indecisionforever.com — Joe Lieberman has referred to himself as an "Independent Democrat." But as a war hawk and an opponent of a public health care option, many wonder if Lieberman maintains any tendencies of a Democrat at all. But I'd remind them that he is still a milquetoast douchebag.
Oct 29, 2009 View in Crawl 4
bingaliciousOct 30, 2009
That would be fine but for one thing. The Republicans NEVER have anyone in their party go against the grain. Republicans ALWAYS stick together, never have any ideas, and can't seem to think for themselves. While Lieberman is doing exactly what the Republicans want him to do.
blackinthmiddleOct 31, 2009
@quirkopatraWhat the media tells us? You have prominent members of the GOP telling the public about "death panels" as a way of scaring them and you seriously think rational people are supposed to say, "Yes, the GOP is all about progress!!!"?@MshipAccording to the National Coalition on Health Care, the number of uninsured is estimated at 47 million.<a class="user" href="http://www.nchc.org/facts/coverage.shtml" rel="nofollow">http://www.nchc.org/facts/coverage.shtml</a>Ok, I was off by 3 million!@SpindigFirst, look at the link I provided to Mship. They say close to 50 million. Not the lower number you quote. Do you have a credible link to support your numbers?Also, I read the links you provided. How do any of these proposals make sure everyone in America is covered? Don't get me wrong. I think some of the ideas are great. Medical costs are through the roof and need to be controlled. Now who's to blame for that? Tort reform will not reduce those costs by any significant margin. I've read many an article that states that in some areas (Seattle, Washington is an example), malpractice insurance rates increased over a ten year period of time even though malpractice claims in that area didn't support the increase. However, if the GOP wants to place limits (within reason) regarding what someone can get in a malpractice situation, fine. I would respond by saying that insurance companies don't need a reason to increase rates. What if we reduce malpractice claims and they *still* increase insurance rates? But again, fine, you want to limit malpractice verdict amounts? Whatever. I don't think it will help, but fine.Now...let's get back to the public option. The point is to get as many Americans covered as possible. Since the GOP clearly thinks Obama's the Antichrist for even suggesting the public option, how do *they* suggest it be done? Spindig? Mship? Any ideas? @jwquinianLet the locals do it? You know, I had a boss who would cover any complicated thing he didn't understand with buzzwords. He once asked me to write a crawler to "get all of the resumes off of the internet!" Sounds funny, but he was also a power freak with a huge ego. So I tried to explain to him that first off, I'd never be able to get resumes from any website like monster or dice and that anything I got would be 95% garbage. His response? "No, I want you to *scrub* the data!" lolololol, yeah...your response reminded me of that.Get more specific. What does local mean? Is it per state? What if I live in one state and work in another? How does everyone get covered because you still haven't addressed that. How do you stop people from using the state with the better deal? What about people with pre-existing conditions? My brother-in-law has had five brain operations (no lie). He's a lawyer and only has coverage because he works for the D.A. What about those that work for tiny companies with pre-existing conditions? How does "letting the locals do it" solve such situations?See, you can slam Obama all you want. He actually took the time to at least come up with "A" solution to the problem. Is it the best? Probably not. But in order to do a comparison, we'd have to see a "comprehensive" alternative from the GOP. I guess I forgot to put that qualifier. Give us a well thought out alternative where we can compare apples to apples and we can start to hammer something out. The problem is the GOP is not negotiating in good faith. They haven't come up with a comprehensive alternative (one that tries to address all of the things that Obama is trying to address) because they're not really interested in doing that. It's a power grab for them. Anyone who thinks otherwise is fooling themselves.
theinformerOct 31, 2009
As are the Democrats in Congress that will vote for a bill without reading it or listening to their constituents.
damnloginsOct 31, 2009
The video is blocked in the UK. This is a Bad Thing(TM).Seriously Comedy Central, WTF do you think you're playing at? You might think you can squeeze a few more $$$ from More4 (the channel where it actually airs in the UK), but if you want to hit one of the big boys (BBC, ITV, Sky) you need people to know who the f**k you are. Just saying...
mgraves81Oct 31, 2009
There you go again using 'comedy' and 'satire' as a defense mechanism for Colbert/Stewart. It is the same approach they use when defending themselves. They expect to be taken seriously until someone calls them out and then they retreat and claim that they are nothing but a comedian having a little fun.Maybe you should inform the current administration about the Constitution as opposed to me. And just so you know I have a degree in Poli Sci and I carry a pocket size version of the Constitution with me wherever I go. So I don't need some condescending prick reminding me about the 1st Amendment when our own President and his administration seem adamant to combat a news organization that calls them out.You also said this:"But one is comedy, so opinions shouldn't really matter."Lame, lame, lame, lame, lame. It does matter because Stewart and Colbert have become icons of the left. People tune into them and use them as their primary source of information. Colbert and Stewart constantly expect to be taken seriously until someone calls them out, then they retreat.You also said this:"However, the FACT remains that they at least keep their opinions to themselves and back it up with logical and factual arguments. They don't just present any data as facts."If they keep their opinions to themselves then how is it possible that they back it up with logic and factual arguments? If they keep their opinions to themselves they wouldn't need to back them up. And 'data' is fact..........DUH
professorriffsOct 31, 2009
You say that to all the boys...
gink1Nov 2, 2009
You can tell a true Politician by the number of "special interests" he serves, the amount of money he gets from each and just how far he goes in betraying the interests of US Citizens to serve these masters.Joe Lieberman is a great case in point and as I understand it is actually married to a Health Insurance lobbyist. You really can see where Joe stands. (Against the rest of us!)