Next Show: ...loading...

Debate with Bill O’Reilly on Obama Tax “Compromise”

May 1, 2011

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

  • Robt February 27, 2011 4:28 am


    From your 1st paragragh above,

    “Robt. You say that my views are partisan because my guy won. And I say you are partisan because your guy lost. You want to have the popular vote elect the President, but that doesn�t always happen. The President is elected by the Electorial College, they have not always followed the popular vote.”
    End Qoute………….

    *Go back and reread my last and quote me whre I said, ” that my views are partisan because my guy won”.
    You are interpreting what I said into something you want it to be.
    *Quote, “You want to have the popular vote elect the President”.

    Where did that come from and where on earth did I even come close to even making that implication?

    -Of course the electorial college is in effect. To put it mildly, let us say there are 101 voters in this imaginary electorial district, all 101 ballots arre cast. If the vote is 48 cast for candidate A and 49 is cast for candidate B. Should the final 4 ballots be discounted because the hole was punched a half a centameter off and the ballot counters can’t figure out what the intent of the voter of that ballot meant by the coffee stain on the far corner of one of those 4 ballots left to count? Did the voter put the coffee stain there because they are signaling a ballot choice?

    Could candidate A with 48 votes over take candidate B who has 49 votes with 4 ballots left to count? to take that eletorial ?
    Which could give the state as a winner take all?

    *What was the irrepreable harm that Candidate GW Bush would incur (which the SCOTUS stated) that wouldn’t occur to candidate Gore? What was the SCOTUS saying?

    What legal standing did this case have to be considered by the SCOTUS?

    What presedence was there?

    @000 was not the first time there was vote count contesting?

    But enough of that,
    just go back and reread my last comment at the beginning on Bush V Gore.
    because I have no idea where you are coming from. I mean, check out the part where I tell you if the SCOTUS ruled somehow in favor of Gore I would be angry and in line on that issue with irate republicans. And you tkae that as “if my guy won” itis different for me?

    How is it Gov’t can’t do anything right but on the Bush V Gore decision, you think Gov’t did? Florida State Gov’t is incompetent but Federal Gov’t is in this instance? Hardly a consistant stance by any review of this republican phenonenon of State rights-Goverment can’t do anything and small unitrusive Federal Gov’t.

    These notions of misconception
    that Democratic majorities spend recklessly and grow Gov’t but Republicans don’t and only republicans are annointed capable to correct the economic mess” is only a sales pitch by snake oil salesmen.
    Here is one of my favorite GOP campaign issues of republicans.

    While the GOP in Congress and the GOP media hype up “Government cannot create jobs”, and block most all Dem legislations to promote job creation. The republicans run for election “to create jobs”.
    Go figure?
    The GOP gains control of the House and what do they do? Read the Consititution and raise 2 abortion bills? (Fiddling as Rome burns) Oh yeah, they carried out their promise to repeal the Affordable Health Care and replace it. When they knew they could not repeal it and they actually played a hoax by voting to repeal the, Jobs Killing health care act”. There is no such titled legislation or law with tht name.

    After 8 years of seriously growing Gov’t and spiking debt and deficit with still more debt off the books (Iraq, Afghanistan Wars and Medicare part D -for instance. They are the holy ones doing the Americans work to balance the budget/deficit now? That when they want to cut spending on where they want to cut it, and ram that cutting down our throats as when they rammed their spending up our economic Butt, as they find quiet ways to fund their desired spending. They are now the fiscal ones?
    Is this what you think?

    Between 2003-2008 with war divervions and war powers in their hands. We experienced one of the biggest hiests in U.S. history from our Gov’t.
    Now remember how Cheney and friends kept telling us how “deficits don’t matter”..!
    No-bid Cost-plus contracts. To people that were paid handsomely, provided no service or goods, will never be held accountable.
    You see, Dems did not hold Accountavle ill gains and corruption. Something you would consider partisan, maybe?

    I at first thought the Tea Party folks finally got it. That they could influence the GOP.

    But when I watched the co opting of the T-Party by your Club for Growths, Dick Army’s lobbying firms “Freedom Works”. Then saw the big time long time lobbyists get selected by T_party elected candidates hire lobbyists to their staff. Then watched actual long time D.C. lobbyist critters get elected “as” T-party candidates.
    The T-Party congressmen that felt going over to a lobbyist function to put their hands out for money to sell their influence while they watched TV and raised their hands thinking they are sworn in officially via TV?.
    The reading of the Constitution on the floor as if only then will they ever read it or underst and it.

    Yet, there was still something missing. Oh yeah, they promised to “Repeal and replace”. But we find out there was NO existing, “Replace” part and it is obvious there wasn’t and would not be one. At least for years to come and the health care industry to swallow up the U.S. GDP, leaving no room for oil, food, housing, education unless of course your one of those Government employees as Speaker John Boehner who takes home a puny wage and a humble pie Health Care and pension package.

    After Wall Street was exempt for going to prison for causing the poor economy and after 8 years of outsourcing on steriods.

    They now have you believing that the economy is the fault of Democrats and their policies? Teachers, uninions. What happened to blaming illegal immigrants? The debt from public education and teachers unions is Thomas Jefferson’s fault. The Fire Dept and their unions puts Ben Franklin at fault.

    The GOP media and GOP itself has told their masses that it was the Brown people that took their jobs, It is the moral decay of abortions and gay people that made God Angry at us. Because we aren’t a Christian nation like we were, it was all those poor people that forced the banks and and mortgage goliaths to make those loans, now you need to blame the UNIONS and Public employees for any economic woes.
    Absolutely no responsibility to Wall street and Governor Walker gives them a pass and shields them from any sacrifice in restoring our economy. How many Wall Street criminals went to prison?

    How about any Governor that faces a state employee pension shortfall due to Wall Street’s recklessness and Moody’s improvised ratings of bad investments, how about the Governors (like Walker) getting off his butt and legally going after those wall Street entities that sold those bad investment products KNOWINGLY to the states pension fund. Which caused a lot of the short falls.
    Sorry, they are above the law. The law is for you to abide by or they will insist you are punished under that law.
    No it is the unions, teachers, and anyone else that earns close to a union wage from a non union employer workplace. Earns it because of union competition in the workforce set a floor on wages. It is these people that crashed the economy. The same people that are on the hook for the Wall Street bail outs, the unpaid for 2 wars. The corporates and Wall Street executives have their pay electronically send to Caum Islands deposit where no taxes need be paid. Like the illegal Mexicans earning money here and sending it to family in Mexico. The money leaves the country and they will not pay for the Bush debt and his deficit that got passed on to us and our kids while they will be free from taxes on any of that shared sacrifice. Sure sure we have tax brackets but they have batteries of tax attorneys.

    If Government employees are to blame (and their unions) What exactly is a House of Representative member? The political party called the GOP is a union. Sure, they call it a political party but republicans pay dues and get health care and benefits through their political party. They collect dues and take an oath to the party. REpublican go by a seniority structure regarding job positions and promotions.
    The Chmber of Commerce, the Club for Growth, Freedom Works, Citizens United, Tea Party Patriots even ask for dues. look it up on their web sites.

    They stand united and speak with one voice. They have their political union bosses too. They call him a “Whip”, Speaker” instead of “Business Agent” and “union president”.
    They have their Chairman Mao position.
    Its a union and therefore needs to be broken and disbanded to save America’s federal budget. There is no other way.

    **My reccomendations to our budget
    Step one..!

    �Charge the Congress rent for those living in their offices, including utilities, security, and telephone bills; cut the military by 100 billion, including promoting officers at retirement­; eliminate retirement for Congress unless vested for 20 years; stop Congressio­nal perks of food, cars, and freebies; give Congress the option of working from home, except for general meetings; raise taxes on the rich 2% and the middle class (but by less); require Congress to use public air travel; give Congress medical coverage that is the same under HCR for the rest of Americans but NOT more than an average American; eliminate private school subsidies; end farm subsidies; tax the hell out of corporatio­ns who move jobs overseas. That’s a start.�

    Step 2

    Get out your calculator;
    Cut $25 thousand a year from every congressman. That takes them from $175 K per year to $150K per year.

    Is there any disagreements in leading the way toward the budget.
    Gov Walker and paul Ryan included.

    And by the way,
    Living in a GOP long time controlled state. A state that has a mandate to balance its budget. Just like all other red state and blue states, they are way over their budgets. My republican governor is way over his budget and how exactly did he get there. Was it our GOP controlled state senate That inherited the state controlled GOP Senate? Was it our Governor who inherited his own budget deficit from himself? They were al re elected here. So they aren’t blaming Democratic controlled spending like Walker is trying to.
    (cpffee break)


    state budgets and employee unions vs Gov Walker’s pretense of inherited deficits from Democratic governors who spend wild and aimlessly.

    * Long time Texas huge GOP majority control on running state budget without public unions is silent non-mentionable. Where has the media been on this?

    As you read this, Gov Perry has no unions, has not inherited anything from any Democratic state legislature and inherited his own budget from himself.

    Odd, you left this out of your prior arguments? Texas is in deeper fiscal pooh-pooh than Wisconsin by far.

    Oh, there is this comparission of N.Y that has much unionized state employees and its budget vs Mississippi’s budget crisis. Miss who has no state union employees. Is worth the read.

    Then there is North Carolina who is ranked 7th in budget Crisis who allows no unions Private or public. Exactly how did that GOP economic experiment work for those people that are suffering economically because of a failed experiment put on by wealthy GOP officails and power mongers.
    (and look, there ar Democratic power mongers as well so calm dowm).

    Fact, Wisconsin’s employee union pensions are 90% plus funded.

    The unions have already agreed to all concessions of pay, benefits contributions.

    Governor Walker exempts the Police and Fire Unions from any contributions or concessions because those unions that supported his election are not part of the fiscal problems Walker now own of his own making by handing out tax cuts to Multi-national corporations in his state that did not create any jobs but took the money and deposited it in their forighn accounts where their corporate headquarters reside. Flush that money down the foriegn country toilet.

    –Then we can look at some reporting over Wisconsin’s budget vs unions with this,

    -There is this,

    And this,

    Why can’t officials have to always place their political ambitions and ideological zealotry above the needs of its citizens? All its citizens.

    Everything must divide Americans to chose sides. You must be far right to be republican and if noot, you are far left?
    What the hell is that.

    The guy who had my back when I was on point, wasn’t my enemy then and shouldn’t be now.

    As you spoke about your returning from vietnam. You spoke of being spit at. I returned from a couple. It was only returning from Desert Storm was I greeted by viet vets and astoundingly humbled by their appreciation. I realized they weren’t going to allow any dissing if they had anything to do with it. But I returned from some not so publicly known ventures with no greeting of gratitude. nature of the service one provides.
    That is another story.
    (Lunch break)


    Your veery last,
    “Now I have a question for you. You called the GOP the party of no. What do you call those Dems in Wi and In who ran out of state so they don�t have to debate? That is the same position as the GOP was in, out voted. But at least they stayed and voted their feelings. These slugs ran off and SHUT DOWN the govt. process. How about that?”————unquote–

    Whe did I say the republicans were the party of, “NO” ???

    Remember you asked what I think of the Dems not showing up for the state GOP to pass there preordained legislation, remember, O am not your democrtiic party defender, But I will put on my brand new “Liberal Huckleberry hat” just for you.

    Since you raise the U.S. House and Senate incomparison with the Wisconsin state legislature.
    Therear some differences and some similarities.

    (Smoke Break),

    Much better.

    Lets start with the House of representatives and yoour party of “NO” there.
    As I recall, the House republicans as a lock step conservative union voted for what”
    They voted against in lock step pretty much everything that came up. The very first piece of legislation was the “Lilly Ledbetter Act” as I recall. A well intention, well writen, good pice of civil rights legislation highly worth full bi=partisan support. But it was the first Dem controlled legislation and therefore they had to what, make a sttement? Their argument was that if employers couldn’t discriminate against female employees on their wages for performing the same work, the same job and in many instances better than their male counterparts. The employers would go belly up or some rediculous rhetoric in that rhetorical vicinity.

    The Senate GOP used the filibuster greeater than any other Senate minority in history and some of that history can be combined. Up tick in partisanship?
    Right down to this years end when Senate republicans filibustered the Start Treaty and held it hostage for someother piece of legislation they wanted.

    When they talk about striaght up vote they mean when it is in their favor. (Again calm down because Dems have filibustered as well) I haven’t seen the Dems hold hostage other vital legislation they would vote for but filibuster to get something else entirely off issue. I can be wrong on tht but I am sure you will try to prove me wrong. have at it.
    Aftr all said and done, filibuster and all because they were so intensely against the Sart Treaty, they got what they wanted and then the Start Treaty passed almost 100 percent of the senate votes.
    We know both parties has used the reconciliation means. But what for? That is the question you will have to ask yourself to justify reconciliations use over what issue.

    Let us take the Affordable health Care Act. I watched the Republican House Walk out of the House in lock step during session when business ws on the floor. They walked off their job! Went on strike and to top it off, it was a wild cat strike. Not allowed in the public unions contract. Those republicans had what right to walk out.
    And they walked right out to the house steps where they had a podium waiting with a full court press they had called to have waiting.

    Now they walked out several times. This was one of them.

    The U.S. Senate does not have to walk out. One senator on eithr side can call a filibuster. matter of fact, all a senator has to do is say he will “probably” filibuster and the bill requires 60 votes and that is not any way to do the peoples business.

    Republican S.C. Senator Jim DeMint Wuote, “Considr all legislation filibustered by me and that all legislation will by aproved or not approved from my senate office” unquote.

    Nah, zero party of “NO” there.

    here is a interesting tidbit,
    When House and Senate under Bush was controlled by GOP. They did not increase V.A. funding knowing 2 wars would bring home more wounded and the V.A. would have more needs. But tht would be on budget and show cost on Bush’s budget, so it didn’t get done and the Dems tried many times to bring a V.A. Bill up. Not undr their control.
    So OK they run the show.

    Dems take control of the House and Senate. Bill comes up in the Dem controlled House on V.A. funding (for all the returning wounded the VA was contending with. House Dems pass it, How many republicans voted for it?
    You want to know, look it up.

    The Senate Dems had to pass it with the veto threat of the Republicans senators.
    Obama signed it. Would Bush have signed it?
    How was the Bush Adm and the GOP controlled congress’s record on Walter Reed hospital? You do remember that fiasco?

    I can conclude that the House republican minority was in my strong opinion hyper partisan and that drove them into the party of “NO” in that chamber.

    The Senate minority republicans voting on the first piece of legislation, “the Lilliy Ledbetter Act”, voted in high numbers against it. Again, this is a mild civil rights piece to deter discrinimation occuring in the workplace on females. Evryone knew it.
    I give Mitch McConnell all the credit for all the hyper partisanship he was able to muster. With the likes of Jim DeMint of course. They needed to rebrand themselves and hide the stench of their record. He was orchestrating the embraciement of the Tea Party early on then.

    REad president Bush’s book and you see during the ’06 mid term election McConell was publically calling Dems cut and runners (he never served) while in private begging President Bush to withdraw some toops (in McConnell’s terms, cut and run) because he said the polls show they might lose the election if Bush doesn’t pull troops.

    The private McConnell vs the Public McConnel.

    Now you do not think for a minute that many other Senators including Deomcratic party senators where aware of McConnells snake handling of two faces. one public that calls Dems cut and runners vs the Private McConnel begging Bush to pull troops for election gain.
    That my friend is one sick snake handler.
    His presence after that would disgust me as a Senator each time I had to deal with him. And I am sure because President Bush did not pull troops for McCaonnel’s political gain for the election and he lost his majority tht he made everything a vengeful process with eveery one on every issue.

    I know because I saw my own senator cower on a vote he had already publically stood on and he had to cower to the McConnell and not vote on lefislation he approved and felt would help his state as well as others. So even my republican senator had to sit on his hands on legislation he approved while another republican filibustered. Holding he 60 vote requirement. Watched the legislation get passed without him being able to vote for it and put his name on something he believed.

    So yes, I guess the Senate had the party of “NO” syndrom when they weren’t filibustering.

    As for the Wisonsin 14 AWOL.
    Normally I don’t approve of this. But in this day of hyper partisanship where you know the GOP is coming for you by the way they and theirmedia begins ginning up the reasons to hate you.

    Don’t you remember the heat of immigration? it led to Arizona going CooKoo. So majbe Arixona is angry enough to go vote at election time and they are blaming President Obama for the history of illegal immigration. Obama will lose Arizona because of that alone. They now know who to blame and that blame isn;tgoing away soon so the republican party of “NO” that didn’t care to even discuss immigration are exempt from that voter anger. That worked out for republicans for the election. But it does nothing in governing this nation through a illegal immigration problem that has been festering. The Dems folded and let the republicans off the hook on dealing with immigration al; together and now Obama gets the discource blame.

    The wisconsin 14 must be playing out the new state filibuster.

    Not so sure if I agree with the legal ethical prmise.

    But, from what has come out since they have been gone seems to be worthy time to bring out information the state voters didn’t even know was being passed.

    as the piece in the legislation that gives the Governor the full right to sell any state owned power plants for any price for any reason as long as he deems it so. Nothing to do with actually being in the best interest of the state, soley his decision. no input from the state legislature or the state people. That is a scary power grab. Whenyou have laws like tht on the boks. It makes it legal for a governor in tht position to sell a power a state power plant that is valued at say $5 billion. he an sell it for $1 billion to a crony and have that crony send a thank you (cash) gift to a swiss account in his name.

    I am not saying the governor is going to do this.

    I am saying by putting thislaw in the books it is legal for him to do this and so therefore, WHY the hell shouldn’t he?

    Because he cares about his fellow wisconsinites like he does now by listening to them and their concerns and wishes.
    But that is right, you think they are not humans. They are pigs at thetrough.

    I watched an interview with the Wis. State lefislature republican majority leader. he stated the employees union was the problem.

    The interviewer then asked him, isn’t your wife a teacher? Fitsgeald was his name. Fitsgerald answered that the unions have been the problem. When told that the unions have accepted all concessions so there is no fiscal issue. This Fitsgerald said they are still a problem. He was asked why is it the police, fire adn state troopers aren’t any fiscal problems but the prison gaurds, teachers and others are? No comment fitsgerald replied.
    When adked tht his wife is in fact a teacher, fitsgerald affirmed she was and will recieve her notice like everyone else and howdifficult it is for him and his wife.

    So the interviewer asked Fitsgerald since his wife is a teacher if she is in fact part of the problem? If she is on the teet? Will she lose her job?
    *No she is a councilor and she is not part of the problem.
    *She is a councelor and will not lose her job.
    *and no she is not on the tax payr dole like the others.

    Is she in the public employees union? Yes I guess.

    (He guesses”) and she ins’t part of the problem, just everyone else.
    Which is a party of no republican theme.

    So at first I was not for the AWOL 14, but since light has been reaching some dark areas of hidden information over this. And you want me to have to chose, well I chose in favor of stall for info.
    Because It will come to an end but it may have more wisconsin voters tht are more informed demanding certain expectations of their newly elected cung-ho act now think latter youthful Governor and his anxious republican sente leadership tht doesn’t seem to want to represent everyone in the state.
    Now that might mean some comprmise. And how horrible of a word and act is that now because of republicans.

    last break) union break-

    Thought I would leave you with this on health care.

    IYou had told me Dems did not listen or allow republicans to propose of amend what is now the affordable Health Care act.

    let me see, Dems are in control and Max Baucus forms his commitee with one more republican than Democrats on that committee. But Repub Sen Orin hatch of Utah would have nothing to do with health reform talk even in a committee setting with 6 republicans and five democrats.

    In the early stages of health reform sicussions, republicans in committees would propose something and then vote agianst that very amendment.

    At times they were on FOX expressing things like Sen. McConnell on FOX expressing his idea of proposing amendments with bad legislation and then vote against it in final form if he could. All my republican House representative would stand out and say was he had a plan. his plan was to just allow people to buy the same insurance he has if they can afford it. My republican Senator had your idea of just sell across state lines for those that can afford it.

    We can sell some insurance for low income that in case they have a heart attack bayer aspirin can be covered but nothing else. type of plan.

    Yet my House Rep. wanted me to believe that all the other representatives in the House and the Senate and President himself would all go along with his plan if he can only propose his plan.

    He never had real plan to propose.
    because I requested to read it then and after the the health care passed. he had no plan. pretend to that he could “say”he had a valid alternative. So he could politically appear for health reform but not the kind President Obama might sign into law.

    What do you think Senator Jim DeMint meant when he stated Quote, ” This health care , we can break him, this can be his Waterloo”, unquote? Talong about breaking the president of the United states for political gain?

    I sense republican’s had you swollowing that crap whole.
    Without even chewing it first.
    Just Gulp!!!

    If Dems gained control of the Texas legislature, if they were passing legislation to ban any future republican donating (something wild and stupid) and trying to do it under the cover of speed and silence before the citizens knew about it. Then yes, I would side with GIP lefisaltors fleeing Texas to slow things down. Because that is all these 14 are doing. Postponing the vote. But, when that vote takes place, all Wisconsinites will be well aware and make their voices heard. If they are just head strong and ram through their political agenda instead of the peoples business.
    Wisocsinites will be recalling their legislators and in one year the Governor (republican extrordinaire) will be looking to Koch Industries for a job because his political carreer will be over if he does not listen to the people in his state. .

    I leave you with these health care nuggets from republicans. But there were apprx 160 republican proposals taken and amended into the health care plan.

    the law is very similar to Republican Gov. Mitt Romney�s health reform law in Massachusetts. And it turns out the law reflects many other ideas that enjoyed Republican support in the past. Here are 10 of those ideas.

    1. The Affordable Care Act is built on the same scaffolding as former Gov. Mitt Romney�s health reform approach in Massachusetts. Both reforms create new coverage options through insurance reforms and Medicaid expansions, improve the affordability of coverage, and require shared responsibility for health care financing across individuals, employers, and taxpayers.

    2. The new law requires all individuals to hold health coverage�an idea advanced by Stuart Butler and Ed Haislmaier of the Heritage Foundation as far back as 1989. Other conservative scholars and Republican policymakers who have embraced the idea of shared responsibility include Mark Pauly, a health economist at the University of Pennsylvania; Sen. John Chafee; a group of the health care law�s cosponsors�including Sens. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) and Orrin Hatch (R-UT)�who introduced similar legislation in 1993; and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney.

    3 The Affordable Care Act requires health insurers to pool the risk of small businesses and individuals through the health insurance exchange�thus giving them greater bargaining power and better rates. Enabling individuals, small businesses, and trade associations to band together and obtain better prices was a key plank in the House Republican leadership�s �Solutions for America.�

    4. The Affordable Care Act gives young adults new coverage options. These include staying on their family coverage through age 26 just like the proposal the House Republicans offered during the health reform debate.

    5. Employers may automatically enroll their workers in health insurance. This was proposed by the Republican Study Group and the House Republican leadership during the health care debate last year.

    6. Employers may use premium incentives and other tools to encourage workers to participate in a range of workplace wellness programs. This idea enjoyed widespread Republican support. Rep. Mike Castle (R-DE), the Republican House leadership, and the Republican Study Committee introduced proposals during last year�s health care debate. A bipartisan group of senators led by Sen. Judd Gregg (R-NH) also championed this approach in the Senate HELP Committee.

    7. States may use federal funding to experiment with medical liability reforms. This is similar to the proposals advanced by Sens. Mike Enzi (R-WY), Richard Burr (R-NC), and Tom Coburn (R-OK), and Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) during the reform debate.

    8. Families and businesses may purchase coverage across state lines. This was an idea shepherded by Rep. John Shadegg (R-AZ) and others, including the House Republican leadership, during the health care debate.

    9. States may pursue their own approaches to health reform as long as they can provide equivalent or better coverage at a comparable or lower cost. The House Republican leadership championed state innovation in their alternative proposal to health reform.

    10. The Affordable Care Act establishes high-risk pools that provide access to health coverage for those who generally are unable to find affordable insurance in the individual market, particularly those with a preexisting condition. This is an idea Republicans endorsed in their alternative proposal.

    You know, You should really take time to read some of the bill instead of looking to TX media to explain it to you.

    Now why isn’t Romney’s Mass. helath care law still not repealed?

    My union shift is over.

  • AMegill February 25, 2011 3:59 pm

    Robt. You say that my views are partisan because my guy won. And I say you are partisan because your guy lost. You want to have the popular vote elect the President, but that doesn’t always happen. The President is elected by the Electorial College, they have not always followed the popular vote. So get over it and move on to the present. If you feel it should have stopped with the Florida Supreme Court ruling, how about their finding the Healthcare Act unconsitutional? Should it stop there and be thrown out? And in your view if it comes to the SCOTUS all those who are liberal should recuse themselves because there is a liberal President. And what are you saying only the liberals are defenders? Talk about bias, you seem to have plenty of that yourself. Every thing you have screamed about is because those damn Republicans/GOP did some thing. From the SCOTUS down they did things wrong. IN YOUR VIEW. And thats what it is your view.

    Your examples of Tort Reform are wrong ang wrong. So let me ask what liberal you are taking them from?

    #1 This example leaves a lot of holes. Because as there is no Fed Tort Reform yet to say what the CAPS would be. The caps you stated were proposed only never passed. So to say that you can not sue is false and to state what you can get is also false. Now that said why do you feel adding more regulations would help this problem? The FDA already has regulations in effect to cover this example. Now if they didnot enforce those regulations why would new ones help? It’s the same as saying you have a speed limit of 65 but don’t enforce it why would passing another 65 limit do any good? Is it just the farm owner or is it also the inspectors (union members) who are to blame?

    #2 If your capacity to earn money were damaged, there would be no limits on that figure.

    Your example of the waste dumping has nothing to do with either Tort or lack of regulations. So what are you saying? That the fines should be stiffer? I agree. So what is your point. Other then again damn big business they are all crooks etc.etc. Your hate shows through again.

    We fund Planned Parenthood to the tune of over $100 million per yr, so if we took that $100 million and funded Free Health clinics instead, that did all medical procedures instead of just strictly womens preventive health care which would give back more to the poor people? Would children and women not be better? They can still hand out birth control and they would still get mamagrams etc. But because you are in favor of abortion we should not change the way things are done. Planned Parenthood can still do abortions. As they are so careful to no use any of the Fed. money( your words) what diference would it make if thats all they did. And with the Healthcare Act why would we have to fund them anyway???? Why don’t you check around and see what you can find under clinics. Check out the ones that are being run with donations. Some of the free Hospitals I named, there are many more. They all work on donations unless you are receiving Medicare/cade or have insurance. Then they only accept what each of those pays and anything over is free.

    Again you show your denial of facts If SCOTUS gets these benefits what do most union members get? The same? The UAW had as part of their contract guaranteed forty hour week. Even if the plant closed because of fire they would be paid until they were back to work. Only after 6 weeks could the Company put them on layoff and force them to collect unemployment, and because of an agreement with the union the company still had to pay part of difference in the wages. And they still received all benefits. And I told you before after as a union member I can tell you first hand it is very hard to fire a union employee, and those in the public unions are even harder to fire. What can you fire a teacher for? We had one in NJ who repeatedly called her students A**holes, and the union fought tooth and nail to keep her from being fired. Is that ok with you? They had a Postal worker that was found sleeping on the job more then once and the union would not let him be fired. Is that ok? I told you before at Ford, the union Reps sold righeous grievnances down the river to protect drunks and troublemakers jobs Is that ok?

    So Abbott and Costello should do what about union perspective? Show me what a joke it can be?

    Make up your mind your rant was on the evil insurance companies and how they could already sell in all states And that would not control the cost. Because they would sell insurance with no coverage. Thats what it was about. Now you change and say what about those who can’t afford it. Do you know that most drug companies have plans for people who can’t afford their drugs. Try Merck or Astra Zeniac. I get things from them in the mail all the time. At the end of most drug commericals on TV and Radio they say if you can’t afford this medican call us. Again do you and the liberal propraganda check anything out or just whine.

    That is what the Repubs. Want insurance pools. They feel if that is done rates will drop enough that most people will be able to afford at least basic insurance. These pools would have the competition from ALL and ANY insurance companies. Obama doesn’t want competition. He wants to just hand out money or as he calls it assistance according to income.
    You are closed minded or you wouldn’t be putting down the new Congressmen until you had a chance to see what they came up with. You gave the Dems 2 years to push their idea and that still doesn’t go into effect until 2012. And do you know how effective it will really be or just Obama, Pelosi and Reid’s words? Again you are telling a company what it’s profit has to be Obama said they have to spend 85 cents per dollar. I thought thats what the American dream was all about? Work hard , make all you can and do with it as you want. If the Govt came in your house and told you what you could spend your money on would that be alright? Your point about selling in any state is false. And it being done by the insurance companies is false. If that were the case why does the laws have to be changed for them to do it. Did the insurance companies start making laws?

    Now your dig about me and Gov. Walker. You answer me as to what you think he is trying to do. And what you think he is taking away from the Union. Have you followed the facts?

    He wants them to pay a portion of their retirement and a portion of their healthcare benefits ( just as you said you wouldn’t mind paying extra for someone else) He also wants to stop the state from paying their union dues out of their checks. and have them do so themselves and make it a right to work status. The unions don’t want this for fear of people leaving the union. Do you see a problem with that/ Or should everyone be forced to be union just so they can have a job?
    He also wants there to be a cap on the wage negotiations. Do you have a problem with that. Now before you answer remember what you just said about those evil companies and the profit they make. So you want to be able to make whatever you want, but not the other persons who own the company? Isn’t that hypocrisy?
    The teachers want more money every year and according to the Federal Ed board the level of education keeps dropping. Does facts not matter when it comes to supporting the union way?

    I don’t dodge or use talking points! When I make a statement it’s mine and I research all the subjects I comment on. Do you? I think if you did you would not have to ask some of your questions.

    Now I have a question for you. You called the GOP the party of no. What do you call those Dems in Wi and In who ran out of state so they don’t have to debate? That is the same position as the GOP was in, out voted. But at least they stayed and voted their feelings. These slugs ran off and SHUT DOWN the govt. process. How about that?

  • Robt February 25, 2011 3:05 am


    What was the “irrepreable harm” that the SCOTUS claimed would occur to then presidential candidate GW Bush? If there was no harm as yet, how could they concede Bush had “Standing”?. What possible concerns to Bush could be greater than the voters of Florida having their cast ballots counted?

    After the Florida State Supreme Court heard the issues they ruled to count their state ballots. That is where it ends (No matter who wins). You don’t have to be a liberal to see that?
    You do not think the state of Florida should have the right to count their ballots? You think Florida is incapable of counting their ballots? Then why is Florida capable of conting their states ballots ever again?

    Shouldn’t the SCOTUS have gotten involved in Florida counting their votes in 2004, 2008? even if there is not any standing or lrgal presedence to do so as in 2000? If they weren’t competent to sorting out their ballot count in 2000, How was Florida capable in 2004?.
    This is something you seem will never understand. I do not want the SCOTUS (5 of 9 people specially selected buy a president and a Senate to choose my U.S. President. It is not in the U.S. Constitution that they do. That is exactly what happened. If they picked Candidate Gore I have NO, NO doubt of the republican riots that would take place ( and I would have agreed with that anger).
    There is absolutely NO way I would want the 5 out of the 9 SCOTUS justices picking my guy (I’ll pick my guy, thank you). I want the presidential election to be of the votes. Period.
    Where you make excuses, sit down on your constitution in this one, and besides, your guy became President and it didn’t matter how he aquired it. Sir, that is partisan with oodles of ideology piled on top.
    Apparently you feel I hate Bush for the 2000 election by the SCOTUS and because I voted for Gore I am just to be dismissed because I am a Bush hater and your RadioinsideScoop blog Liberal Huckleberry to bash.

    I don’t blame Bush for this 2000 presidential selection of America’s president. I do not blame Gore. I blame the SCOTUS.
    GORE and Bush should have shown restraint and left it in the hands of Florida State supreme court. Restraint is a very hard thing to do with the Presidency on the line. But it was not on the line for the SCOTUS (they had there government jobs and for life?. The SCOTUS should have refrained to hear the case,

    You go ahead and ignore the facts becausee actually, there are no laws or constitution, or morals when it comes to a republican defending his republican guy. blind loyalty. Only republicans can be defenders of Freedom and only through the GOP can patriotism and love for Amrica be accomplished. Is that about it.

    Like Bush siad, your either with us or against us? Tell it to the Good Sumaritan..!

    It was not the law of the land for the SCOTUS to hear this case.

    By taking that stand, you show you believe
    “it is legal when a republican does it”. Sound familiar?

    Here are a couple of examples of torte reform.

    America is still a country where a man can buy a shicken ranch and another and another until he becomes a $$billionaire from selling eggs from those hens on his ranches. This billionaire wants more and is willing to make any adjustments that would save him. Nothing wrong so far.

    So he squeezes his hens into such cramped spaces on a huge ranch of mass. That his hens have to live in their chicken crap their entire lives as they lay eggs for market. This makes him a little bitmore profitable. His is now 2,000 dollars more profitable.
    Nothing wrong so far.

    I go store and buy some eggs. Bring them home. In making breakfast for me and my 2 kids. I take out those eggs and mix them into the pancake batter.
    The kids and I sit down and eat. We all get sick. One of my kids gets sick and has a worse reation tht the other. I tush him to the hospital and he ends up duing.

    This is the United States of America and damn right I think a billionaire eggs rancher can damn well be regulated by Gov’t to ensure tht anyone in America has a reasonable assurance that their egg purchases at the Grocery will be salmonella or botchelism free.

    That billionaire has the corporate shield and limits what I can sue for. He can get lawyers to tie it up in court. he can hire the best of lawyers.
    What should the death of your kid be valued at in the negligence of maximizing profits?

    But there is just to much Gov’t regulations.

    Let us say I earn $200 K per yr. I am 30 years old and very healthy overall and have even a more promising carreer ahead of me. I have a wife and 2 kids, house payment, etc.

    I get hurt in an accident and end up having corrective surgery. During the surgery something afowl goes bad. I come out of that surgery without being able to work anymore.

    Now Torte reform on health care could limit my chances for financial recource. Torte law maxs at $250 K tops.

    Let me se, I was earning $200K per year at 30 years of age. My potential earning at $200K for lets conservatively say for 10 more years which would make me 40. Now we know I very well would work past 40.

    I had $200 per ur taken away and can only get max $250 one time. I would clear way more than that in my 2nd year of work($400K vs coirt max win applied at $260K).

    Now you really think people like Donald Trump, Speaker Boehner, N.Y.Yanks A-Rod, Bill OReilly,
    george Clooney are going to be held to such Torte Reform?

    Do you really believe that?

    Torte Reform is only for me and you.

    I know there have been some “frivilious suits”. Most on the wealthy side and that won’t be reformed.
    I really understand the premis for torte reform. So I can tell you under the guiss politicians are calling for, no thank you.

    If they reform that on us, they will continue to reform law suits of all types and all amounts on us. The excuse they will use, Google Inc vs Verison are just both large corporations and of coursee any judgements will be lots of money and corporate pain cannot be easewith munor monetary judgements.

    For instance,
    If a regulation calls for a a one time $5,000 fine for unlawful dumping of toxic waste into a river. It doesn’t matter how much you dump, if caught it is only $5,000.

    Now if it cost $7,000 to have your companies toxic waste legally and safely disposed. You can save $2,000 on every dump by dumping it ilegally.

    Just business…………

    “But yet you want to keep funding Planned Parent hood instead of funding a clinic that can do what they do and more”
    Your words

    You know quite well you only want to get rid of Planned Parenthood because of your position on abortion.
    Where are thee other clinics? Who runs them? Who funds them?

    “A nanny state is what you want, paid healthcare, paid welfare, paid penision that you don’t have to help pay for, a job that you can’t be fired from no matter how big a screw up you are.”
    Your words again.

    You really have me laughing with this one.
    I mean, you realize,

    You have just described the job of a U.S. Supreme Court Justice………………!…!…!

    Are you under the impression that no one is fired from unions? that only occurs in non union enviroments? Union folks don’t work? I imagine Gov Walker of Wisconsin and you would realy get along well. Give you an emeny in common to demonize and fight against for glory. Be a hero?

    Perhaps I can broaden your perspective on unions instead of so much disdain.

    especially for you


    “As I explained to you in a former post. You can regulate those “insurance monoliths” by making a minium coverage law”.

    I understand what your saying. But what about those that can’t afford it. When you earn below the poverty line. Your already chosing between food and shelter and a life sustaining prescription drug.

    I went down that road and did it with some good interaction.

    I would rather pay for portions of others and they pay part intead of covering all of their care.
    When they are all in the insurance pool there are more of us to paying in. They recieve the preventative care and it keeps many out of the most expensive care their is. Emergency care… Just for thought.

    I am not closed minded about new ideas to improve a health care system. I do know, private insurance keeps about 30 to 40 cents of every premium dollar. So for every dollar you pay for your premium only 60 cents goes to your health.
    What a deal that is. (or more in some cases)

    Again, insurance companies can sell in any state it wants and could all along.
    It is the insurance companies themselves that divided up their market turf.

    By the way, As far as me listening or reading it all.

    I do fair. I have also been known to reiterate a questions to see if I can get an answer instead of a dodge or talking heads point.

  • AMegill February 24, 2011 3:51 am

    Robt. Here is the definition of TORT Reform and it has nothing to do with the findings of the SCOTUS Tort reform refers to proposed changes in the civil justice system that would reduce tort litigation or damages. Tort is a system for compensating wrongs and harm done by one party to another’s person, property or other protected interests (e.g. reputation, under libel and slander laws). Tort reform advocates focus on personal injury in particular.

    Other then the fact of your Hate for Bush, I see a legal ruling as what it is, a legal ruling like it or not. So now any ruling that you don’t agree with is wrong, regardless of what is written in their findings. It’s not your way so it’s wrong. Thats the way you seem to justify all of your questions here. It’s not your way so it’s wrong.

    What are you talking about with Citizens United? They have more then 2 members on their board. They are no different the MoveOn.Org., America Votes, Media Matters and many more. All funded by liberals for the purpose of moving forward the Liberal agenda.

    The point I made about the ER was this, You made a statement that without the healthcare bill people could not get health care. And I said that was not true and it’s not. Now you want to change your rant around to the fact that some one else has to pay for it. Just who do you think will be paying for all those who can’t afford the insurance required by the Health Act? You and me it’s not free. the Govt will give assistance to purchase it. It’s in the law.Wait theres more as the law states now you can refuse it and pay the fine and if you get sick, then purchase it and they can’t refuse you. Thats doing exactly what you just said was wrong. But according to the new law you can do that. Is that fair to the insurance company?

    I am finding it hard to track you. You are ranting about responsibility and I should be buying my own insurance and the employer should not have to supply it. But yet you are pro union. You suck up all the benefits and they are passed on to the widget, the same as you accuse me of. And that is capitalism. Every cost is figured in so that they can make a profit.

    By the way there were no proposals to the bill. It was drafted by Max Baucus, written by staffers who included a part that said they are exempt. And it was debated but no amendments were made. It passed the house and was not debated in the Senate and passed by reconciliation. The only things the GOP ever got in was in the committees not the final bill. Why don’t the Dems take all the money they will save by forceing every one to BUY insurance and work with the insurance companies and drug companies and any company that deals with the medical field and open clinics in and around all the cities? They would have more control over who, how and what kind of care was being given. You already have many free hospitals around. Obama used some of them as examples, Mayo Clinic, St.Jude are just a couple. No Govt. money. No one refused. Including cancer patients.

    Reconciliation was designed and passed to be used for strictly budget items, so that the Govt could not be left unfunded. Read your history of way it came about. And again I really get tired of your GOP hate about the war. And the “tax cuts” Do you know if you make less then $50k those tax cuts save you about $1500. Not just for the rich as you whine about ask some one at H&R Block.

    I never said anything about the VA or Social Security, as to their funding. You seem to want to let SS go away but not let it privatize like any other penison plan. That makes no sense. But yet you want to keep funding Planned Parent hood instead of funding a clinic that can do what they do and more. Let the abortion part keep doing their thing as they do now, by charging.

    I never questioned Obamas birth place. Where did you get that?

    Nanny state my employer what??? An employer offers benefits to get a person to work for them. It does not do so as the Govt. does. A nanny state is what you want, paid healthcare, paid welfare, paid penision that you don’t have to help pay for, a job that you can’t be fired from no matter how big a screw up you are. You get benefits for working as part of your pay.

    Your Wal-Mart rant is also union BS. I have 2 Walmarts close to me and both have benefits for full time employees. The money they pay to all their employees comes back into our town. There profit is theirs to do with as they want. Which puts more money in that small town bank. A mom and pop store with 3 employees making $12/hr or a Walmart with 200 employees making $11.50/hr.? Oh and they support 6 little league teams. And each walmart has 10 to 15 smaller new stores built around them, restaurants, barber shops, shoe stores etc. That those Mom and Pop owners moved into and are doing more business than before. Walmart holds many charity events, and donates money to the community. How come I see union members shopping at Walmart? Cars in the lot with buy american stickers on them and local such and such stickers in the windows.

    Does your TV and radio only have 1 station on them? I get ABC, CBS,NBC, PBS and about 200 more on my TV and about the same amount on my radio probably more if you count AM. So you are saying that everything on TV, Radio and the News papers belongs to who? Or only that you think FOX owns to much because you don’t like them. Tell the truth. Do you use MSN as your home page? That ain’t FOX.

    As I explained to you in a former post. You can regulate those “insurance monoliths” by making a minium coverage law. Let them sell in all states. You are trying to dance around that fact. And no matter how you want to slant it. You only have to have auto insurance if you own a car. And it’s only liablity that is required. And thats to cover the other persons on the road with you. And that is state law, so explain to me where that equates with the health care Act?

    How do you feel about partial birth abortions where there is nothing wrong with the child or the mother except at the last minute she changes her mind. What about if the fetus is not dead when delivered they must not treat it and leave it to die because it is considered aborted? I have no problem with a mothers health being protected. I have no problem with a rape case or if the fetus is deformed or has other serious health problems. I do have a problem with these dumb heads who use it as their form of birth control. Hell they hand out condoms in school now and they are just too stupid to use them.

    So I guess I need you to inform me as to what your definition of what all those things are. Cause you see I see people like Mark, George Soros, President Obama, Harry Reid, Howard Dean and Anthony Weiner as good examples of Liberal/Progressive ideals. Met quite a few Independents at the Tea Party Rallies, John Stossell is a good example of a Libertarian. I listen to these and others and think I get a well rounded consensus of what they believe. Do you listen, I mean really listen? Because from what you say in your posts I don’t think you read fully what is written. Because you ask the same question by just turning my words around. You seem to have a true hate for Bush and Cheney and anything the GOP has done. I feel truly sorry for that. But this is a new Congress maybe you should set your hate aside and help them. Before you condemn them.