PowerStroker wrote:

---

Recusing ones self from deciding on a case to which one has a personal interest is very noble.

Yes PowerStroker, however it is usually the "Other Side" that makes the objection rather than the Judge volentarily recusing ones self. I can understand one or two conflicts of intrest, but to be recused from almost HALF of the docket? C'mon!? I'd say this woman may be a little to bias to fill her position in a job that requires balanced judgement based on the facts rather than special intrest. What about all of the other Supreme Court Justices that pull their weight, while this woman get's excused from nearly 50% of her work? Can we the tax payers expect her to take a 50% pay cut for her "Special intrest" that prevent her from doing her job? I bet not!

It would have been nice if the Judges on the Gulf Coast whom happen to have a stake in the oil industry would have recused themselves from deciding on a drilling moratorium. I guess that just means Liberal judges are more professional.

Once again, these things are very hard to prove, and if it were an issue at the time the opposing side should have brought it to light. We will however need a link to back up your claims above, as hear-say is not admissable in this Forum of laymans law! LOL

Besides, people have been a little too trigger happy about appealing everything all the way to the supreme court anyway. It would be nice if the Supreme Court was split evenly once in a while to let the Federal Circuit courts decisions stand.

Too trigger happy about appealing things? You are aware they only accept so many cases arent you? What you see as an every once in awhile split, I see as a waste of resources when ultimatly the issue will be brought up yet again... And for what? Another important case being set aside to hear an issue that should have been dealt with years ago? No wonder they call you people liberals! If you ask me they should start calling you guys WASTEFULL!

---

In that Guardian.co.UK article they are using information from 2008! It also claims that many of the judges sold off their intrest in the oil companies so they could hear the matter. I will agree that a judge selling off their intrest in a company so they can hear the issue still represents a conflict of intrest but I also feel Obama himself may have his hands into big oil now. How does the old saying go? If they arent corrupt when they enter office, they become corrupt after.

With regards to your thoughts about justice Roberts, "That's just not true!" LOL

If I recall, the issue was brought up by Obama in his national address to the nation. Apparently the Democrats were too busy stuffing the Patriot Act into the Medicare Physician Act to notice the change. Oh, I am sorry PowerStroker, your side does not want to talk about that. See the bottom line here is the Democrats are famous for trying to stuff shit in an un-related bill in an effort to push it thru under the radar.

You should be ashamed of yourself!

All these filibusters and yet we have "Obama care"?

I am not feeling it PowerStroker.

PowerStroker wrote:

---

 

SELLC wrote:

---

I don't know PowerStroker, I am still thinking a repeal of the healthcare bill is in order.

Your side won't tell you, but in order to repeal the new healthcare law, it 
would require an enormous increase in the national debt - which will be passed on to you in the form of higher taxes.  Careful what you wish for.
It's these emotion driven knee jerk decisions that lead to the Iraq war and other such expensive blunders.

An enormous incrase in the national debt PowerStroker? HA! You mean like the enormous WASTE of an entire YEAR it took your idiot Democrat friends to come up with this peice of shit law we have now! BWAHAHAHAHAHA Thats a laughable joke if I ever heard one! I am all for the repeal of the healthcare bill! The right to choose weather or not to have insurance should not be taken away by your idiot Democrat friends! I hope the democrats lose their asses this November (No pun intended!)

As per my thread the Republicans claims pledge to "Replacing the health care law by letting people buy health care coverage outside their states, expanding state programs that cover high-risk patients who can't otherwise get insurance and expanding the use of tax-advantaged savings accounts to cover medical costs."

First off, you're putting a little too much stock into a Republican pledge that even Republicans thought was weak.  The Republican Party won't tell you this, but they set up a website to ask citizens what policies they should pursue, and promised to act on the results of that poll.  Apparently the idea to legalize pot was the highest rated idea on that website per citizen voting, yet I don't see any Republican call to legalize pot.

I know all about the GOP website, they now have one for EVERY STATE also PowerStroker, perhaps you should check them out from time to time PowerStroker! I myself find it a GOOD idea that they are taking the advice of the people to form their agenda! Unlike the Democrats who brew their shit up in the back room and pass bills in order to "See" what is in them. You people can keep the change, America is tired of Democrat leadership after only 2 short (well long to me) years!

The idea that you can save money if only you could buy health insurance across state lines is a straw man argument used to get low information voters to support their plan.  The fact is, the ability to "buy policies across state lines" won't save shit.  Why? You may ask.  It's because there are really only about 5 health insurance companies in this country that own ALL of those little subsidiaries that pretend to be seperate companies.  There is an oligopoly in place that already has each of the 5 companies represented in all 50 states already.  The idea that somehow you will create competition by saying you can buy from the same 5 companies in different states with subsidiaries under a different name is bullshit.  The only way to utilize the free market to drive down prices, is to either bust up the monopolies using the Sherman Anti Trust act - which Reagan stopped enforcing because large monopolies tend to be Republican supporters.  OR allow the Government to sell policies which compete with the private sector... a kind of "public option" if you will.

Straw man? Is that the word of the week over there on jackass.com? Allowing insurance companies to compete across state lines WILL lower cost, as other companies will come forward to play ball. The idea of just ONE company owning them all is a joke, and without some sort of supporting link I will just assume it's more Jackass Propoganda as usual. The public option, or the Government option (one and the same) is a first class ticket to socialisim! Just like the people in California trying to force McDonalds to put fruit in their happy meals. LOL, now they want to control what we eat! WONDERFUL! As if the GIVE ACT wasn't bad enough! Pretty soon they will have to rename it to the TAKE ACT!

Seems to me this new healthcare law has raised prices more than it has lowered them. Still there have been no mention of "Dental" coverage, something that is very important. I am getting the impression that it's a catch 22 no matter what side of the isle you sit on.

Dental coverage was not included in the bill for cost containment reasons.  If you have ugly teeth you're on your own.  If you have a tooth infection which threatens your health - it becomes a healthcare issue anyway and treatment to stop the infection would be covered, but tooth replacement after the fact would not be  You'll be stuck with a missing tooth or two, but why would that be any different for you anyway?

Dental coverage was not included in the bill for cost containment reasons? Thats a fucking joke! Ugly teeth and people with tooth aches are two diffrent things. Not many people realize is that tooth infections can lead to all sorts of serious conditions down the road. Dental care is all but kicked to the curb in terms of insurance now days and it's fucking bullshit! No I don't EVER have to worry about a tooth ache PowerStroker, but I sure as hell don't want my kids strapped with debt thanks to your Jackass buddies, all the while having to pay fines for insurance, still not have insurance, and then have to deal with the sort of tooth pain that I have thru my years. FUCK YOU IDIOTS and I HOPE AMERICANS SHOVE THAT HEATH CARE REFORM BILL/LAW RIGHT UP YOUR ASSES! 

The Democrats current law, as well intentioned as it may be, SUCKS. The Democrats have held an overwhelming majority, so there is really no excuse for this Healthcare reform that seems to be a cobbled together POS. The Democrats really have no one else to blame but themself, for locking everyone up on Christmas Eve for a vote on something as serious as healthcare reform, that squeeked by and was then rammed down the throats of Americans.

The Democratic Party currently has a majority - true, but LIBERALS are only 1 faction of the Democratic Party.  If all Democrats were Liberal Democrats, we would have a much better bill.  Unfortunately we are stuck with Joe Lieberman, Ben Nelson, and other such right wing Dems who just love to grandstand and bring home pork to their districts anytime the liberals are on the verge of passing some needed legislation.  This usually results in a much weaker bill as they same ConservaDems strip the really good stuff out to appeal to the dumb conservative voters in their district.  An argument for an IQ test as a qualification for voting I suppose.

Cue the blue words in bold above and apply the age old rule that anything after "BUT" is bullshit. Democrats have had the majority, and you know what? They fucked it all up! Any argument you make with regards to IQ test are only valid in a classroom environment. This here is the real world PowerStroker and we reject your delusional dreams and substitute them with fact. The fact here is the Democrats are FAR more corrupt than a Republican ever NEEDED to be.

I myself was never a fan of the "We must pass this bill to see whats inside it" mentality. It's like throwing shit at the wall to see what sticks.

Bush tried the "lets lower taxes for millionares and billionares and see if that sticks, and blame Saddam for 911 and see if that sticks" approach.  Do you think that was a bad Idea too?  I do.

Hey dipshit, it's been proven that the Bush tax cuts extended to ALL INCOME LEVELS OF AMERICANS! Stick that Jackass right straight back up your ass. If you do not think Saddam had anything to do with 911, well then you are just a fool. Every since he has been dead, have the terrorist been able to fund a sucessful major attack on American Soil? NO, and if anyone is to blame for 911 it's not the US, it would have been the jealous Democrats and their temper tantrums because Bush took the election. I wonder what you crazy fuckers will try in 2012 when Owebama gets kicked to the curb? It's too bad that by the time 2012 rolls around Obama will have given all these nations BILLIONS.... nay TRILLIONS in aid to attack us later down the road after they have funneled it all into terrorist coffers rather than the needy starving it was intended for. Wake up PowerStroker, your sleep walking! 

---

 

 

PowerStroker wrote:

---

Yeah, people like us get a couple hundred bucks back, and Bill Gates gets $80,000 back.  So please explain to me how stimulating Bill Gates with 80 Grand will make him spend more in the economy than he was already.  Democrats are in favor of keeping the Bush Tax cuts for the first $250,000 of income for everyone, but realize that refunding money on income beyond that point is not stimulative and actually detrimental to our federal deficit.

Could you please show me with a credible non-bias link how exactly it was that Saddam had any involvement in 911?

The diffrence between what Bill Gates makes, and what YOU make is a HUGE GAP. Stimulating the economy should not even be an option in the first fucking place! They should have let all the companies that didn't plan on making good their obligations go bust! Just like a small business would have to.

One more thing PowerStroker, THE TAX CUTS UNDER $250,000 ARE SET TO EXPIRE AT THE SAME TIME AS THE ONES FOR THE UBER RICH! Democrats claim they will not address the issue until after the elections, which to me should be considered criminal. A thinly veiled threat to the middle and low class leading up the the elections. Get a clue already PowerStroker, even if the Dumbocrats reduce just the taxes for the middle and lower class they will find 10 other ways to make up for the loss of taxes times 10! The fine for not having insurance is one in of itself should you choose not to buy it, but let's also not forget Obamas ideas of taxing soda pop, tanning salons and many other services and foods.

With regards to links proving Saddam was in bed with terrorist I will supply the following links and leave it up to your pea brain to connect the dots.

Did Saddam try to kill GW Bush's dad?
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/1019-05.htm

Saddams list of crimes - NOTE THE TIME LINES
http://history1900s.about.com/od/saddamhussein/a/husseincrimes.htm

 About Saddam Hussein-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_Hussein

So now Saddam Hussein is the Democrats Hero huh PowerStroker?

---

Democrats doing anything to reduce the national debt? LOL!

That's a lot like Clinton taking credit for Reagan's work. Too bad Clinton's true colors had to shine thru at the end there. Book cook'n cheater. No wonder the Democrats burnt down the WTC!

Next!

PowerStroker wrote:

---

Clinton balanced his budget.

The only thing Clinton ever balanced was his nut sac on Monica's chin.

Reagan took credit for the cold war, even though it was actually the policies of Kennedy and Truman, which happened to also be adopted by Reagan of Spending the Soviets into bankruptcy that ultimately succeeded when Reagan was sitting there.

Just how do you "Spend" a communist nation into Bankruptcy anyway? Last time I checked Nazi Germany's Hitler had to be killed, and Russia is still alive and well. I like to think that plane holding Poland's governent went down in Russia was a coeincedence too, but c'mon.

As I remember, Reagan cut taxes for millionares too, but cooked the books by borrowing the money to do so from the Social Security trust fund to make it appear as though the government was borrowing money from itself and thus no red ink. We're paying for that tax cut now.

As you remember? LOL! How old are you again? More like "As you been told". Anyway it wasn't until the Clinton Administration until my Social Security statements started to read "Bennifites may be depleted before you reach retirement age". At that point I kind of figured out that the Democrats bright idea of Social Security was another bad idea cooked up by a crack-pot.

---

Oh, I see... You are one of them people that gets fooled by the "Under New Management" signs that hang in questionable establishments huh?

Just because they changed their name, got a red, white and blue flag, they are still very much the same Russian's.

I am pretty sure at some point it's going to be the USA vs. The World, I'd just hate to be a Democrat when that day comes. World domination is one of them on-going things that never seems to go out of style. Hell Parker Brothers made a board game called Risk that has sold millions of units over the years. Ever wonder where the idea for that board game come from? How about Chess? Tic Tac Toe? Battleship? Monopoly? Go Fish? Hungry Hungry Hippoes? Yep, same thing... A winner and a loser. Can't have one without the other.

Ying-Yang? Look it up.

PowerStroker wrote:

---

 

SELLC wrote:

---

 

Oh, I see... You are one of them people that gets fooled by the "Under New Management" signs that hang in questionable establishments huh?

It seems to work pretty well at the white house.

The Government is an institution, not a business. But nice try, funny too even!

Just because they changed their name, got a red, white and blue flag, they are still very much the same Russian's.

But we get along much better with them now that they know Communism can't compete with Capitalism.  We actually work together on a number of issues.

GASP.....$%#@@.... CHOKE.... Did you just fucking say Capitalism? I didn't know Democrats were allowed to say that word PowerStroker!? Do we really work together or is it more of an "It's just easier for us to get along and take over the world in smaller chunks until the US or THEM time comes?".

I am pretty sure at some point it's going to be the USA vs. The World

Your mind scares me.

I know the truth can be scary. Then again the USA might consist of more than half the world when that time rolls around. Just don't count on a good outcome with too many years of Democratic leadership. They already threw the Poles to the wolves. Wonder if they will allow us to place rockets there pointing at Russia again? Bet not.

---

 

---