Originally posted by Doc Velocity

Originally posted by jimmyx
yeah... a democrat with balls...

A Democrat with balls is something never before seen. But if you think Al Franken has "balls," then Alvin & the Chipmunks must have monster balls.



— Doc Velocity






[edit on 12/18/2009 by Doc Velocity]

sorry...but i don't watch cartoons, so i could not venture to imagine the size of a cartoon charecters balls, as you have been apparently able to visualize.

Originally posted by jimmyx
sorry...but i don't watch cartoons, so i could not venture to imagine the size of a cartoon charecters balls

If you've seen Al Franken "at work" in the Senate, then you've watched cartoons, chum.

— Doc Velocity

Originally posted by intrepid
1 France
2 Italy
3 San Marino
4 Andorra
5 Malta....blah blah blah

Same old distorted info from the same old liberally-biased, pro-socialist healthcare sources.

Show me a nation of 300 million citizens receiving universal healthcare. You can't, because it doesn't exist. ALL of the nations cited in your list have insignificant populations compared to the USA. You might make socialist healthcare work in a nation of 4 million or even 30 million, but the larger the population, the less effective is the socialist healthcare.

The USA is 10X LARGER than Canada or France or England, and Canada and France and England have faltering and failing healthcare systems.

We're not going to implement a socialist healthcare system in a nation of 300 million when such systems are buckling under the weight of a mere 30 million and less.

— Doc Velocity





[edit on 12/18/2009 by Doc Velocity]

Democrats have Al Franken now, republicans had Sonny Bono back then.

With any luck Al will go skiing soon.

Watch out for that tree!




Anyone who takes either too seriously needs to really get out of the house more often.

And if you want to trot out Japan as an example of a "large population" with universal healthcare (still less than half the size of the USA), the Japanese government is already coming to the stark realization that their system is going to cost more in 10 years than the private healthcare system in the United States right now.

In other words, Japan's faltering and failing socialist healthcare system is also bankrupting Japan. It's unsustainable.

— Doc Velocity

Originally posted by Doc Velocity

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck
Little too much whining going on here.

Perhaps if there was more whining in Canada, you wouldn't have such a pathetic, socialist government and a crappy health care system.

We don't want a Canadian system in the United States.

— Doc Velocity

I think that is a bit uncalled for Doc Velocity. The subject at hand is not what system people want or which system is better or worse then the other, but what Al Fraken did in Senate. Which I think he did the right thing... He attempted to uphold the rules and show no special favor.

McCain did not like it because he is used to business as usual. Franken is a disruption to how business as usual is done. And I see it as a good thing.

But we are, after all, straying far off topic — the OP is about Al Franken attempting to silence debate on this weak-ass, convoluted healthcare reform, no doubt at the direction of his Democrat keepers in the Senate.

— Doc Velocity

Originally posted by Flakey
He attempted to uphold the rules and show no special favor.

The "rules" of which you speak were only implemented for this debate, to limit and silence opposing voices. What Al Franken and the Democrats are doing is forcing an unwanted bill on the American people.

As of today's public opinion polls, 57% of Americans DO NOT WANT healthcare reform. That's greater than the majority that elected Barack Hussein Obama. A decided minority of 34% want universal healthcare, and 9% are undecided. So, even if the "undecided" went in favor of reform, that's still only 46% for and 57% against.

Are we respecting the majority or not?

— Doc Velocity





[edit on 12/18/2009 by Doc Velocity]

Originally posted by Doc Velocity

Originally posted by Flakey
He attempted to uphold the rules and show no special favor.

The "rules" of which you speak were only implemented for this debate, to limit and silence opposing voices. What Al Franken and the Democrats are doing is forcing an unwanted bill on the American people.

As of current opinion polls, 57% of Americans DO NOT WANT healthcare reform. That's greater than the majority that elected Barack Hussein Obama.

Are we respecting the majority or not?

— Doc Velocity

they want a public option...to be able to choose their own healthcare just like the republican and the democratic senators get to do. but healthcare is only for the rich...and we can't have affordable healthcare for the middle class and poor...because that would be un-american!!! it's only for the rich that can afford it...the rest of you can just go and die if you get sick.

Originally posted by jimmyx
they want a public option...to be able to choose their own healthcare just like the republican and the democratic senators get to do. but healthcare is only for the rich...and we can't have affordable healthcare for the middle class and poor

The "middle class and poor" argument is pure unfounded liberal rhetoric. Annually in the USA, it's the elderly who seek healthcare far more often than the very young, young adults, adults and middle-aged adults.

It doesn't boil down to rich and poor, as liberals always simplify every argument. Healthcare boils down to young and old.

We already have universal healthcare for the elderly, who are the largest uses, by far, of our private healthcare system. We have Medicaid and Medicare to cover the elderly and the poor.

In short, there is no reason to implement universal healthcare for everyone. It's a waste of money and resources.

— Doc Velocity

I, for one, welcome Franken to sticking to his roots and treating Congress like the comedy routine it is, even though I disagree with him politically on nearly everything...

Originally posted by Rook1545
Just out of curiosity here; Lieberman asked for a "moment". What defines a moment?

It's usually a minute or two more. When the speaker is advised that his "time is up," rather than cutting him off in mid-sentence, it is customary to grant him another minute or two (at the speaker's request) to wrap it up.

It's tradition, it's a gentlemen's agreement in the Senate. The U.S. Senate has operated in this fashion for over 200 years.

So why does a newcomer — who is not particularly respected nor even well-liked by either side in the Senate — defy tradition and mutual respect by refusing to allow a speaker to complete his thought?

This was a personal jab at Lieberman by the bitter and mean-spirited newcomer. That's it. Lieberman was then granted extra time, but only after Franken was chastised for being a disrespectful horse's ass.

Make no mistake, what Al Franken did was not courageous not admirable...it was simply disrespectful.

Now, when Representative Wilson had the unmitigated gall to shout "You Lie!" at President Obama — indisputably a disrespectful gesture — Rep. Wilson was threatened with censure by the Democrats, and he was compelled to apologize immediately, in person, to the President.

Will Al Franken be censured for his disrespect to Joe Lieberman, a Senator who is over 2 decades Franken's senior? Was Franken compelled to apologize? No, and he won't be, because the Senate Democrats are, essentially, hypocrites.

— Doc Velocity

I Like Al Franken ...


I think he did good, nobody wants to hear that idiot geezer (Lieberman)

That was one of the most satisfying moments of television I have seen in a long long time. I can't watch it enough. When a former comedian can immediately silence a lying diatribe put forth by a shameless lobbyist for the insurance companies.... I still get a warm glow all over.

The insurance companies buying Joe Lieberman's loyalty are also responsible for screwing the American Public, charging 40% in profits, cherry picking patients, fixing prices and denying coverage.
ANYONE that (intentionally or not) aids in this massive exploitation of sick Americans by helping the insurance companies get what they want in this bill is completely bereft of morals, integrity and humanity. If you treat humans like this, what hope have animals, if you treat animals like this what hope can we hold out for the biology and health of the planet.
Your agenda, and your end goal is clear - at least to me.
Our health care system is a joke. Compared to other industrialized nations we are shamefully selfish and short sighted.
People who have insurance get dangerous needless procedures and tests while those who don't like me (yes I have a job) get nothing because I am priced out. Right now I have a toothache.
When you ask that common sense enter in and prices be affordable people say you are after their money. Yes I want to end the waste so you needn't undergo needless tests and ALL procedures can be made more affordable that way. It is like if you got rid of shoplifters stores could charge less for merchandise. This is Conservatism. What we have is now is Liberal waste.
How ironic that the Liberals are fighting for conservatism in health practices and the Conservatives are fighting to keep wasting doctors and hospital rooms on people who don't need them...but hey - they can pay.

My sister has good health insurance and was always going in for tests when her problem began as one - over weight. Yet instead of addressing her problem, diet - which they can't charge you for, her doctors experimented and always gave her another in a long line of new pills. Over the years - she took them. Of course this did not reverse her health issues as doctors led her to believe, it made them worse. She is treated like a guinea pig. In the past year alone doctors have given her a defibrillator, removed her thyroid and now they are after her kidneys.

She trust's them. She trust men like Joe Lieberman to do the right thing.
The only thing that would have made it better for me is if Al Franken belted him.














[edit on 18-12-2009 by rusethorcain]

Originally posted by Rook1545
Do the elderly seek health care more because it is free, and the younger people who pay for it don't want/can't have increases in their premiums?

Certainly, the elderly seek government assistance because they are aging, their ability to care for themselves is diminishing, and their families have been conditioned to discard the elderly in this country, which is unconscionable. Yes, I'm sure that free government assistance is why the elderly seek Medicare and/or Medicaid.

Younger, healthier individuals simply do not seek healthcare with the frequency of the elderly. They do not seek healthcare, free or otherwise.

So what is the purpose of encouraging the younger, healthier citizens to go on universal healthcare? To make them further dependent on a system that cannot sustain them?

— Doc Velocity

Originally posted by Polynomial C
nobody wants to hear that idiot geezer (Lieberman)

Except, perhaps, people who want and demand a clear explanation of what is in the "healthcare reform" bill.

You don't know what's in it, none of these socialist healthcare supporters know what's in the bill, yet you all support it.

That's ignorant and foolish and dangerous.

But, what's worse, you []don't want anyone asking questions. And that's sinister.

— Doc Velocity