I don't mean to gloat but....

[B_Enough_for_Me]

the more things "change" , ...

You said it.


This was a huge loss for the administration. As his first big policy push Obama had to win this. Now he faces a brutal fight from a marginalized opponent that knows they can win.

 

[deleted15807]

There is no 'huge loss' at this point to count.

 

[b.c.]

doesn't change the fact that you were being either overly dramatic or simply, wrong.

since i have not spread any "bullshit" about health reform, i can certainly call you out for your absurd statements....unless of course you enjoy taking refuge in the same type of hysterics and over dramatization that you so decry when it appears in those on the other side of the political spectrum.

Welllllll... maybe I was looking to see who would be first to rise up with the usual rationalization and minimizing of the issues. Maybe to YOU, record oil company profits during all time high gas prices is no big deal (and undoubtedly of no concern to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce either).

Maybe the point was that there are those who we can always count on to rise up, to minimize such information (while at the same time spreading misinformation themselves).

Maybe the point isn't whether there are 50 billion or 20 billion without health insurance. Maybe the point IS that ONE person without (potentially) life-saving coverage is one too many.


(btw. Here's what I said of Exxon's profit back in this post. So maybe you took the "bait".)


http://www.lpsg.org/98343-why-should-mccain-be-president-7.html#post1671143

 

[midlifebear]

Note to Flashy: I'm not certain about gasoline, but I can say the Diesel fuel in Wells, Nevada never got over $5.00 a gallon. When I was back in Nevada for a short time last summer it was only $4.87 a gallon. I have the receipts to prove it (I need to keep them for taxes). Gasoline was about 20 cents less. But what's 13 cents among friends?

 

[Flashy]

Welllllll... maybe I was looking to see who would be first to rise up with the usual rationalization and minimizing of the issues. Maybe to YOU, record oil company profits during all time high gas prices is no big deal (and undoubtedly of no concern to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce either).

Maybe the point was that there are those who we can always count on to rise up, to minimize such information (while at the same time spreading misinformation themselves).

Maybe the point isn't whether there are 50 billion or 20 billion without health insurance. Maybe the point IS that ONE person without (potentially) life-saving coverage is one too many.


(btw. Here's what I said of Exxon's profit back in this post. So maybe you took the "bait".)


http://www.lpsg.org/98343-why-should-mccain-be-president-7.html#post1671143

LOL....oh so it was a clever ruse on your part?

nice try...obfuscate away.

i suppose you keep getting its name wrong on purpose too. it is EXXONMOBIL

 

[b.c.]

Note to Flashy: I'm not certain about gasoline, but I can say the Diesel fuel in Wells, Nevada never got over $5.00 a gallon. When I was back in Nevada for a short time last summer it was only $4.87 a gallon. I have the receipts to prove it (I need to keep them for taxes). Gasoline was about 20 cents less. But what's 13 cents among friends?

Yes...$4.89 in my neck of the woods. I know 'cause I bought it.

A "can't see the forest for the trees" kind of person would nitpick this detail rather than acknowledge the obvious: that certain people (and organizations) who present themselves as having our interests at heart, DON'T.

They remain silent on economic events that negatively impact the average "Joe" (hostile actions and costly interest policies on the part of creditors, for example), while rallying in support of healthcare providers.

They rush to correct inaccuracies (on the actual numbers of uninsured) while sitting mum on propaganda such as "the reform act will result in government sanctioned euthanasia".

Seems they get pretty damned particular as to when they want to rise up to have us "stand corrected".

 

[Flashy]

LOL... a trifle nevertheless, eh? An obfuscation on his part... or an equivocation, mayhaps.Yes...$4.89 in my neck of the woods. I know 'cause I bought it. A "can't see the forest for the trees" kind of person would nitpick this detail rather than acknowledge the obvious: that certain people (and organizations) who present themselves as having our interests at heart, DON'T.They remain silent on economic events that negatively impact the average "Joe" (hostile actions and costly interest policies on the part of creditors, for example), while rallying in support of healthcare providers. "With friends like these..."They rush to correct inaccuracies (on the actual numbers of uninsured) while sitting mum on propaganda such as "the reform act will result in government sanctioned euthanasia."Seems they get pretty damned particular as to when they see fit to rise up to have others "stand corrected".btw: in ref. to my previous response...the correct word would have been equivocate, not "obfuscate".

there is no obfuscation. the original point still stands.

if you paid $4.89 for that gallon of gas, then you did not, in fact ever pay $5 a gallon, did you?