Junior Senator Franken Kicks Conservative Ass -again

[Hayabusa Rider]

I would like to ban for just one day the words Democrat, Republican, Liberal, and Conservative, and all variations thereof.

For one day we'd have to argue on merit.

I wonder how many could manage?

 

[JSt0rm]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
:laugh: you leftists are hilarious.
1. Who says she is a "Conservative"? She may be, but she was there representing an org/business/whatever - not a party or ideology.
2. "owned"? Puhleeze. Franken and you fringe leftists can spin the figures how you wish, but it still doesn't mean the socialist way is better. It may prevent individual bankruptcies but at what cost? Seems Franken didn't like it when she pulled her facts out - he just tried to dismiss them as spin - which is exactly what his BS was - spin.
3. Why can't you leftists be upfront about your desire for a singlepayer system and let the people of America debate that instead of trying to do it the backdoor way with this "public option" BS?

blagablagablagablagablagablagablagablagablagablagablagablagablagablagablagablagablagablaga

 

[StageLeft]

watching now.i want to say the lady behind franken looks both:

1) hot
2) very bored

ok i finished, he did own her.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: Patranus

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
It may prevent individual bankruptcies but at what cost?

Here's the "cost": "socialist" systems spend half of what we do on healthcare costs and have universal coverage and no bankruptcies.

Oh boy, those Europeans and Asians are suffering mightily. Why can't they experience the joys of medical bankruptcies like we do? Oh that's right, they don't have fucking idiots called "Republicans" screwing up their countries.

Care to point out where in the UNITED STATES Constitution it grants congress the authority to deploy a government option or universal health care?

can you tell me where the UNITED STATES Constitution grants the louisiana purchase?

 

[Chaotic42]

Originally posted by: 0marTheZealot
He's not consistent at all with his reasoning. That's what I have a problem with. When it fits with his agenda, then he'll side with "states right", but when it aligns with his viewpoint, he'll stomp over the 10th amendment.

Ah, well, that's understandable then. I've still to learn all of the P&N personalities.

 

[Bitek]

Originally posted by: Skoorb
watching now.i want to say the lady behind franken looks both:

1) hot
2) very bored

ok i finished, he did own her.

Smoking hot intern/staffer. I think she is a different staffer from the other hottie he had behind him during the forced arbitration/ contractor gang rape hearing.

Why couldn't Clinton bring in tail like that? I swear the only reason he got impeached was that Monica was a bit of a pork pie.


And he did own her. Kudos to Franken again. A wacky MN election that is actually paying off.

 

[UberNeuman]

One day, it will be President Al Franken...

/and happy shall I be....

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: Patranus

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
It may prevent individual bankruptcies but at what cost?

Here's the "cost": "socialist" systems spend half of what we do on healthcare costs and have universal coverage and no bankruptcies.

Oh boy, those Europeans and Asians are suffering mightily. Why can't they experience the joys of medical bankruptcies like we do? Oh that's right, they don't have fucking idiots called "Republicans" screwing up their countries.

Care to point out where in the UNITED STATES Constitution it grants congress the authority to deploy a government option or universal health care?

They essentially interpret the general welfare clause to mean the government should control everything.

 

[bfdd]

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
It may prevent individual bankruptcies but at what cost?

Here's the "cost": "socialist" systems spend half of what we do on healthcare costs and have universal coverage and no bankruptcies.

Oh boy, those Europeans and Asians are suffering mightily. Why can't they experience the joys of medical bankruptcies like we do? Oh that's right, they don't have fucking idiots called "Republicans" screwing up their countries.

Singapore doesn't work like that, last I checked Japan had TONS of private hospitals too. Maybe you should do some research.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Patranus

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
It may prevent individual bankruptcies but at what cost?

Here's the "cost": "socialist" systems spend half of what we do on healthcare costs and have universal coverage and no bankruptcies.

Oh boy, those Europeans and Asians are suffering mightily. Why can't they experience the joys of medical bankruptcies like we do? Oh that's right, they don't have fucking idiots called "Republicans" screwing up their countries.

Care to point out where in the UNITED STATES Constitution it grants congress the authority to deploy a government option or universal health care?

Socialists don't care about the Constitution's limits on the Federal gov't.

Actually, they do. It's the right who tends to not care abou tte constitution (hello, Iran Contra).

 

[LumbergTech]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
:laugh: you leftists are hilarious.
1. Who says she is a "Conservative"? She may be, but she was there representing an org/business/whatever - not a party or ideology.
2. "owned"? Puhleeze. Franken and you fringe leftists can spin the figures how you wish, but it still doesn't mean the socialist way is better. It may prevent individual bankruptcies but at what cost? Seems Franken didn't like it when she pulled her facts out - he just tried to dismiss them as spin - which is exactly what his BS was - spin.
3. Why can't you leftists be upfront about your desire for a singlepayer system and let the people of America debate that instead of trying to do it the backdoor way with this "public option" BS?

most liberals i know aren't necessarily set on a single payer system..you are quite paranoid to think that such a large group really agrees about how things should be done

they just disagree more with the conservatives

 

[daishi5]

Ok, wait a minute, according to the news guy or whatever he was, 76% of bankruptcies from medical bills were people with insurance. We are going to force people to buy insurance, but not change the insurance coverage requirements, or did I miss something? If we just make people buy insurance, but a majority of people who go bankrupt had insurance, how much will we really help?

 

[Jhhnn]

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: PJABBER

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: PJABBER
- the Europeans have a much different perspective on what constitutes bankruptcy than the U.S. In fact it is damn difficult to get what we might refer to as a "bankruptcy discharge" in Europe.

Maybe it's because they removed involuntary bankruptcies like medical bankruptcies, they can be more stringent with bankruptcies involving reckless behavior (i.e. credit card bankruptcies).

What's embarrassing is, the only fool is you, you haven't disproved Franken's facts.

I'll keep this to a general comment as I am heading out for a manly one hour BTTW mountain bike ride, but doesn't it seem to you that Franken using statistics from overseas legal systems that virtually disallow bankruptcy for any cause is misleading at best?

You can look up the bankruptcy codes for all the cited countries yourself. It isn't that hard. Do I have to do ALL of your heavy lifting for you? No wonder we now have several threads going on and on about hissy girly Democrats.

(My apologies if you are actually of the female or trans gender option!)

You'll keep it to a general comment because you have no facts, no logic, and no argument. Why the fuck does that even matter when it's impossible for Europeans to be in a situation where they would NEED to go through a bankruptcy process like we do for medical bankruptcies? You're an IDIOT.

Thank you, sir. Don't be surprised, however, if that bit of non-refuted logic and common sense gets buried under the noise from the tea-baggers, tenthers, birthers and other assorted twits.

Medical bankruptcy in europe is basically impossible, kinda like hurricanes here in Colorado... which was Franken's point entirely. He really was rather gentle dealing w/ Ms Edwards, making the whole encounter all the more devastating...

 

[WHAMPOM]

Socialism the enemy of selfishism. "Promote the general welfare" should be all the excuse for Gov'ment setting up universal healthcare.

 

[JKing106]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Ausm

Originally posted by: Patranus

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
It may prevent individual bankruptcies but at what cost?

Here's the "cost": "socialist" systems spend half of what we do on healthcare costs and have universal coverage and no bankruptcies.

Oh boy, those Europeans and Asians are suffering mightily. Why can't they experience the joys of medical bankruptcies like we do? Oh that's right, they don't have fucking idiots called "Republicans" screwing up their countries.

Care to point out where in the UNITED STATES Constitution it grants congress the authority to deploy a government option or universal health care?

Care to point out in the Constitution that gave Congress(Mostly Democrats) to implement Medicare and Social security?

It doesn't allow the Feds to do that. Very few seem to care about those sorts of abuses though, which is unfortunate.

This is a laughable point. If these were actually unconstitutional, SOMEONE would have pursued a successful challenge in the court system. No one has. Ipso facto, they aren't "abuses." They're perfectly acceptable exercises of federal authority.

:laugh: Are you for real? You can't seriously be that stupid...

It's called homophobia. He's not the only one around here...

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Atreus21

They essentially interpret the general welfare clause to mean the government should control everything.

(Shouting out): You lie.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: UberNeuman
One day, it will be President Al Franken...

/and happy shall I be....

Can't. He was born in Israel. Any birth certificate saying otherwise is phony.

I like the clip, but it's not anything that incredible.

Sadly, it's only the crap that you see so frequently that makes it look good in comparison.

You could just tell she has been winning arguments with that fact though, and didn't expect it to get countered.

Also sadly, there's little 'real debate' anyway, just 'media'. Even this exchange required a violation of the normal rules insofar as the winess asked him a question to trigger it.

No doubt there are media advisers telling such witnesses to just ignore it if the Senator scores a point, and let the media fail to cover it, don't make it a news item.

The only things that seem to get the public and media attention much are the sound bite stories, when someone says something 'outrageous' or 'shocking' or 'controversial'.

 

[xj0hnx]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I would start with:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

that's not a grant of power.

Whatever that is. It's a statement of the purpose of government and an indication of intention.

Promote the general welware, not give you free healthcare. Maybe the federal government should provide all Americans with fresh undies everyday, and clean socks, or have a supervisor standing by to make sure you brush your teeth every nigth before beddybye, how about appointing a nutritionist for every household, wouldn't want too many sweets spoiling your general welfare. The Constitution doesn't give you a good life, or guarantee you a good life, it provides you the opportunity to seek a good life, and earn a good life, to *gasp*, work fr a better life.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: xj0hnx

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I would start with:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

that's not a grant of power.

Whatever that is. It's a statement of the purpose of government and an indication of intention.

Promote the general welware, not give you free healthcare. Maybe the federal government should provide all Americans with fresh undies everyday, and clean socks, or have a supervisor standing by to make sure you brush your teeth every nigth before beddybye, how about appointing a nutritionist for every household, wouldn't want too many sweets spoiling your general welfare. The Constitution doesn't give you a good life, or guarantee you a good life, it provides you the opportunity to seek a good life, and earn a good life, to *gasp*, work fr a better life.

You have to have an imbecilic lack of common sense not o be able to tell the difference between the universal need for healthcare and the need for underwear.

What's this, have free police that come when you call about a robber? Why not just have free government rides to the ice cream store whenever you want a scoop?

 

[Mr. Lennon]

He always has the hottest women sitting behind him.

 

[dawp]

Originally posted by: Patranus

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
It may prevent individual bankruptcies but at what cost?

Here's the "cost": "socialist" systems spend half of what we do on healthcare costs and have universal coverage and no bankruptcies.

Oh boy, those Europeans and Asians are suffering mightily. Why can't they experience the joys of medical bankruptcies like we do? Oh that's right, they don't have fucking idiots called "Republicans" screwing up their countries.

Care to point out where in the UNITED STATES Constitution it grants congress the authority to deploy a government option or universal health care?

Care to show me where in the Constitution does it forbid a government option or UHC?

 

[ConstipatedVigilante]

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: Patranus

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
It may prevent individual bankruptcies but at what cost?

Here's the "cost": "socialist" systems spend half of what we do on healthcare costs and have universal coverage and no bankruptcies.

Oh boy, those Europeans and Asians are suffering mightily. Why can't they experience the joys of medical bankruptcies like we do? Oh that's right, they don't have fucking idiots called "Republicans" screwing up their countries.

Care to point out where in the UNITED STATES Constitution it grants congress the authority to deploy a government option or universal health care?

The same place in the Constitution it says that the goverment can create a system called Medicare, or Medicaid, or Social Security. The same place it says that government can create pensions for government jobs. The same place in the Constitution it says that the government can pass laws that protect people with disabilities; that outlaw discrimination on the basis of gender, religion, or race; or that create programs that go to the moon or launch the Hubble telescope or provide grants for the arts or assistance with tuition.

Naturally, someone of your intellect thinks that if it's not verbatim in the Constitution, it's not Constitutional. And, therefore, that all government programs that don't have to do with defense or interstate commmerce should be banned. Somehow, even the most conservative Supreme Courts disagree with you.

Amendment 10 - Powers of the States and People. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html

 

[seemingly random]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
I would like to ban for just one day the words Democrat, Republican, Liberal, and Conservative, and all variations thereof.

For one day we'd have to argue on merit.

I wonder how many could manage?

:laugh: No one responded. I guess this means p&n would be a ghost town for a day.

To make this work, you would have to come with other labels which can be used for concise insults.

 

[Athena]

Originally posted by: BriGy86
I suppose he technically is correct. If people don't have to pay for health care they wont go bankrupt paying for it because the price is free.

What makes you think that people in Europe don't pay for health care? It is financed differently in different countries but no one thinks it's "free". In France for example, everyone pays for services at the time of deivery -- and are reimbursed within 28 days. That is specifically because they believe that no one should think that health care is "free".

But you also have to take into account how much the quality will degrade which is why she brought up the cancer statistic.

Leaving aside the false assumption implicit in your statement...
1. She was the one who stated that moving to a more European-like model would increase bankruptcies -- even though medical debt doesn't exist in Europe.
2. If she wanted to talk about quality, she should have had actual data to discuss.

I also found it odd that according to him, his statistics were valid while hers were bogus. And that right there isn't biased?

Neither one of them had any statistics -- he should have asked her which type of cancer she wanted to talk about, which country and given her some actual rates.

 

[DanDaManJC]

Originally posted by: seemingly random

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
I would like to ban for just one day the words Democrat, Republican, Liberal, and Conservative, and all variations thereof.

For one day we'd have to argue on merit.

I wonder how many could manage?

:laugh: No one responded. I guess this means p&n would be a ghost town for a day.

To make this work, you would have to come with other labels which can be used for concise insults.

God forbid people would have to use logical arguments rather than quoting their favorite political talking piece.