Boehner lays down the LAW.


By CaptainShuddup   Follow   Wed, 7 Nov 2012, 7:49am   3,860 views   87 comments
Watch (1)   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (2)  

Washington (CNN) - Shortly after multiple networks projected that Republicans would retain control of the House, Speaker John Boehner took to the stage with a message that looked ahead to the battle over the fiscal cliff - the GOP isn't budging on taxes.

"With this vote, the American people have also made clear that there is no mandate for raising tax rates," Boehner told supporters at the Ronald Reagan building in Washington.

CNN reported Tuesday night that it was mathematically impossible for the GOP to win back control of the Senate, while President Barack Obama won re-election to a second term.

Congress returns next week for the lame duck session. It faces major decisions about how it will head off the series of automatic spending cuts that are set to go into effect at the beginning of next year, and the Bush era tax cuts that are due to expire at the end of December.

Wouldn't it be GREAT, er I mean Ironic, if Obama's second term, was one of historic spending cuts? So much so that it over shadowed his first year?
The icing on the cake would be Unaffordable Healthcare law gets overturned, and he turns on his Latin constituents and deport them. It's not like he actually cares for them.

« First     « Previous     Viewing Comments 48-87 of 87     Last »     See most liked comments

  1. Dan8267


    Follow
    Befriend (17)
    999 threads
    12,133 comments
    Boca Raton, FL

    48   1:06pm Wed 7 Nov 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    Melmakian says

    You get brownie points for very good creativity regarding that one. A-Fuck has some serious competition.

    APOCALYPSEFUCK has no competition from me or anyone. He's in a league I cannot touch.

  2. edvard2


    Follow
    Befriend
    51 threads
    3,657 comments

    49   1:11pm Wed 7 Nov 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    Melmakian says

    If the Reps stood for ANYTHING that they claim to, they would just let that ceiling collapse and the Full Faith and Credit of the US Government along with it.

    Oh yes- what a wonderful thing. Since they spent the entire last 4 years focusing on doing nothing and saying no to everything- basically not doing their jobs- then it would of course only be fitting that they throw a great big tantrum, whine, and do exactly that as mentioned above. Nothing else matters as long as they get THEIR way.

  3. iwog


    Follow
    Befriend (47)
    364 threads
    18,984 comments
    47 male
    Lafayette, CA
    Premium

    50   1:58pm Wed 7 Nov 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike   Protected  

    Melmakian says

    BS, because those deals NEVER turn out that way when all the spending over time is added up.

    And it wasn't for decreases in spending. It was for decreases in the GROWTH of spending.

    Yeah whatever. What was the Republicans offer again? Do everything we want and take nothing for yourselves or we kill the hostage?

    Obama put a legitimate and fair compromise on the table. Republicans shat all over it. Everything else is a lie.

  4. edvard2


    Follow
    Befriend
    51 threads
    3,657 comments

    51   2:36pm Wed 7 Nov 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    Melmakian says

    How can you say that they were 'doing nothing' and then disproving that by describing something you claim that they did DO? (saying no to everything)

    They weren't doing their jobs. They were only looking out for their own self interests. It was made very clear the second Obama was elected in 2008 that they had no interest in compromise or participation. In essence they sat back and did nothing because they ( now obviously mistaken) thought they could simply sit back and hope the economy would still be bad in 2012 and thus win the election.

  5. edvard2


    Follow
    Befriend
    51 threads
    3,657 comments

    52   3:44pm Wed 7 Nov 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    Melmakian says

    How can you say that they did 'nothing' when you said they said no to everything (which is doing something). They did more than that too, committee stalling, adding poison pills to bills to force the Dems to vote against them, recruiting Dems to cross the aisle to make their resistance bi-partisan, etc.

    If creating political gridlock that in turn only creates problems for everyone including the constituents they represent is called " Doing their job" then perhaps I fail to understand what the purpose of governing is. Either way, they are slowly becoming the party of irrelevance. If they keep it up they'll become even more so.

    That said, as you mentioned as a "failure" in a previous post, it appears that Boehner is making statements that they will work with the President. If that proves to be true then perhaps they might actually redeem themselves. A lot of Americans blamed them for the troubles during the last budget plan. They can't afford to be seen doing that again- especially nor after losing the white house.

  6. woppa


    Follow
    Befriend (3)
    4 threads
    196 comments
    Bronx, NY

    53   6:11pm Wed 7 Nov 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    Wow, if that is the way most Americans think of our system of government (my way or the highway), and that the only job of a politician is to be re-elected then America is going straight down the tubes faster than we could have imagined. You have to be a small minded individual to think that of our government. Reelection is the end and not the means, that's rich.

  7. marcus


    Follow
    Befriend (5)
    194 threads
    7,121 comments

    54   7:00pm Wed 7 Nov 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    APOCALYPSEFUCK is Shostakovich says

    Clearly, when an alcoholic goes off on a bender and starts making pronouncements,...

    Are you talking about Boehner or Captain BS ?

  8. thomaswong.1986


    Follow
    Befriend
    27 threads
    6,131 comments

    55   7:46pm Wed 7 Nov 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    tatupu70 says

    thomaswong.1986 says

    no need to ask me.. read about in Bob Woodwards book or his 60 min interview.. or even ask Chris Mathews... this isnt about me..

    So, the crux of your argument is that John Boehner told Bob Woodward that Obama didn't negotiate? Did I get that correct?

    Any chance that Boehner might be stretching the truth a bit? Or outright lying? A statement from him is not a fact.

    Check with Woodward.. you heard of him.

    LOL! yep Nixon said the same thing...

  9. thomaswong.1986


    Follow
    Befriend
    27 threads
    6,131 comments

    56   7:47pm Wed 7 Nov 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    Melmakian says

    Their constituents want gridlock. That is the form of government they have wanted since 2010.

    in two years some 33 senate seats will open up to elections...

  10. edvard2


    Follow
    Befriend
    51 threads
    3,657 comments

    57   7:47pm Wed 7 Nov 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    Melmakian says

    Their constituents want gridlock. That is the form of government they have wanted since 2010.

    That's a bit of a odd statement. So their constituents want them to create gridlock? They want them to accomplish nothing? Somehow I highly doubt it.Melmakian says

    No, it is more likely Boehner will face a full-scale revolt for the speaker's position if he's serious in selling out Republicans like that.

    Well, if the Republicans continue on with the status quo then they will continue to lose elections. Plain and simple. As I said in other posts, I'm not exactly displeased with their behavior. Nor am I exactly upset that the comments I'm reading on various blogs from those on the right are the same as before: weird, conspiracy-driven, fear-mongering nonsense. In other words- the exact same sort of behavior that cost the Republicans the election. They are collectively doing all of us a big favor.

  11. thomaswong.1986


    Follow
    Befriend
    27 threads
    6,131 comments

    58   7:49pm Wed 7 Nov 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    edvard2 says

    That's a bit of a odd statement. So their constituents want them to create gridlock? They want them to accomplish nothing?

    they want to starve the beast !

  12. edvard2


    Follow
    Befriend
    51 threads
    3,657 comments

    59   8:15pm Wed 7 Nov 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    thomaswong.1986 says

    they want to starve the beast !

    They failed. Healthcare reform happened anyway. Oh well- too bad...

  13. thomaswong.1986


    Follow
    Befriend
    27 threads
    6,131 comments

    60   8:23pm Wed 7 Nov 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    iwog says

    It doesn't fucking matter because a majority of Republicans have signed a sworn oath not to compromise under any circumstances.

    WTF is wrong with you?

    signed what oath ? see todays JBs news conference.

  14. iwog


    Follow
    Befriend (47)
    364 threads
    18,984 comments
    47 male
    Lafayette, CA
    Premium

    61   8:33pm Wed 7 Nov 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   Protected  

    thomaswong.1986 says

    signed what oath ? see todays JBs news conference.

    Boner isn't the Republican overlord and he has no control over his teabagger lunatics. His job as speaker isn't even assured at this point.

  15. thomaswong.1986


    Follow
    Befriend
    27 threads
    6,131 comments

    62   9:07pm Wed 7 Nov 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike  

    iwog says

    Boner isn't the Republican overlord and he has no control over his teabagger lunatics. His job as speaker isn't even assured at this point.

    House Leader JB is a negotiator.. he is someone with experience.

    you do understand experienced leader vs a Hollywood glamor model.

  16. iwog


    Follow
    Befriend (47)
    364 threads
    18,984 comments
    47 male
    Lafayette, CA
    Premium

    63   10:55pm Wed 7 Nov 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   Protected  

    thomaswong.1986 says

    House Leader JB is a negotiator.. he is someone with experience.

    you do understand experienced leader vs a Hollywood glamor model.

    You do understand that during the debt ceiling crisis and budget negotiations that Boner was so hamstrung by his own party that sometimes he couldn't even pass his own legislation right?

    Negotiator. ROFLOL

  17. Vicente


    Follow
    Befriend (8)
    255 threads
    5,608 comments
    Davis, CA

    64   11:03pm Wed 7 Nov 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    thomaswong.1986 says

    House Leader JB is a negotiator.. he is someone with experience.

    Is Norquist dead?

  18. thomaswong.1986


    Follow
    Befriend
    27 threads
    6,131 comments

    65   11:18pm Wed 7 Nov 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    iwog says

    You do understand that during the debt ceiling crisis and budget negotiations that Boner was so hamstrung by his own party that sometimes he couldn't even pass his own legislation right?

    so should anyone trust what Iwog (anonymous) writes or get it from Woodwards interviews/book. You be the judge!

  19. iwog


    Follow
    Befriend (47)
    364 threads
    18,984 comments
    47 male
    Lafayette, CA
    Premium

    66   12:37am Thu 8 Nov 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   Protected  

    thomaswong.1986 says

    so should anyone trust what Iwog (anonymous) writes or get it from Woodwards interviews/book. You be the judge!

    There's nothing to judge. I don't think I've contradicted Woodward's book just as you haven't contradicted a single word I've typed.

    That would involve an actual conversation and as we all know, you're not allowed to answer questions.

    NO VOTE ON BOEHNER PLAN AS TEA PARTIERS REVOLT
    http://www.businessinsider.com/live-coverage-2011-7

  20. thomaswong.1986


    Follow
    Befriend
    27 threads
    6,131 comments

    67   12:46am Thu 8 Nov 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    iwog says

    NO VOTE ON BOEHNER PLAN AS TEA PARTIERS REVOLT
    http://www.businessinsider.com/live-coverage-2011-7

    Boehner will now revise the bill to bring more GOP votes on board.

    Democrats have pledged to oppose the plan in the Senate, while the White House has called the vote a "waste of time."

  21. iwog


    Follow
    Befriend (47)
    364 threads
    18,984 comments
    47 male
    Lafayette, CA
    Premium

    68   12:57am Thu 8 Nov 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   Protected  

    thomaswong.1986 says

    Democrats have pledged to oppose the plan in the Senate, while the White House has called the vote a "waste of time."

    Duh. Congratulations completing the circle! You get a cookie.

    It is a waste of time because the brain dead Republican representatives in the House refuse to agree to the smallest compromise in order to get their bill passed because they signed your stupid pledge of no tax increases.

    Obama made his compromise clear. You can't state a compromise by the Republicans because they don't fucking have one and never will. They are toxic to government and democracy and would rather watch the United States burn than allow a single penny of new taxes from billionaires.

    Comment? Fuck no you are totally incapable of making a comment. Go back to misquoting Woodward.

  22. country_stroll


    Follow
    Befriend
    48 comments

    69   7:11am Thu 8 Nov 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    Some Ayn Rand quotes on compromise:

    "A compromise is an adjustment of conflicting claims by mutual concessions. This means that both parties to a compromise have some valid claim and some value to offer each other. And this means that both parties agree upon some fundamental principle which serves as a base for their deal."

    "There can be no compromise on basic principles. There can be no compromise on moral issues. There can be no compromise on matters of knowledge, of truth, of rational conviction."

    "It is only in regard to concretes or particulars, implementing a mutually accepted basic principle, that one may compromise. For instance, one may bargain with a buyer over the price one wants to receive for one’s product, and agree on a sum somewhere between one’s demand and his offer. The mutually accepted basic principle, in such case, is the principle of trade, namely: that the buyer must pay the seller for his product. But if one wanted to be paid and the alleged buyer wanted to obtain one’s product for nothing, no compromise, agreement or discussion would be possible, only the total surrender of one or the other.

    There can be no compromise between a property owner and a burglar; offering the burglar a single teaspoon of one’s silverware would not be a compromise, but a total surrender—the recognition of his right to one’s property."

    "Contrary to the fanatical belief of its advocates, compromise [on basic principles] does not satisfy, but dissatisfies everybody; it does not lead to general fulfillment, but to general frustration; those who try to be all things to all men, end up by not being anything to anyone. And more: the partial victory of an unjust claim, encourages the claimant to try further; the partial defeat of a just claim, discourages and paralyzes the victim."

    "The three rules listed below are by no means exhaustive; they are merely the first leads to the understanding of a vast subject.

    1 In any conflict between two men (or two groups) who hold the same basic principles, it is the more consistent one who wins.

    2 In any collaboration between two men (or two groups) who hold different basic principles, it is the more evil or irrational one who wins.

    3 When opposite basic principles are clearly and openly defined, it works to the advantage of the rational side; when they are not clearly defined, but are hidden or evaded, it works to the advantage of the irrational side."

  23. thunderlips11


    Follow
    Befriend (13)
    171 threads
    3,960 comments
    Premium

    70   7:17am Thu 8 Nov 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   Protected  

    Nothing like advice on principles from a Woman who told her husband if he loved her, he'd not interfere in her affair with another married man half her age.

    She also had no problem using Medicare and Social Security, which she qualified for because of her husband --- she never had a real job of any kind --- even though she spent most of her life railing against it.

  24. country_stroll


    Follow
    Befriend
    48 comments

    71   8:27am Thu 8 Nov 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    @Thunderlips11

    Ad hominem attacks? Is that the best you can do?

    Typical left-wing strategy. ignore the issue and question the character of the person making the statement. If the person is not of proper character, then nothing that they say can be believed.

    As for social security. Social security is not a welfare program. It is a forced retirement savings program. Ayn Rand was entitled to the money because the government confiscated it from her and husband. And she did pay into Social Security. There is also a thing called survivor benefits...

    As for Medicare. What choice do people have? Having paid into it for a lifetime, there is no money left to most people to pay for private insurance. Why turn down something that you have already paid for? What does that prove? That you're stupid?

    Furthermore, Ayn Rand had lung cancer. In order to survive she needed to pay the doctor bills. If everyone else is using Medicare to treat lung cancer, it drives the price up on those who aren't using it, thus making Medicare a life or death decision. Just because you aren't willing to die for your beliefs doesn't mean your beliefs are wrong. How many martyrs does the world need anyway?

    The problem with Medicare is the same problem with medical insurance in general. People are willing to spend vast fortunes of other people's money to preserve their lives or the lives of their loved ones. Consequently, medical costs have soared. Rising costs have driven insurance premiums up thereby making them unaffordable to most everyone of retirement age.

    And yet, despite the inordinate expense of medical care, people still die. The problem is one of ignorance. After 40 years of cancer research, we still don't have a clue how to cure it. This non-recurring research expense on newer and better treatments (not cures) is bankrupting us. Once we solve the cancer riddle, the auto-immune riddle, and other genetic riddles, medical costs will drop precipitously. This is our only hope...

    As for employment. Have you heard of Atlas Shrugged? The Fountainhead? She was a best selling author for Christ sakes. As such, I believe you not only pay social security and medicare once, but twice, as a self-employed person. No? Is Stephen King unemployed? John Grisham? Clive Cussler?

    As for the infidelity remark. Have you heard the saying: "If you love something, set it free. If it returns to you, it was meant to be. If not, it was never yours to begin with." I think Ayn Rand was trying to say that if you truly love someone, you place their happiness above your own. That was the type of relationship she wanted: one of mutual respect, freedom and admiration. Not one of jealousy and possession. Since there were no children involved, who can rightly question an adult's right to choose how to construct their relationships? Funny, I usually get this argument from Conservatives, not Liberals!

  25. iwog


    Follow
    Befriend (47)
    364 threads
    18,984 comments
    47 male
    Lafayette, CA
    Premium

    72   8:49am Thu 8 Nov 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   Protected  

    country_stroll says

    Typical left-wing strategy. ignore the issue and question the character of the person making the statement. If the person is not of proper character, then nothing that they say can be believed.

    You didn't bring up any issues. All you did was list quotes from a sociopath. Would you like to state an issue now?

    No matter how much you want to apologize for Ayn Rand using Medicare, the fact remains that she's a hypocrite. According to her own moral code, she should have either paid for treatment herself, or died.

  26. thunderlips11


    Follow
    Befriend (13)
    171 threads
    3,960 comments
    Premium

    73   8:50am Thu 8 Nov 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   Protected  

    country_stroll says

    Ad hominem attacks? Is that the best you can do?

    Not an Ad Hom if it's true. If a guy is convicted of murder, it's not an ad hom to call him a convicted murderer. Pointing out that Rousseau is a bad guy to take child rearing advice from, on account that he abandoned all his natural children at an orphanage is not an ad hom.

    I've read Atlas Shrugged, it's a work of fiction, and not one of the better ones at that. When I was a self-centered 19-year old, it appealed to me. Now that I'm a grown ass man with experience in the real world with responsibilities for other people, I see it as the self-centered pap it is

    O'Connor didn't want his wife to cheat. She did. She gave him an ultimatum. But there's more to the story.

    It gets even more hypocritical.

    Branden got tired of Rand, and started shtupping at 24-year old model instead of the old Cougar (or his own wife). Rand went apeshit, and told him if he had any 'scruples' he'd be impotent for life. What balls!

    But I guess if she "loved Braden" she should have set him free, right? LOL. Cheating is only okay for the Chieftess and not for her little pet.

    Ayn Rand was a self-centered psychopath, principles were whatever was good for Ayn Rand and screw anybody else, including the people she pledged to love by oath. That is the core of her philosophy: MEMEMEMEMEMEMEMEMEMEMEME.

    Of course people are willing to spent infinite amounts of money to keep themselves alive. Duh! It's a basic instinct of all living things.

    This is why Randroids are like Soviets: Both believe in a "New Man" and see humans for what they SHOULD be, but not how they actually ARE. This is why their philosophies are dumb and dangerous. They exist for humans that do not, and cannot, exist in the real world.

    Here's some news: Medicare is deducted out of your paycheck, over the course of decades, month in and month out. Spreading risk among individuals is called insurance, taking advantage of the bell curve. Nobody knows whether or not they'll get a disease, so spreading risk in this fashion is generally a good idea.

  27. iwog


    Follow
    Befriend (47)
    364 threads
    18,984 comments
    47 male
    Lafayette, CA
    Premium

    74   8:51am Thu 8 Nov 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   Protected  

    Melmakian says

    Obama flat out lied. The Dems have a recorded history of such things as their 'spending cuts later' crap NEVER materializes. NEVER.

    Funny how huge spending cuts are about to go into effect on January 1 and they have Obama's signature on them.

    Reality isn't your strong suit.

  28. edvard2


    Follow
    Befriend
    51 threads
    3,657 comments

    75   9:33am Thu 8 Nov 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    Melmakian says

    You're reading too much into that. Can't blame you..post-election euphoria and all.

    Its not just me who is saying this. Republicans are saying the same thing as well. They are no longer relevant in their current form to the modern electorate.

  29. country_stroll


    Follow
    Befriend
    48 comments

    76   9:52am Thu 8 Nov 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    I think we have gone far afield from the basic issue of compromise. I posted the Ayn Rand statements to help the discussion of what could possibly be offered in any compromise between the two parties in power.

    Most of the Republicans in Congress will not compromise on taxes. It is one of their core beliefs -- that we pay enough for the essential governmental services.

    Most of the Democrats in the Senate will not compromise on Obamacare, Welfare, or Social Security. Their core belief is that the government should provide a safety net for everyone in society.

    Obama stands with the Senate. His core belief is in equality of result not equality of opportunity.

    How do you fashion a grand compromise here?

  30. country_stroll


    Follow
    Befriend
    48 comments

    77   10:04am Thu 8 Nov 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    As far as cancer is concerned. In the last five years, I've lost a grandfather to melanoma, an aunt to lung cancer, a family friend to leukemia, and most recently my wife's sister to alveolar rhabdomyosarcoma that metastasized to the brain. If we were really that good at curing cancer, they would still be alive. They aren't.

    There have been some successes, I'll grant that. My mother was diagnosed with breast cancer 2 years ago, and is still in remission.

    10,000 times better? Hardly. I have looked into the eye of too many supposedly world-class oncologists and have them tell me that there isn't anything they can do. Most recently at the City of Hope this last July. So don't tell me that we are winning the war on cancer. We aren't.

  31. country_stroll


    Follow
    Befriend
    48 comments

    78   10:19am Thu 8 Nov 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    I agree that we are spending an awful lot of money on prosecuting two wars. The problem is what is the alternative? Surrender? We have the same issue with Al-Qaida that we have within our own government. How do you compromise with fanatics? Have you ever heard demands from Al-Qaida or an offer of peace?

    How can we sign a peace treaty with an enemy that advocates our total destruction? We preach tolerance, and they preach intolerance. As I see it, we can either take the fight to them, or we can accept a martial law style government at home. Either way it's going to be expensive and intrusive.

  32. AverageBear


    Follow
    Befriend (2)
    26 threads
    625 comments
    Boston, MA

    79   10:21am Thu 8 Nov 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)  

    I think the next four years is going to be pure entertainment. The only bummer is that the power struggle between Obama/Senate and the House of Reps is that we can have serious repercussions. I actually welcome the fiscal cliff. More ultra-rich paying a few more sheckles, while the dead-beats get less EBTs for lap dances, booze and bail money. Let's not forget: The Dems had COMPLETE CONTROL for a couple of years of Obama's first term, and refused to pass a budget. So when I hear IWOG complain that the GOP won't compromise, I kinda chuckle to myself. Think about it. They had COMPLETE CONTROL and what is the basic requirement of gov't? Protect our borders (FAIL), balance the budget and pay the bills (FAIL)..... I also look forward to how the beat up 1965 Dodge Dart running on 3 cylinders we call ObamaCare, is going to cross the finish line in each state, when 33 of those 50 states (I think) now has a Republican governor....

  33. david1


    Follow
    Befriend (2)
    9 threads
    790 comments
    33 male
    Fort Mill, SC

    80   10:32am Thu 8 Nov 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    AverageBear says

    when 33 of those 50 states (I think) now has a Republican governor....

    Close. 30 governorships with one still not decided. At best 31. Dem is currently ahead in WA though....

    AverageBear says

    The Dems had COMPLETE CONTROL for a couple of years

    Couple of weeks.

  34. edvard2


    Follow
    Befriend
    51 threads
    3,657 comments

    81   10:41am Thu 8 Nov 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    country_stroll says

    10,000 times better? Hardly. I have looked into the eye of too many supposedly world-class oncologists and have them tell me that there isn't anything they can do. Most recently at the City of Hope this last July. So don't tell me that we are winning the war on cancer. We aren't.

    I'd say the knowledge of cancer and ways to prevent and treat it are better than they used to be. People are also more aware of what causes it. For example, ever since I moved to Cali I get a full skin exam every year. The sun is more intense out here. I also learned more about what a melanoma looks like because those are rather serious things that many people don't recognize as a threat since afterall, they're usually just a mole looking thing.

    A lot of things that in the recent past were considered safe are now known carcinogens. Asbestos, cigarettes, dioxins, PCBs and so on. All things that used to be used in everyday life. They were everywhere. In people's homes, workplaces, and products. Those are now either banned or classified and the EPA and other regulatory agencies constantly keep tabs on the thousands of chemicals and materials out there. There used to be very little oversight when it came to understanding the effects of the things we made. Environmental exposure to various man-made substances is a fairly large contributer to cancers people get these days. The fact that we have an increasing knowledge of what many of those substances are alone is a good means to help reduce the risks of cancer.

    But I would agree that we are still a very long ways off from curing cancer.

  35. dublin hillz


    Follow
    Befriend
    44 threads
    1,629 comments
    Dublin, CA

    82   11:10am Thu 8 Nov 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    AverageBear says

    dead-beats get less EBTs for lap dances, booze and bail money.

    Maybe we should follow Stalin's example - ship them off to frozen taiga of Wisconsin and have them build railroads across the country - we shall have the best high speed rail in the world and the taxpayers won't have to pay a dime. Those who refuse to work hard will be made "example of." What a glorious superpower we will become. "Soyuz nerushimi respublik svobodnih!"

  36. iwog


    Follow
    Befriend (47)
    364 threads
    18,984 comments
    47 male
    Lafayette, CA
    Premium

    83   12:58pm Thu 8 Nov 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   Protected  

    AverageBear says

    The Dems had COMPLETE CONTROL for a couple of years of Obama's first term

    It doesn't matter how many times you repeat this lie, it will continue to be total bullshit. The number of actual legislative days that the Democrats had complete control, between the time Franken was given his seat to the point at which Ted Kennedy couldn't cast votes anymore, was a couple of weeks.

    Saying the Democrats "had complete control for a couple of years" is one of the reasons you lost the election. Republicans seem to be incapable of telling the truth.

  37. FortWayne


    Follow
    Befriend (12)
    154 threads
    5,240 comments

    84   1:45pm Thu 8 Nov 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)  

    iwog says

    AverageBear says

    The Dems had COMPLETE CONTROL for a couple of years of Obama's first term

    It doesn't matter how many times you repeat this lie, it will continue to be total bullshit. The number of actual legislative days that the Democrats had complete control, between the time Franken was given his seat to the point at which Ted Kennedy couldn't cast votes anymore, was a couple of weeks.

    Saying the Democrats "had complete control for a couple of years" is one of the reasons you lost the election. Republicans seem to be incapable of telling the truth.

    It is not a lie, they were in complete control and were on a spending spree like kids in the candy store. Every single union out there that was politically connected got Uncle Sam's sugar.

  38. iwog


    Follow
    Befriend (47)
    364 threads
    18,984 comments
    47 male
    Lafayette, CA
    Premium

    85   2:00pm Thu 8 Nov 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   Protected  

    FortWayne says

    It is not a lie, they were in complete control and were on a spending spree like kids in the candy store. Every single union out there that was politically connected got Uncle Sam's sugar.

    That is simply not true. Democrats are responsible for a single significant piece of legislation, and that was the stimulus bill during the depths of the recession in 2009. They slipped it in with the help of the Maine Senator because they didn't even have their 60 votes at that point in time.

    Nothing more and nothing since.

  39. iwog


    Follow
    Befriend (47)
    364 threads
    18,984 comments
    47 male
    Lafayette, CA
    Premium

    86   2:01pm Thu 8 Nov 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   Protected  

    Melmakian says

    Since when does playing hardball constitute 'refused to negotiate at all'?

    When one side has the other by the balls, of course they are going to squeeze them.

    What planet DO you live on, dude?

    Yeah about that nonsense.....what was the Republican's offer again? For some reason it slipped my mind.

  40. edvard2


    Follow
    Befriend
    51 threads
    3,657 comments

    87   2:35pm Thu 8 Nov 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    Oh.... how I just love that the same right wing leaning crap is still being spewed just as if the election didn't even happen. Apparently nobody got the message. That ain't gonna' win the white house no-mo.

« First     « Previous comments    

CaptainShuddup is moderator of this thread.

Email

Username

Watch comments by email
Home   Tips and Tricks   Questions or suggestions? Mail p@patrick.net   Thank you for your kind donations

Page took 160 milliseconds to create.