Hey Massachusetts! Coakley or Brown?

[dxmnkd316]

Re: Hey Massachusetts! Coakley or Brown?

Probably another Yankee fan.

I just saw the clip of whatsherface calling Schilling a yankee fan. I **** near fell off my chair.

 

[Old Pio]

Re: Hey Massachusetts! Coakley or Brown?

I just saw the clip of whatsherface calling Schilling a yankee fan. I **** near fell off my chair.

Just try to imagine the reaction in the MSM if Palin had said that.

 

[dxmnkd316]

Re: Hey Massachusetts! Coakley or Brown?

Just try to imagine the reaction in the MSM if Palin had said that.

It'd probably go something like this...

 

[Old Pio]

Re: Hey Massachusetts! Coakley or Brown?

It'd probably go something like this...

 

[Old Pio]

Re: Hey Massachusetts! Coakley or Brown?

I'm in danger of throwing out my shoulder patting myself on the back: Lawrence O'Donnell just told Mathews the two things that turned it around for Brown were pantyboy (on Christmas day) and Marcia's embracing of the administration's approach (letting him lawyer up, etc) AND that answer in the debate! Even a blind hog finds an accorn every now and then. I said accorn, not Acorn.

 

[omahasioux1]

Re: Hey Massachusetts! Coakley or Brown?

I just saw the clip of whatsherface calling Schilling a yankee fan. I **** near fell off my chair.

Saw that also. Hell, blame the Clintons.

 

[gregg729]

Re: Hey Massachusetts! Coakley or Brown?

I'm feeling generous tonight. That's why I've been watching Olbermann/Maddow. One extra viewer increases their audience by about 2% and I'm happy to help 'em out.

Plus the schadenfreude of watching them tonight is positively addicting.

Oh, I think MSNBC might even register on the Nielson's tonight. The entertainment value of all the wailing and gnashing of teeth on that network tonight is priceless.

Did no one post anything about Curt Schilling's response to Marcia's gaffe yet?

I've been called a lot of things.... But never, and I mean never, could anyone ever make the mistake of calling me a Yankee fan. Well, check that, if you didn’t know what the hell is going on in your own state maybe you could….

 

[LynahFan]

Re: Hey Massachusetts! Coakley or Brown?

AP currently has the margin at 106,177 with 99% reporting (51.9% to 47.1%). Is that close enough for absentee ballots/recounts? Does the fact that she already "conceded" in the press actually mean anything in terms of her standing to ask for those things if she decided to now?

 

[Old Pio]

Re: Hey Massachusetts! Coakley or Brown?

AP currently has the margin at 106,177 with 99% reporting (51.9% to 47.1%). Is that close enough for absentee ballots/recounts? Does the fact that she already "conceded" in the press actually mean anything in terms of her standing to ask for those things if she decided to now?

No legally mandated recount when you trail by over 100K votes. As to the absentee ballots, if there are fewer of them than the margin of victory, then what would be the point, since Marcia won't get 100% of 'em. Concessions don't have any legal impact generally, just ask President Gore. She's not going to ask for a recount, even if the law permitted it, she lost, she knows it, what would be the point? There may be some provision allowing her campaign to pay for a recount, but why would they want to throw away that money? Especially if it were seen by the rest of the country as a thinly disguised effort to keep Brown from being seated.

 

[gregg729]

Re: Hey Massachusetts! Coakley or Brown?

<object width="500" height="405"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/2ry3yG84pUE&hl=en_US&fs=1&rel=0&color1=0x5d1719&color2=0xcd311b&border=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/2ry3yG84pUE&hl=en_US&fs=1&rel=0&color1=0x5d1719&color2=0xcd311b&border=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="500" height="405"></embed></object>

<object width="500" height="405"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/COZnGnlLnqE&hl=en_US&fs=1&rel=0&color1=0x5d1719&color2=0xcd311b&border=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/COZnGnlLnqE&hl=en_US&fs=1&rel=0&color1=0x5d1719&color2=0xcd311b&border=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="500" height="405"></embed></object>

<object width="660" height="405"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/EZRzsFjykGA&hl=en_US&fs=1&rel=0&color1=0x5d1719&color2=0xcd311b&border=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/EZRzsFjykGA&hl=en_US&fs=1&rel=0&color1=0x5d1719&color2=0xcd311b&border=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="660" height="405"></embed></object>

Had to actually see these for myself. While the media did put on the kid gloves and steer Marcia into a direction of spin she could say more than two words about - international travel - I think that only serves to underscore how clueless she is about foreign policy.

Not even clueless, but dangerous, as we see in the debate about Afghanistan that came 8 days after the Taliban pulled off the second deadliest attack against the CIA in its history.

I think after she said that in the debate, the best damage control for the Democrats would have been for the head of the DNC (still Dean?) to announce that they had no idea of the depths of her stupidity on foreign policy and, if elected, she would be required to complete 8 hours a day of recent world history and foreign policy training until the summer recess.

And lastly, gotta love 50 year old cry babies:

<object width="500" height="405"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Axh6VnA-TKI&hl=en_US&fs=1&rel=0&color1=0x5d1719&color2=0xcd311b&border=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Axh6VnA-TKI&hl=en_US&fs=1&rel=0&color1=0x5d1719&color2=0xcd311b&border=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="500" height="405"></embed></object>

 

[BoomGoestheDynamite]

Re: Hey Massachusetts! Coakley or Brown?

I'm in danger of throwing out my shoulder patting myself on the back: Lawrence O'Donnell just told Mathews the two things that turned it around for Brown were pantyboy (on Christmas day) and Marcia's embracing of the administration's approach (letting him lawyer up, etc) AND that answer in the debate! Even a blind hog finds an accorn every now and then. I said accorn, not Acorn.

Coaxley does come off as the Democrats version of Palin in some of those clips, just less attractive. I'm rather stunned she would make an argument the Taliban have left Afghanistan. With Al Qaeda's theres evidence they've decamped to Pakistan for the most part, but the Taliban are still clearly fighting the war. It also seems to be a position that directly contradicts Obama's words and actions in the past few months, which makes it further out of place and the Yankee thing is just brutal. Brown probably would've gotten my vote here, just like McConnel last year.

I'll say this though, if people are really upset about the extension of due process to terrorist scum, well I can't agree. We give the most vile POS in the world the right to an attorney, with good reason. We ain't them. Without wading into the legal issues and boring everyone to death, granting the Nigerian DB an attorney is a matter of Constitutional and to a lesser degree International Law. Even in military custody SCOTUS has ruled detainees have a right to a Habeas Corpus suit and an attorney in this instance, so unless you want the Executive branch to go all Andrew Jackson on the Court, granting him an attorney was the correct course of action, politically expedient or not.

Oh and I can't really get that fired up about MSNBC or Keith Olberman. As someone else said, I expect them to trumpet the party line and spin spin spin. Just like Fox.

 

[omahasioux1]

Re: Hey Massachusetts! Coakley or Brown?

Coaxley can't clean Palins fish.

 

[gregg729]

Re: Hey Massachusetts! Coakley or Brown?

I'll say this though, if people are really upset about the extension of due process to terrorist scum, well I can't agree.

You're a little mistaken here. It's not due process that is upsetting people. It's the trials through civilian courts instead of the military courts - treating them as if they're just another criminal as opposed to an enemy combatant. And while I do believe that a civilian court is the proper location for trying someone who tries to blow up a plane over Detroit, I expect that those down in Gitmo who were caught in Al Queda camps or otherwise shooting at American soldiers in Afghanistan should NOT be tried in civilian courts - their fate plainly belongs in the hands of military justice as enemy combatants.

No one that I know of, no prominent voice anyway, is calling for banning due process.

 

[walrus]

Re: Hey Massachusetts! Coakley or Brown?

Oh, don't get me wrong, I like divided government not Republican government. The only time in a while we had anything resembling fiscal sanity was when the two parties canceled the other's grandiose spending designs.

Gridlock is the only answer that seems to work

I wonder if Rover found a sweet spot on the Zakim bridge

 

[walrus]

Re: Hey Massachusetts! Coakley or Brown?

Whatever else this election proves, it shows again that Lord Acton was correct. He said: "power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely" Drunk and arrogant with power, Massachusetts democrats caused this disaster when they flexed their muscles by stripping then Governor Mitt Romney of the power to fill senate vacancies. Had they not done so, when Senator Kennedy passed away, Governor Patrick would have appointed a successor, and tonight's election would have never occurred. As they say in Texas, what goes around, comes around.

I think it proves, "what goes around, comes around"

 

[leswp1]

Re: Hey Massachusetts! Coakley or Brown?

I can't believe I'm going to weigh in on this subject on USCHO... We can't even talk college hockey rationally on this website...

*Here goes*

This is not about the lady who ran (given she ran a terrible campaign from what I understand). Even a bad campaign can be overcome if the voters don't agree with the opponent. A 7% victory is much larger than that for a seat that hasn't been held by a repub for 60+ years. This is one of the most liberal states in the union and they voted on the issues. Unless she kicked babies and drowned puppies a 25% swing in under two weeks is pretty incredible.

Balance is healthy.

Disagree. Coakley is so objectionable that I really tried to find something to like about Brown but hated his stance on some key issues. She was a bad enough candidate it made the thought of voting for her make me choke.I don't think I was alone. Libertarian guy was the only sane guy out there. Just once I would love to see the press get on the bandwagon of the underdog and see what happens.

I find it really interesting how the spin is attributing all sorts of motives that project what people need to believe happened in Mass. Coakley was so epic fail that I think she would have struggled even if it didn't make a difference.

Anyone else from Mass find it utterly irritating that people across the country seemed to want to call and tell you what to do because they need you for their agenda. I had some guy call from California and another from some other state I missed when I hung up.

This is why I hate ObamaCare. You mention some people can't afford health care, but then you say you wish someone would hamstring the insurance co's. Do insurance co's set the cost of health care?

Yes. and they also have every motivation not to spend their profit. Their job is NOT to make sure you are getting good care. It is to keep the $ in their pockets.

This is why they had to hamstring the doctors and everybody else. You want to fix health care... make the system more efficient. Otherwise you're battling a game of heart felt emotional ideals. Getting everybody health care is an emotional philosophical ideal and it is VERY expensive. Take what we have now and add on 20%.... period... that's what it'll cost... then you have to decide who pays. Gov't health care assumes that the government will know the most efficient way to leverage society... they'll do that by reducing benefits and mandating certain costs. There is no other way.

Why don't we look at ways to make health care more efficient... make health insurance more competitive... because its going to cost something. And its going to cost something because we want certain things to be done for us... period... no other way of getting around it. Allocation of scarce resources... its not always fun.

Why do many other countries seem to be able to solve this and we are too stupid? Because the haves do not care about the have nots. That they don't figure out is the cost in the long run of the huge bubble of middle aged undertreated hypertensives, diabetics, etc. In about 10 yrs the system as it is will be completely over run with folks who are crashing and burning that could have been avoided.

But it's the evil insurance companies that take people's money and turn that massive, obscene 2% profit!

And it's Medicare that states what they will pay providers, not private insurance companies.

The insurance companies have all sorts of interesting ways to not pay providers- with-holds for measures that are not measured properly and have no process to challenge them, multiple exclusions, delaying tactics to reimburse just to name a few. Ah, that's it I should skip walmart and just be a CEO for one of those companies- HUGE salary, benis and bonuses. Meanwhile I can chuckle while the masses have less coverage for more money.

 

[gregg729]

Re: Hey Massachusetts! Coakley or Brown?

Yes. and they also have every motivation not to spend their profit. Their job is NOT to make sure you are getting good care. It is to keep the $ in their pockets.

Why do many other countries seem to be able to solve this and we are too stupid? Because the haves do not care about the have nots. That they don't figure out is the cost in the long run of the huge bubble of middle aged undertreated hypertensives, diabetics, etc. In about 10 yrs the system as it is will be completely over run with folks who are crashing and burning that could have been avoided.

The insurance companies have all sorts of interesting ways to not pay providers- with-holds for measures that are not measured properly and have no process to challenge them, multiple exclusions, delaying tactics to reimburse just to name a few. Ah, that's it I should skip walmart and just be a CEO for one of those companies- HUGE salary, benis and bonuses. Meanwhile I can chuckle while the masses have less coverage for more money.

None of this has anything to do with the posts you were responding to. I'm not sure why I'm responding to your post, as it seems pretty obvious you aren't willing to listen to other viewpoints.

All I suggest is that you use the socialized health care system in Canada next time you have an expensive malady or injury and see if you still think a 2% profit is evil.

 

[leswp1]

Re: Hey Massachusetts! Coakley or Brown?

None of this has anything to do with the posts you were responding to. I'm not sure why I'm responding to your post, as it seems pretty obvious you aren't willing to listen to other viewpoints.

All I suggest is that you use the socialized health care system in Canada next time you have an expensive malady or injury and see if you still think a 2% profit is evil.

I work in health care. I am sick of not being able to care for the sick people I have. I doubt too many of the people who are talking about health care in here are without insurance, undertreated or have any concept what it is like to see how badly our system falls down. In my area I would be scared to be admitted to some of the hospitals. Pulling the Canada argument is weak. Why do people always think we should be stupid enough to only try the systems that don't work? I would go to a Swiss, German or French system.

If I was just thinking hypothetically I guess I could 'listen' a bit better to what others have to say. I am working in the middle of it and my experience is not congruent with what the media reports.

 

[LynahFan]

Re: Hey Massachusetts! Coakley or Brown?

I could live with a Swiss system. Oh wait - I do!

For those not familiar:

1) Very basic insurance is mandatory and companies are required to offer it to everyone. They are allowed to set different premiums by age and region, but no other factors. If the price of the plan (typically ~$300 per month per person) exceeds 8% of the family's income, they get a subsidy from the govt. It is widely assumed that insurance companies at best break even on the basic insurance.

2) There also some subsidized services available for people with disabilities, etc, who routinely need care beyond the basic insurance.

3) Companies are then allowed to sell supplemental insurance above and beyond the basic care. They can price these pretty much however they want - age, location, pre-existing conditions, etc. A very free market, and this is how the companies stay in business.

For all of the above cases, you have an annual deductible and other out-of-pocket fees. Also, interestingly, you pay for every single doctor's visit up front, so you see exactly how much it costs, and then you get reimbursed for the part your insurance covers. Pretty sobering to see those 000's stacking up...

4) Private doctors. There are enough filthy rich people in Switzerland that a fair number of people just walk into the office, plunk down cash, and get whatever care they want. Bully for them. Bastiches!

 

[gregg729]

Re: Hey Massachusetts! Coakley or Brown?

I work in health care. I am sick of not being able to care for the sick people I have. I doubt too many of the people who are talking about health care in here are without insurance, undertreated or have any concept what it is like to see how badly our system falls down. In my area I would be scared to be admitted to some of the hospitals. Pulling the Canada argument is weak. Why do people always think we should be stupid enough to only try the systems that don't work? I would go to a Swiss, German or French system.

If I was just thinking hypothetically I guess I could 'listen' a bit better to what others have to say. I am working in the middle of it and my experience is not congruent with what the media reports.

Well, I have to give you credit for freely admitting to not listening to anyone else's opinion and recognizing your mind is completely closed on this topic.

EDIT: So I guess this post isn't so much for you as it is for people that are willing to listen to various sides of the debate.

Myself, I don't have health insurance. The United States government is my health care provider.

I think you need to go look at the government-run VA hospitals. Take a look at how large the waiting rooms are. Take a look at how many waiting rooms there are. Ask the veterans how long ago they made the appointment for which they are now finally being seen. Ask the veterans what they think of the efficiency of the government-run hospitals. Ask them if they think they receive the same quality of care as they would at a regular hospital. Then take a look at the medicine the VA prescribes to their patients - compare it to what would be prescribed at a regular hospital, and ask yourself which facility provides more effective medicine.

Overall, does the VA provide better treatment and service to its patients than the private sector would, or worse? Everyone who goes through the VA knows the answers to this question. Everyone who works in the health care field, be it VA or the private sector, also knows the answers to this question.

If you think 2% profits are evil, it would really behoove you to go take a look at the effectiveness of a government-run health care system that runs without a care in the world about making money, and only provides for a couple million veterans. You might think twice about multiplying its scope by a factor of over 100.