On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 09:19:52 -0800, AZDuffman wrote:
On Nov 3, 1:58 am, Michael Coburn <mik... at (no spam) verizon.net> wrote:
On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 09:18:24 -0800, AZDuffman wrote:
On Nov 2, 1:24 am, Michael Coburn <mik... at (no spam) verizon.net> wrote:

It is _YOU_ who seem to misunderstand:

The Democratic votes in the Senate number 58.  That is the total
votes with "D" beside their name.  Joe LIEberman is _NOT_ a
Democrat.  It takes 60 votes to get past the brain dead locked step
Republican fascists unless the Democrats _CHANGE_ how the Senate
works.

Remember folks, THIS is the "bi-partisanship" that liberals offer.

I am _NOT_ bipartisan in any way and I _am_ a true liberal and have
NEVER desired any sort of bipartisanship with the fascist pig
Republicans.

You are indeed a true liberal, unable to get thru one post without lies,
rage, and foul language.

Somehow I don't remember this guy crying so much when the democrat
party was filibustering Bush's judicial nominees.

Cite???  Show us...  You are a lying pig as always.  Alito is on the
bench.

Here it is-straight from a liberal news network no less:

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/05/19/filibuster.fight/index.html

As it turns out, I would support a Constitutional amendment that required
67 votes (3/3rds) majority to place justices on the Supreme court and
3/5ths foe all other federal appointments to the bench.  That is the ONLY
valid use of cloture IMHO.  But we see that the Democrats did not use
cloture even in the case you cite.  The threat of cloture would not have
been sustained.  The Democrats are simply not monolithic enough to use
such a tool.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/9/17/783228/-Reconciliation-Is-Not-
Necessary

--
"Those are my opinions and you can't have em" -- Bart Simpson

In article <Q4Gdndiad85BuXPXnZ2dnUVZ_vqdnZ2d at (no spam) giganews.com>,
No_He_Can_Not <nohecannot at (no spam) mail.com> wrote:

Why not just use the rest of that stimulus money that is not being spent
to cove all the people that have no insurance? It would be good use of

How would the stimulate consumption?

Bernie Sanders may caucus and vote with the Democrats but Joe LIEberman
certainly does not vote with the Democrats and is currently supporting
the Republican lock step screech monkeys. In additionn to this
undeniable absolute fact, the Democratic party is a lot more "democratic"
than the Republican. Lock step monolithic butt kissing is just not the
order of the day in the Democratic party. That is why the current
cloture rule is a rule that only benefits the Republican party and serves
no real purpose for the Democrats. Prior to 1975 cloture took 67 votes.
The Democrats (who were real democrats) reduced it to 60. It is time to
do away with it or reduce it to 55.

In article <Q4Gdndiad85BuXPXnZ2dnUVZ_vqdnZ2d at (no spam) giganews.com>,
No_He_Can_Not <nohecannot at (no spam) mail.com> wrote:

Why not just use the rest of that stimulus money that is not being
spent to cove all the people that have no insurance? It would be good
use of

How would the stimulate consumption?

"Michael Coburn" <mikcob at (no spam) verizon.net> wrote in message
news:hcnaq902i11 at (no spam) news4.newsguy.com...
On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 00:20:39 -0600, r wiley wrote:

"Mason C" <masoncXXX at (no spam) XXXfrontal-lobe.info> wrote in message
news:tbdse5hutmmdjbbrvdc3nrhd1lrnb46o5k at (no spam) 4ax.com...
On Sun, 1 Nov 2009 16:04:30 -0600, "r wiley" <rawiley at (no spam) southslope.net
wrote:


"Mason C" <masoncXXX at (no spam) XXXfrontal-lobe.info> wrote in message
news:o37qe518j5huctk4s3mfu6n2p29igol9i3 at (no spam) 4ax.com...
On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 19:24:04 -0500, "r wiley"
rawiley at (no spam) southslope.net> wrote:


"C.Tudor" <charlestudor at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4aeccd5f$0$28761$bd467cd0 at (no spam) news.dslextreme.com...
After all the fuss, govt health plan to cover few

Note in the article that there is a high probability that the
current "public option" of ObamaCare will produce a benefit to the
Insurance Industry.

Email your elected officials and ask them how much money they've
accepted from the Insurance Industry during the last five years:
--Anyone can make their opinion known:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/CONTACT/
http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm
http://www.house.gov/house/MemberWWW_by_State.shtml ---

The "public option" is a scam. It provides the insurance companies
with a dumping ground for people likely to need expensive care.
Anyone serious about universal health care should be backing HR676,
Enhanced Universal Medicare. It covers the uninsured, and solves
Medicare's problem, that is, that people currently on Medicare are
subject to the infirmities of age. To avoid going insolvent,
Medicare must be expanded to include the young who are generally
healthy.


That is what Obama claimed to support in 2003, and what he claimed
would happen whan Democrats "took back" the White House, the House
of Representatives, and the Senate.

But the Democrats have not taken back the Senate. The Senate
Republicans can stop any bill they do not like and certainly any
bill that might help Obama.

The "war against terror" should focus on the Senate, not on
Afghanistan.

I am absolutely certain of two things.

1. Democrats have taken the senate.

2. You are a liar.

rw

The Senate Republicans can stop any bill they do not like and
certainly any
bill that might help Obama. The Democrats do not have the Senate.

"you are a liar" is the logical argument of a fool. go away

"You are a liar" is not an argument. It is a statement of
indisputable fact. Look back up the thread. You lied that the
Democrats have not taken the Senate. That is not an error. You know
better. You lied. In 2003 when Obama said the Republican Senate was
part of the problem, there were 51 Republicans in the Senate. The
2009 Senate contains 59 self proclaimed Democrats.

The Senate contains 58 Democrats, two independents, and 40 Lock step
screech monkeys called Republicans.

The 2009 Senate contains one Democrat Senator who calls himself an
independant and a Socialist Senator who calls himself an Independant.
Both ostensible "Independants" voted with the Democrat caucus on
Senate heirarchy and committee assignments.

rw

Bernie Sanders may caucus and vote with the Democrats but Joe LIEberman
certainly does not vote with the Democrats and is currently supporting
the Republican lock step screech monkeys. In additionn to this
undeniable absolute fact, the Democratic party is a lot more
"democratic" than the Republican. Lock step monolithic butt kissing is
just not the order of the day in the Democratic party. That is why the
current cloture rule is a rule that only benefits the Republican party
and serves no real purpose for the Democrats. Prior to 1975 cloture
took 67 votes. The Democrats (who were real democrats) reduced it to
60. It is time to do away with it or reduce it to 55.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/9/17/783228/-Reconciliation-Is-Not-
Necessary

The radical leftist ADA gives Lieberman a career score of 74%, his 2007
score was 70%. For comparison in 2007 Barack Obama, Joe Biden and
Hillary Clinton scored 75%. A cockroach couldn't live on that
difference.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-love/how-liberal-is-
obama_b_137840.html

All the Tea in China Blue wrote
No_He_Can_Not <nohecannot at (no spam) mail.com> wrote

Why not just use the rest of that stimulus money that is not
being spent to cove all the people that have no insurance?

How would the stimulate consumption?

We have had over 200 years of National existence without covering every person,

what is the imperative to do it in the midst of an economic hard time?

Beam Me Up Scotty wrote
All the Tea in China Blue wrote
No_He_Can_Not <nohecannot at (no spam) mail.com> wrote

Why not just use the rest of that stimulus money that is not
being spent to cove all the people that have no insurance?

How would the stimulate consumption?

We have had over 200 years of National existence without covering every person,

During most of that time, when you got a serious medical problem, you got to die of it.

what is the imperative to do it in the midst of an economic hard time?

The fact that the US is pissing TWICE the percentage of GDP against the wall on
health care that every other first and second world country does, and gets a worse
result on any sensible measure like longevity and years in good health for that.


Lies like that aren't a very good reason.

On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 20:31:25 -0800, All the Tea in China Blue wrote:

In article <Q4Gdndiad85BuXPXnZ2dnUVZ_vqdnZ2d at (no spam) giganews.com>,
No_He_Can_Not <nohecannot at (no spam) mail.com> wrote:

Why not just use the rest of that stimulus money that is not being
spent to cove all the people that have no insurance? It would be
good use of

How would the stimulate consumption?

It is an injection of money into the bottom/middle of the economy.
It is actually an across the board wage increase. Whether the
recipients of the increase spend the money on Chinese junk or use it
to pay down debt is somewhat irrelevant. The better scenario for the
American middle class if that they save it as opposed to sending it
to China.

We do not need to stimulate consumption. Americans have been over
consuming and under producing for 35 years. Time to shut the borders
and make our own hula hoops.

Rod Speed wrote:
Beam Me Up Scotty wrote
All the Tea in China Blue wrote
No_He_Can_Not <nohecannot at (no spam) mail.com> wrote

Why not just use the rest of that stimulus money that
is not
being spent to cove all the people that have no
insurance?

How would the stimulate consumption?

We have had over 200 years of National existence without
covering
every person,

During most of that time, when you got a serious medical
problem,
you got to die of it.

what is the imperative to do it in the midst of an
economic hard
time?

The fact that the US is pissing TWICE the percentage of
GDP against
the wall on
health care that every other first and second world
country does,
and gets a worse result on any sensible measure like
longevity and
years in good health for that.


Lies like that aren't a very good reason.

Rod Speed wrote
Beam Me Up Scotty wrote
All the Tea in China Blue wrote
No_He_Can_Not <nohecannot at (no spam) mail.com> wrote

Why not just use the rest of that stimulus money that is not
being spent to cove all the people that have no insurance?

How would the stimulate consumption?

We have had over 200 years of National existence without covering every person,

During most of that time, when you got a serious medical problem, you got to die of it.

what is the imperative to do it in the midst of an economic hard time?

The fact that the US is pissing TWICE the percentage of GDP
against the wall on health care that every other first and second
world country does, and gets a worse result on any sensible
measure like longevity and years in good health for that.

Lies like that aren't a very good reason.

On Nov 3, 1:58 am, Michael Coburn <mik... at (no spam) verizon.net> wrote:
On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 09:18:24 -0800, AZDuffman wrote:
On Nov 2, 1:24 am, Michael Coburn <mik... at (no spam) verizon.net> wrote:

It is _YOU_ who seem to misunderstand:

The Democratic votes in the Senate number 58.  That is the total
votes with "D" beside their name.  Joe LIEberman is _NOT_ a
Democrat.  It takes 60 votes to get past the brain dead locked step
Republican fascists unless the Democrats _CHANGE_ how the Senate
works.

Remember folks, THIS is the "bi-partisanship" that liberals offer.

I am _NOT_ bipartisan in any way and I _am_ a true liberal and have
NEVER desired any sort of bipartisanship with the fascist pig
Republicans.

You are indeed a true liberal, unable to get thru one post without lies,
rage, and foul language.



Somehow I don't remember this guy crying so much when the democrat
party was filibustering Bush's judicial nominees.

Cite???  Show us...  You are a lying pig as always.  Alito is on the
bench.


Here it is-straight from a liberal news network no less:

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/05/19/filibuster.fight/index.html

"Michael Coburn" <mikcob at (no spam) verizon.net> wrote in message news:hcnaq902i11 at (no spam) news4.newsguy.com...

Bernie Sanders may caucus and vote with the Democrats but Joe LIEberman
certainly does not vote with the Democrats and is currently supporting
the Republican lock step screech monkeys. In additionn to this
undeniable absolute fact, the Democratic party is a lot more "democratic"
than the Republican. Lock step monolithic butt kissing is just not the
order of the day in the Democratic party. That is why the current
cloture rule is a rule that only benefits the Republican party and serves
no real purpose for the Democrats. Prior to 1975 cloture took 67 votes.
The Democrats (who were real democrats) reduced it to 60. It is time to
do away with it or reduce it to 55.


I will believe you are sincere if you can cite your posts objecting to fillibusters
when Teddy Kennedy was pontificating on the duty of the minority to prevent
passage of bills and/or appointments with which they disagree. If you can't,
you will show yourself up as just another blindly partisan hypocrite.

http://www.nytimes.com/1997/09/23/us/kennedy-filibuster-is-final-hurdle-for-measure-to-speed-the-review-of-medicines.html

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/01/26/alito/index.html

http://www.nationaljournal.com/rememberingkennedy/2009/08/he-made-sure-that-a-good-bill.php

rw

"r wiley" <rawiley at (no spam) southslope.net> wrote in message
news:hcpoah$11s$1 at (no spam) news.netins.net...

"Michael Coburn" <mikcob at (no spam) verizon.net> wrote in message
news:hcnaq902i11 at (no spam) news4.newsguy.com...

Bernie Sanders may caucus and vote with the Democrats but Joe
LIEberman certainly does not vote with the Democrats and is currently
supporting the Republican lock step screech monkeys. In additionn to
this undeniable absolute fact, the Democratic party is a lot more
"democratic" than the Republican. Lock step monolithic butt kissing
is just not the order of the day in the Democratic party. That is why
the current cloture rule is a rule that only benefits the Republican
party and serves no real purpose for the Democrats. Prior to 1975
cloture took 67 votes. The Democrats (who were real democrats) reduced
it to 60. It is time to do away with it or reduce it to 55.


I will believe you are sincere if you can cite your posts objecting to
fillibusters when Teddy Kennedy was pontificating on the duty of the
minority to prevent passage of bills and/or appointments with which
they disagree. If you can't, you will show yourself up as just
another blindly partisan hypocrite.

http://www.nytimes.com/1997/09/23/us/kennedy-filibuster-is-final-
hurdle-for-measure-to-speed-the-review-of-medicines.html

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/01/26/alito/index.html

http://www.nationaljournal.com/rememberingkennedy/2009/08/he-made-sure-
that-a-good-bill.php

rw


Show your cards Coburn. I tried googling you and filibuster between Jan
1995 and Jan 2007 and came up empty. If you objected to filibuster when
Republicans held a Senate majority, let's see some evidence.

rw

On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 15:45:13 -0600, r wiley wrote:



Show your cards Coburn. I tried googling you and filibuster between Jan
1995 and Jan 2007 and came up empty. If you objected to filibuster when
Republicans held a Senate majority, let's see some evidence.

rw

AT that time I was not posting as Michael Coburn. I don't remember what
my handle was. But I do appreciate your finding these articles to make
my point for me.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/9/17/783228/-Reconciliation-Is-Not-
Necessary

The Democrats are ab-using the Republicans and making them look really
stupid. But how long can they continue to fool the voters with this
"cloture" silliness? They can pass the health care bill any damned time
they want. And if they don't they will lose the Congress in 2010. We
(the people) have em right where we want em.

--
"Those are my opinions and you can't have em" -- Bart Simpson

"Michael Coburn" <mikcob at (no spam) verizon.net> wrote in message
news:hct1f7517rt at (no spam) news7.newsguy.com...
On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 15:45:13 -0600, r wiley wrote:



Show your cards Coburn. I tried googling you and filibuster between
Jan 1995 and Jan 2007 and came up empty. If you objected to
filibuster when Republicans held a Senate majority, let's see some
evidence.

rw

AT that time I was not posting as Michael Coburn. I don't remember
what my handle was. But I do appreciate your finding these articles to
make my point for me.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/9/17/783228/-Reconciliation-Is-Not-
Necessary

The Democrats are ab-using the Republicans and making them look really
stupid. But how long can they continue to fool the voters with this
"cloture" silliness? They can pass the health care bill any damned
time they want. And if they don't they will lose the Congress in 2010.
We (the people) have em right where we want em.

--
"Those are my opinions and you can't have em" -- Bart Simpson

Nice of you to acknowledge that Democrats can pass what they want whan
they want, and making it obvious that you had no interest in doing away
with senate cloture rules when Democrats were in the minority.

rw