Magox

I'd take him back.

You're in good company, Greggy

If you are Indianapolis fan, you gotta hate seeing this.

It's because I'm familiar with his whole body of work, which is the proper way to judge a person. Why am I even responding to you?

He cracks me up

This is solid, thanks.

Obama was against this because he's hard-headed. He never wants to give a single inch to the R's because in his own beliefs he thinks the R's are backwards and always wrong and that everything he believes is always right. Hillary I believe will be more like her husband, a triangulator. At least that is my hope anyway.

At what point do you believe it should be illegal? Once the baby has a heart beat? Once the baby is able to live outside of the womb? 22 weeks After 7 months when it is nearly fully developed? One month before? Minutes before it is about to be delivered? When the baby is still at the hospital and just delivered? I'm being serious about the question and how did the conclusion you derived come about? What was the thought process behind it? My personal belief is once the baby has a heartbeat. However, in regards to legality, I would say at 22 weeks. That is the point when the baby has a shot at surviving outside of the womb.

Judging Kaine by his entire body of work, he's a competent guy and more down the middle than most politicians. I think they being the Hillary campaign wanted him to do something that really is outside of his comfort zone. He just didn't look natural doing what he was doing and I absolutely believe that the interrupting was by design. Remember when Old Joe did that to Paul Ryan last election?

If they were smart, which I believe Ryan to be he'd recognize that they have most of the leverage on their side, specially if the R's can hold the senate. Hillary has to: A) Not come in without the notion that she believes she has some sort of mandate to demand that R's succumb to her demands. The R's holding the senate would help with that. B) Recognize that something dramatic has to be done in order to save the Individual market. The R's could easily get her to drop the cadillac tax, medical device tax and alter some of the minimum essential benefits. Those are the give me's The other things they should press is for increased competition across state lines, medical underwriting outside of open enrollment and additional Tort Reform measures. As well as reforming the subsidy calculations, the way the law is crafted is unfair to many in the middle class. In exchange, they will look to keep intact the subsidies and reinstate the risk corridors.

Obama and other progressives saw this as an opportunity to get through "universal" healthcare and he was going to ram it through at all costs. The funny thing is that if he hadn't been so greedy, they could have peeled off a few Senators and congressman if they had dropped some of the provisions and added a few GOP wants to the legislation. My guess is that Hillary and Ryan are going to be radically reforming it.

You've been called out as a Tinfoil conspiracy dude from numerous posters on this board and you have the gall to criticize others?

Says Mr Tinfoil hat who can't back up any of his points. Not a single one.

Yep... this is a lesson in Civics and Politics, you don't try to push through such large legislation on a purely partisan basis. Without the backing of most of the American public, it is destined to have major issues going forward.

I'm a big Tarheel fan and there were reports of him running in the 4.3's when he was LB over there. Of course then he was in the 220's which is still incredibly impressive. And not only was he a freak athlete but he was damn productive as well. I was hoping we'd draft him in the second round when he came out.

Yep.

I get what you are saying, but I don't think so. Reason being is that I don't believe that is what Hillary will look to do. Single payer is not a fight she is going to embark upon in her presidency. She's more of a compromise sort of person, my hunch is that she will look to work with congress and make some changes to it and I believe that Ryan, being the rational man that he is will look to strike a deal. I believe they will try to take out the mandate, but I'm not sure that they will get that concession out of her. I do think they will revise the subsidy system, because as Bill mentioned, which he was 100% correct, it is a wholly unfair system. People who work hard and play by the rules who barely don't qualify for subsidies have to pay outrageous premiums. I think they'll reform the minimum essential benefits, maybe look to increase competition with more across state carriers and maybe some additional forms of tort reform. I also believe they will look to have medical underwriting outside of open enrollment. In exchange, she'll get that bailout fund for the carriers. With these changes, you'll see carriers come back to the exchange and we should see premiums at the very least stabilize if not drop.

Right, but TV revenues are part of total revenues, correct? And I believe it isn't an insignificant figure. However, the second part you mentioned was something that I wasn't aware of.

He's measured and likable.

Has this argument been made?

Oddly, those Chicago Bear games show less of a drop in viewership than most other games.

I have a hunch that if certain things play out or flame out that we'll see ratings go back up.

Ok, but now you are making an abstract argument that really cannot be measured. I'm a data driven individual, I go where data and logic dictate. Maybe you are right, I cannot say with 100% certitude that you aren't. I suppose we will just have to agree to disagree.