2009, 11:37 AM
Considering Obama's dropping poll numbers and the supposive dropping of the public option I think the argument can me made things definitely aren't at their high point for Obama from a health care perspective right now. Things can and do change though so we're not done yet.

Jarod
09-02-2009, 12:30 PM
I am starting to wonder if the Public Option is once again a realistic possability. I hope so.

uscitizen
09-02-2009, 12:40 PM
I am starting to wonder if the Public Option is once again a realistic possability. I hope so.

Naah the sheeple have been misled by the corporate right once again.
The sheeple are convinced the public option will ruin our country.

cawacko
09-02-2009, 01:22 PM
I am starting to wonder if the Public Option is once again a realistic possability. I hope so.

Considering they talked again about dropping it you better raise your level of hopping.

uscitizen
09-02-2009, 02:22 PM
Congress should be swapped over to the public option. They are paid with our tax dollars, why do they deserve better healthcare than the citizens they represent?

FUCK THE POLICE
09-02-2009, 03:02 PM
Congress should be swapped over to the public option. They are paid with our tax dollars, why do they deserve better healthcare than the citizens they represent?

Because they could get other jobs and make much much more?

SmarterthanYou
09-02-2009, 03:30 PM
Because they could get other jobs and make much much more?

fine. let them. I'd like to take kay baileys senate seat. i'll even take public option while i'm there.

Cancel 2016.2
09-02-2009, 03:55 PM
Considering they talked again about dropping it you better raise your level of hopping.

so his vertical needs to go from 3" to what? 18? 24?

cawacko
09-02-2009, 04:10 PM
so his vertical needs to go from 3" to what? 18? 24?

Nice irony that I misspell a word while talking with Jarod.

tinfoil
09-02-2009, 08:08 PM
Congress should be swapped over to the public option. They are paid with our tax dollars, why do they deserve better healthcare than the citizens they represent?

because dickhead morons like you vote the same people into office that pass laws like that. Then you call other people the problem-- when you are real problem.


Like this gem from earlier in the thread

Naah the sheeple have been misled by the corporate right once again.
The sheeple are convinced the public option will ruin our country.


Yeah, dumbass, it's the sheeple who pointed out the flaws. It's sheeple who read the fucking bill and posted the details(which you obviously ignored)

You and your fellow supporters are the sheeple.

Jarod
09-03-2009, 06:45 AM
The deal is not Obama's approval ratings, its what Americans belive about health care.

The fraud about DEATH PANNELS perpertrated by Palin and some other Republicans has been exposed and Americans are pissed.

Damocles
09-03-2009, 07:16 AM
The deal is not Obama's approval ratings, its what Americans belive about health care.

The fraud about DEATH PANNELS perpertrated by Palin and some other Republicans has been exposed and Americans are pissed.
Right. Which is why he is desperate to rebrand and make a second attempt at it.

Jarod
09-03-2009, 07:22 AM
Right. Which is why he is desperate to rebrand and make a second attempt at it.

WE shall see. I would not call it desperate.

Damocles
09-03-2009, 07:29 AM
WE shall see. I would not call it desperate.
I think making an unprecedented appearance before both houses to drum up support is a sign of desperation.

DamnYankee
09-03-2009, 07:30 AM
Congress should be swapped over to the public option. They are paid with our tax dollars, why do they deserve better healthcare than the citizens they represent?Congress will never subject themselves to the system that they want for the non-ruling classes.

Jarod
09-03-2009, 07:32 AM
I think making an unprecedented appearance before both houses to drum up support is a sign of desperation.

1) Its not unprecedented.

2) I dont see it as a sign of depseration.

DamnYankee
09-03-2009, 07:37 AM
http://www.britishbattles.com/waterloo/images/napoloen.jpg

Damocles
09-03-2009, 07:41 AM
1) Its not unprecedented.

2) I dont see it as a sign of depseration.
It is quite unprecedented for a new President to be addressing Congress in this fashion. Yeah, not quite the norm. Even the need for such an action shows that this horse is nearly already dead... I don't think whipping it some more is going to make it live again either.

DamnYankee
09-03-2009, 07:56 AM
kgyq0adAIhE

DamnYankee
09-03-2009, 08:00 AM
LOL:

PSuhuopoLiI

Jarod
09-03-2009, 09:09 AM
It is quite unprecedented for a new President to be addressing Congress in this fashion. Yeah, not quite the norm. Even the need for such an action shows that this horse is nearly already dead... I don't think whipping it some more is going to make it live again either.

I disagree, I guess you could call it unprecidented for a black president to be addressing congress this way also... but thats not the relevant part.

Jarod
09-03-2009, 09:11 AM
Are you all saying we are not going to get healthcare reform in any shape or size?

DamnYankee
09-03-2009, 09:21 AM
I disagree, I guess you could call it unprecidented for a black president to be addressing congress this way also... but thats not the relevant part. When did this involve race?

Damocles
09-03-2009, 09:25 AM
When did this involve race?
When he started realizing he had nothing, that's when they bring up that he's black as if that had anything to do with the price of rice in China.

belme1201
09-03-2009, 09:41 AM
I think making an unprecedented appearance before both houses to drum up support is a sign of desperation.

Bravery? Strategy?

belme1201
09-03-2009, 09:49 AM
Are you all saying we are not going to get healthcare reform in any shape or size?

Dilly-dally a la 1994, one way or the other, that is the object. There is no plan with the name Obama or a 'D' on it that the GOP wants or will vote for in this year or any other, whether good for the country, its people, or not.
Only what benefits the for-profit private sector will be considered by the bought and paid for GOP.

Damocles
09-03-2009, 10:06 AM
Bravery? Strategy?
Necessity. If his plan is to have any hope he must do some serious CPR to bring it back into life. It isn't bravery to desperately try to revive failing legislation that you had already urged people to vote on before it was ever debated.

Jarod
09-03-2009, 10:32 AM
When did this involve race?

When it involved a new president.

Jarod
09-03-2009, 10:33 AM
Damo are you saying all healthcare reform is all but dead, or just the public option?

DamnYankee
09-03-2009, 10:53 AM
When it involved a new president. Why?

Jarod
09-04-2009, 06:58 AM
Why?

You will have to look above at Damo's logic...

Damocles
09-04-2009, 07:20 AM
You will have to look above at Damo's logic...
No. You will have to explain your own logic.

Jarod
09-04-2009, 07:32 AM
Ok, jeesh...

Damo said it was unprecidented for a "new" president to address a joint session of congress.

I compared that to my statement that it was also unprecidented for a black president to address a joint session of congress.

My point is that him being a "new" president is illrelevant, just like him being a "black" president is illrelevant and thus it does not make it unprecidented for the purpose of the point we were discussing.

Damocles
09-04-2009, 07:35 AM
Ok, jeesh...

Damo said it was unprecidented for a "new" president to address a joint session of congress.

I compared that to my statement that it was also unprecidented for a black president to address a joint session of congress.

My point is that him being a "new" president is illrelevant, just like him being a "black" president is illrelevant and thus it does not make it unprecidented for the purpose of the point we were discussing.
This early in a President's term it is unprecedented for them to need to appear before a joint session in this manner, usually their popularity carries their first large legislation, even Bush was able to pass the Pill Bill and other "reform" that normally wouldn't pass with the Congress he had.. This honeymoon is ending quickly.

You are just clueless as to what I mean so you make crap up that you want to argue. It's called the straw man fallacy, you seem to be more blatant at it daily.

Jarod
09-04-2009, 07:39 AM
This early in a President's term it is unprecedented for them to appear before a joint session in this manner, usually their popularity carries their first large legislation, even Bush was able to pass the Pill Bill and other "reform" that normally wouldn't pass with the Congress he had..

You are just clueless as to what I mean so you make crap up that you want to argue. It's called the straw man fallacy, you seem to be more blatant at it daily.

No, I was merely pointing out that its not unprecidented. Bill Clinton did it with health care also. Now you want to bring in that its early in his term... I just dont see why that is relevant. He is trying to pass something that has a LOT of special interests against it, its hard to do. The timing in his presidency is just about as relevant as him being black.

Cancel 2016.2
09-04-2009, 08:22 AM
I disagree, I guess you could call it unprecidented for a black president to be addressing congress this way also... but thats not the relevant part.

Why is it that whenever someone questions a move by Obama someone on the left spouts off about Obama being black????

Jarod
09-04-2009, 08:30 AM
Why is it that whenever someone questions a move by Obama someone on the left spouts off about Obama being black????

Jeesh, you are really not following along are you?

Damocles
09-04-2009, 09:12 AM
No, I was merely pointing out that its not unprecidented. Bill Clinton did it with health care also. Now you want to bring in that its early in his term... I just dont see why that is relevant. He is trying to pass something that has a LOT of special interests against it, its hard to do. The timing in his presidency is just about as relevant as him being black.
Ah, well if that were the case I should have said "rare" rather than unprecedented, but in actuality Bill Clinton did it more than a year after he took office so... you are full of it.

Damocles
09-04-2009, 09:13 AM
Why is it that whenever someone questions a move by Obama someone on the left spouts off about Obama being black????
Because they think it will be easier to argue that straw man than it will be to actually think.

Jarod
09-04-2009, 09:14 AM
Because they think it will be easier to argue that straw man than it will be to actually think.

Again this has absolutly nuthing about him being black, that was my point, you two know that and are being obtuse.

Damocles
09-04-2009, 09:50 AM
Again this has absolutly nuthing about him being black, that was my point, you two know that and are being obtuse.
Man, you have spent all day looking in a mirror and screaming obtuse. You injected race because your point was weak and you thought it could buttress your argument, however it's been so overused anymore that all we do is mock the idiots who keep bringing it up. It took more than a year for Clinton to feel it necessary to address the joint Congress in the same way, your example did not hold up.

Only you thought that his skin tone could end the conversation, just you.

Jarod
09-04-2009, 09:53 AM
Man, you have spent all day looking in a mirror and screaming obtuse. You injected race because your point was weak and you thought it could buttress your argument, however it's been so overused anymore that all we do is mock the idiots who keep bringing it up. It took more than a year for Clinton to feel it necessary to address the joint Congress in the same way, your example did not hold up.

Only you thought that his skin tone could end the conversation, just you.

That is such bullshit and you know it. No, I was pointing out, and you know it, that his skin tone was just as illrelevant as the newness of his presidency. I used skin tone, and you know it, because it was the most ILLRELEVANT thing I could think of!

Damocles
09-04-2009, 09:55 AM
That is such bullshit and you know it. No, I was pointing out, and you know it, that his skin tone was just as illrelevant as the newness of his presidency. I used skin tone, and you know it, because it was the most ILLRELEVANT thing I could think of!
The newness of the Presidency is not irrelevant. If your example had panned out I would have had to change unprecedented to "rare", however it did not. You injected race because you thought it would make others believe somebody was a racist. It was rubbish, it is over used, it is weak, it really has no place in this discussion, you shoehorned it because you thought it would chase people away.

Jarod
09-04-2009, 10:04 AM
The newness of the Presidency is not irrelevant. If your example had panned out I would have had to change unprecedented to "rare", however it did not. You injected race because you thought it would make others believe somebody was a racist. It was rubbish, it is over used, it is weak, it really has no place in this discussion, you shoehorned it because you thought it would chase people away.

False, it clearly has absolutly nuthing to do with his race, that was my point. You are really not living up to your reputation today. Your shrill and conclusionary arguments are really not up to par!

Damocles
09-04-2009, 10:06 AM
False, it clearly has absolutly nuthing to do with his race, that was my point. You are really not living up to your reputation today. Your shrill and conclusionary arguments are really not up to par!
Your attempt to twist out of what you have actually said has been truly sad, none of your attempts have even gotten close to a bit of logic in them. You again stand before the mirror shouting at what you want to see in others. There is no reason to inject race nowadays in this way except as an attempt to end a conversation. The problem is people are used to it now and it doesn't work anymore.

Jarod
09-04-2009, 11:59 AM
Your attempt to twist out of what you have actually said has been truly sad, none of your attempts have even gotten close to a bit of logic in them. You again stand before the mirror shouting at what you want to see in others. There is no reason to inject race nowadays in this way except as an attempt to end a conversation. The problem is people are used to it now and it doesn't work anymore.

You mock what you lack the capacity to understand.

Damocles
09-04-2009, 09:13 PM
You mock what you lack the capacity to understand.
Please. :rolleyes:

I mock nothing. I simply point out what we've seen you do in this thread. It's like saying you mock the sky when you say you see clouds.

You failed to back up your argument with facts so you played the race card, badly. That's not the trump suit for this round.

DamnYankee
09-07-2009, 06:15 PM
You will have to look above at Damo's logic...In other words, you played the race card and can't explain yourself; typical liberal.

Jarod
09-08-2009, 07:47 AM
In other words, you played the race card and can't explain yourself; typical liberal.

No, geesh, one cant even mention the guy is black without you guys freaking out and making all kinds of race card accusations! Sensative?

DamnYankee
09-08-2009, 08:11 AM
No, geesh, one cant even mention the guy is black without you guys freaking out and making all kinds of race card accusations! Sensative? The correct term is "accurate". *shrug*

Jarod
09-08-2009, 08:17 AM
The correct term is "accurate". *shrug*

Not in this case. If you see, my entire point was that his skin color is completly illrelevant!

DamnYankee
09-08-2009, 08:42 AM
Not in this case. If you see, my entire point was that his skin color is completly illrelevant! Then why mention it?

Jarod
09-08-2009, 08:49 AM
Then why mention it?

If you read above, I mentioned it because I was saying it was as illrelevant as him being a new president.

Dramo said that it was unprecidented for a new president to address congress, I said its also unprecidented for a black president to address congress but not relevant!

Geesh, you guys are so quick to claim race card....

DamnYankee
09-08-2009, 11:11 AM
If you read above, I mentioned it because I was saying it was as illrelevant as him being a new president.

Dramo said that it was unprecidented for a new president to address congress, I said its also unprecidented for a black president to address congress but not relevant!

Geesh, you guys are so quick to claim race card....If its irrelevant, then why mention it?

Jarod
09-08-2009, 12:38 PM
If its irrelevant, then why mention it?

You are not too bright are you?

My point was that it is illrelevant, as illralevant as the stuff Dramo was mentioning. Its called parody.

DamnYankee
09-08-2009, 01:00 PM
So now its a parody. :rolleyes:

Jarod
09-08-2009, 01:14 PM
So now its a parody. :rolleyes:

Always has been...