Sorry, I actually meant to say "I didn't USUALLY agree with you"

@newtboy, I thought it was Joe Lieberman he was going to name.

On a daily basis, politicians, like Obama, and pundits in the lamestream media mindlessly bump their gums about global warming, uh... "climate change" (the term employed when the earth stopped warming), without having the slightest idea what they are talking about. Most simply parrot the line about a "so-called "consensus of scientists," without the slightest knowledge of the science or data, or point to extreme weather events as “proof.” Al Gore and Henry Waxman have become masters at this. Noam Chomsky should stick to linguistics. Once he ventures outside of his specialty, he’s just a run-of-the-mill leftist loon.

Science does not operate on the basis of consensus, but provable fact and hard DATA that is replicable. No one can prove that C02 causes warming, apart from the other forces that are chiefly determinative of climate--solar output, cosmic rays (and their effect on cloud cover), the earth's elliptical orbit, its axial tilt, etc. The earth's climate cycle has been in place for eons and is not being altered by any significant degree by anthropogenic CO2. In fact, 99% of the people who believe in the "global warming crisis" cannot even tell you what the current globally-averaged temperature is, nor how much it may have risen over the past century (or any other time frame for that matter). Nor do they know that the current globally averaged temperature is 1-2 degrees C below what it was during the Medieval Warm Period, when human activity could not have been a factor.

Neither temperatures nor sea level rise are accelerating. Temperatures haven't risen since 1997. And even the U.N. predicts just an 8.5" to 18.5" sea level rise by 2100 (2007 IPCC Report), far below the 20 feet predicted by Al Gore, or the 35 feet predicted by Joe Lieberman in 2002. In fact, sea levels have been rising at a rate of about 7" per century since the end of the last age 12,500 years ago, so the U.N.'s predicted range is likely to fall at the low end.

Weather stations around the world are notoriously unreliable, many placed in locations now near asphalt parking lots, etc., replicating the urban island heat effect. Calculating the globally averaged temperature in an enormously complex task. compounded when scientific frauds like Phil Jones and Michael Mann (of the infamous "hockey stick" graph) hide, and would not supply, their data because it does not support their predetermined conclusions of anthropogenic global warming. (Climategate). This is not surprising, however, since thousands of scientists stand to collectively lose billions in federal research grants if the hoax is exposed (more than $80 billion has already been spent on such research, nearly 500 times what oil companies have spent to fund so-called “skeptics”), a fact totally lost, or grossly misrepresented, by global warming religionists.

The fact is: even if the earth's temperature is rising marginally, from natural forces, it will be far better for mankind than falling temperatures. It will result in higher crop yields and less death around the world. More than twice as many people die of extreme cold than extreme heat.

Contrary to morons such as Al Gore (who will never agree to debate the topic, so fearful is he of getting his clock cleaned), scientific evidence clearly shows that we have had no increase in extreme weather events. Dr. Roger Pielke Jr., Professor of Environmental Studies at the University of Colorado, summed up the latest science on weather extremes when he wrote that “There is no evidence that disasters are getting worse because of climate change....There's really no evidence that we're in the midst of an extreme weather era - whether man has influenced climate or not,”
Pielke also explained that the data does not support linking Hurricane Sandy to man-made global warming. “Sandy was terrible, but we're currently in a relative hurricane 'drought'.” But that doesn’t stop politicians from trying to make political hay from them.

Much of the gum bumping about "global warming" may be attributed to the political aspirations of Al Gore who hoped to ride an environmental white horse into the White House. It all comes down to a politically-motivated overreaction to a 0.35 degree C increase in globally-averaged temperatures in the period from 1978-1997. Since 1998, temperatures have flat-lined. They are now at 14.5 degrees Celsius which is exactly where they were in 1997. What this amounted to was a hyperbolic response to a temporary and cyclical climate phenomenon, which has been replicated a myriad of times in human history.

The climate history of the 20th century, by itself, contradicts the CO2 equals warming hypothesis. From 1913-1945, CO2 was not a factor and temperatures rose slightly. And from 1945-1977, temperatures fell in the face of rising CO2. It was only in the period from 1978-1997 that temperatures and CO2 rose simultaneously. But since CO2 is likely to continue to rise for the foreseeable future, we will have periods of both rising and falling temperatures in the face of rising CO2.

The scientific travesty is that many politicians are trying to transform CO2 into a “pollutant” requiring draconian federal regulations whose only effect will be to stifle economic growth. CO2 is a harmless trace element constituting just 0.039 per cent of the earth's atmosphere (390 parts per million by volume). It's what humans and animals exhale and its presence helps plant production. 500 million years ago, CO was 20 times more prevalent in our atmosphere. The aim is to convince the uninformed that carbon dioxide is the equivalent of carbon monoxide, a highly toxic gas.

With time and historical perspective, the global warming crisis will turn out to be the greatest scientific fraud in history. But that won’t politicians from exploiting it in the short term.

On a daily basis, politicians, like Obama, and pundits mindlessly bump their gums about global warming, uh... "climate change" (the term employed when the earth stopped warming), without having the slightest idea what they are talking about. Malloy is just the latest in a long line of demagogic politicians trying to capitalize on the scare. Most simply parrot the line about a "so-called "consensus of scientists," without the slightest knowledge of the science or data, or point to extreme weather events as “proof.”

Science does not operate on the basis of consensus, but provable fact and hard DATA that is replicable. No one can prove that C02 causes warming, apart from the other forces that are chiefly determinative of climate--solar output, cosmic rays (and their effect on cloud cover), the earth's elliptical orbit, its axial tilt, etc. The earth's climate cycle has been in place for eons and is not being altered by any significant degree by anthropogenic CO2. In fact, 99% of the people who believe in the "global warming crisis" cannot even tell you what the current globally-averaged temperature is, nor how much it may have risen over the past century (or any other time frame for that matter). Nor do they know that the current globally averaged temperature is 1-2 degrees C below what it was during the Medieval Warm Period, when human activity could not have been a factor.

Neither temperatures nor sea level rise are accelerating. Temperatures haven't risen since 1997. And even the U.N. predicts just an 8.5" to 18.5" sea level rise by 2100 (2007 IPCC Report), far below the 20 feet predicted by Al Gore, or the 35 feet predicted by Joe Lieberman in 2002. In fact, sea levels have been rising at a rate of about 7" per century since the end of the last age 12,500 years ago, so the U.N.'s predicted range is likely to fall at the low end.

Weather stations around the world are notoriously unreliable, many placed in locations now near asphalt parking lots, etc., replicating the urban island heat effect. Calculating the globally averaged temperature in an enormously complex task. compounded when scientific frauds like Phil Jones and Michael Mann (of the infamous "hockey stick" graph) hide, and would not supply, their data because it does not support their predetermined conclusions of anthropogenic global warming. (Climategate). This is not surprising, however, since thousands of scientists stand to collectively lose billions in federal research grants if the hoax is exposed (more than $80 billion has already been spent on such research, nearly 500 times what oil companies have spent to fund so-called “skeptics”).

The fact is: even if the earth's temperature is rising marginally, from natural forces, it will be far better for mankind than falling temperatures. It will result in higher crop yields and less death around the world. More than twice as many people die of extreme cold than extreme heat. The scientific evidence clearly shows that we have had no increase in extreme weather events. Dr. Roger Pielke Jr., Professor of Environmental Studies at the University of Colorado, summed up the latest science on weather extremes when he wrote that “There is no evidence that disasters are getting worse because of climate change....There's really no evidence that we're in the midst of an extreme weather era - whether man has influenced climate or not,”
Pielke also explained that the data does not support linking Hurricane Sandy to man-made global warming. “Sandy was terrible, but we're currently in a relative hurricane 'drought'.” But that doesn’t stop politicians from trying to make political hay from them.

Much of the gum bumping about "global warming" may be attributed to the political aspirations of Al Gore who hoped to ride an environmental white horse into the White House. It all comes down to a politically-motivated overreaction to a 0.35 degree C increase in globally-averaged temperatures in the period from 1978-1997. Since 1998, as Mr. Hart correctly points out, temperatures have flat-lined or declined. What this amounted to was a hyperbolic response to a temporary and cyclical climate phenomenon, which has been replicated a myriad of times in human history.

The climate history of the 20th century, by itself, contradicts the CO2 equals warming hypothesis. From 1913-1945, CO2 was not a factor and temperatures rose slightly. And from 1945-1977, temperatures fell in the face of rising CO2. It was only in the period from 1978-1997 that temperatures and CO2 rose simultaneously. But since CO2 is likely to continue to rise for the foreseeable future, we will have periods of both rising and falling temperatures in the face of rising CO2.

The scientific travesty is that many politicians are trying to transform CO2 into a “pollutant” requiring draconian federal regulations whose only effect will be to stifle economic growth. CO2 is a harmless trace element constituting just 0.039 per cent of the earth's atmosphere (390 parts per million by volume). It's what humans and animals exhale and its presence helps plant production. 500 million years ago, CO was 20 times more prevalent in our atmosphere. The aim is to convince the uninformed that carbon dioxide is the equivalent of carbon monoxide, a highly toxic gas.

With time and historical perspective, the global warming crisis will turn out to be the greatest scientific fraud in history. But that won’t politicians from exploiting it in the short term. Obama has already wasted billions trying to fix a non-problem.
And now he’s even orchestrating the mindless followers of a new secular religion to march on the Mall to advance this silly agenda.

Never said she was outsider, she was insider. What I said was, "Write-in's are impossible." My point was that the "fourth party," i.e., the write-in, can win.

Second, Ron Paul disagrees with the Tea Party on many more issues than you note, and many issues you would SUPPORT. Drugs and the lack of "war" on them, war itself, debt (Yes, he disagrees on debt. The Tea Party says we should destroy Medicade and medicare, and social security, Ron Paul says that is not possible 'right now' but he would privatize it to only those who wish it. See if the Tea Party agrees with him..."

Let'see, as you said, gay marriage...that's four huge issues right there...habeas corpus... another huge one that Bush disregarded; that the Tea Party would like to see fucked..sorry for the language... five...abortion...let the states handle it (I.e., legalize it for most states...) six...what else?

Besides these SIX HUGE ISSUES, I DON'T know...

Anyways, you got me on "threatening the mainstream" except that some few people don't become part of something...a party is not a person, it is an emotionless entity. But even so, if an "outsider" just happens to belong to a third party, then he is worth the vote.

>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^Lawdeedaw:
Not quite what I meant. 3rd parties are great, but the problem is that they don't threaten anyone. If they make it into the mainstream, they become the mainstream...
But if they can "threaten" the mainstream, then they've made it into the mainstream.
The only thing that keeps 3rd parties outside the mainstream is their impotence. If you think their ideas are better than the mainstream, your goal should be to propel them into the mainstream.
>> ^Lawdeedaw:
Remember the Write-In candidate that won recently? "Impossible!" everyone screamed! And they even tried suing to get it thrown out...either way, my point was/is, the write-in was impossible...
I sorta hate to let you down this way, but you're talking about Lisa Murkowski. She wasn't some outsider who bucked the system, she was the incumbent Republican Senator of Alaska. She got defeated by a Tea Party challenger in the primary, but then ran as a write-in in the general and won.
That's not a story of the outsider defeating the mainstream, that's a matter of the mainstream defeating the outsider, even though it seemed like the outsider had already won.
It's sorta like saying we need more "Independents" like Joe Lieberman, you know the guy who was the Democratic VP nominee in 2000...
>> ^Lawdeedaw:
I voted for Ron Paul once before. It counted because people were surprised he got the relatively high number of votes he did get. Sadly, his message was distorted into the Tea Party,
Right, but the transcription wasn't really that far off. Ron Paul and the Tea Party are totally on the same side on most issues except for the ones where Paul agrees with liberals (gay marriage, war).
Think about it, what other topic does Paul disagree with the Tea Party on? Anything?

>> ^Lawdeedaw:

Not quite what I meant. 3rd parties are great, but the problem is that they don't threaten anyone. If they make it into the mainstream, they become the mainstream...

But if they can "threaten" the mainstream, then they've made it into the mainstream.

The only thing that keeps 3rd parties outside the mainstream is their impotence. If you think their ideas are better than the mainstream, your goal should be to propel them into the mainstream.

>> ^Lawdeedaw:
Remember the Write-In candidate that won recently? "Impossible!" everyone screamed! And they even tried suing to get it thrown out...either way, my point was/is, the write-in was impossible...

I sorta hate to let you down this way, but you're talking about Lisa Murkowski. She wasn't some outsider who bucked the system, she was the incumbent Republican Senator of Alaska. She got defeated by a Tea Party challenger in the primary, but then ran as a write-in in the general and won.

That's not a story of the outsider defeating the mainstream, that's a matter of the mainstream defeating the outsider, even though it seemed like the outsider had already won.

It's sorta like saying we need more "Independents" like Joe Lieberman, you know the guy who was the Democratic VP nominee in 2000...

>> ^Lawdeedaw:
I voted for Ron Paul once before. It counted because people were surprised he got the relatively high number of votes he did get. Sadly, his message was distorted into the Tea Party,

Right, but the transcription wasn't really that far off. Ron Paul and the Tea Party are totally on the same side on most issues except for the ones where Paul agrees with liberals (gay marriage, war).

Think about it, what other topic does Paul disagree with the Tea Party on? Anything?

@blankfist upvoted. I'm not at all pleased about it.

In terms of the "my party is better than yours" contest, here are the vote tallies:

Senate Nays by party: 19 Democrats (I'm including Bernie Sanders in there), 4 Republicans.
House Nays by party: 122 Democrats, 31 Republicans.

I'd love to grow those numbers on both sides of the aisle.

Some notable names in both lists:

Pelosi: Nay
Weiner: Nay
Kucinich: Nay
Franken: Nay
Leahy: Nay (and filibustered with Rand, not that the press or CFL mentions that)
Brown: Nay

I want more Democrats in Congress like them, and fewer like Ben Nelson, Joe Lieberman, and Joe Manchin (all voted Aye).

Oh, and this came up in one of my google searches in trying to find those roll call lists: http://irregulartimes.com/index.php/archives/2011/05/28/tea-party-roll-call-may-2011-patriot-act/

Looks like the House Tea Party caucus voted overwhelmingly in favor of renewal.

Those of you that aren't in the know, here is a breakdown of what's happened since they began releasing these documents:(provided by The Guardian)

Sunday 28 November

• TECH: DDoS attack hits WikiLeaks as first set of US diplomatic cables is published.

Wednesday 1 December

• TECH: Tableau Software, which offers free software for data visualisation, removes the public views of graphics built using information about the diplomatic cables. It is the first company to distance itself from Wikileaks, and admits that the reason was pressure from Senator Joe Lieberman, an independent senator with ties to the Democratic party.

• POLITICS: Lieberman, chairman of the Senate's committee on homeland security, calls for Wikileaks to be taken offline. "I call on any other company or organization that is hosting Wikileaks to immediately terminate its relationship with them. Wikileaks' illegal, outrageous, and reckless acts have compromised our national security and put lives at risk around the world. No responsible company - whether American or foreign - should assist Wikileaks in its efforts to disseminate these stolen materials."

• TECH Amazon removes Wikileaks's content from its EC2 cloud service, but later insists it did so because the content could cause harm to people and did not belong to Wikileaks – and that it was not due to political pressure or the hacker attacks against the site.

Friday 3 December

• TECH: Wikileaks.org ceases to work for web users after everyDNS.com(*edit* not easyDNS), which had provided a free routing service translating the human-readable address into a machine-readable form, ends support.

Wikileaks shifts to a backup domain registered in Switzerland but actually hosted in Sweden, at Wikileaks.ch, though the cables are hosted in part by OVH, an internet provider in the north of France.

EveryDNS claims that the DDOS attacks against Wikileaks were disrupting its service provided to thousands of other customers. (*edit* there was a mixup, and everyDNS, not easyDNS was resonsible. EasyDNS has posted that it's "The Company That Did NOT Take Down Wikileaks" beside a cartoon character showing a thumbs up.

• POLITICS: French industry minister Eric Besson writes to internet companies warning them there will be "consequences" for any companies or organisations helping to keep WikiLeaks online in the country.

Saturday 4 December

• MONEY: PayPal, owned by US auction site eBay, permanently restricts account used by WikiLeaks due to a "violation of the PayPal Acceptable Use Policy". A spokesman said the account was suspended because "[it] cannot be used for any activities that encourage, promote, facilitate or instruct others to engage in illegal activity."
You can still donate at Commerzbank Kassel in Germnany or Landsbanki in Iceland or by post to a post office box at the University of Melbourne or at http://wikileaks.ch/support.html

• TECH: Switch, the Swiss registrar for Wikileaks.ch declines pressure from US and French authorities to remove the site or block access to it.

Sunday 5 December

• TECH: The Pirate Party in Sweden says that it has taken over the hosting of the Cablegate directory of Wikileaks after the server in France at OVH, which had been hosting the contents of the US diplomatic cables released so far, goes offline.

Monday 6 December

• MONEY: Credit card company Mastercard withdraws ability to make donations to Wikileaks. "MasterCard is taking action to ensure that WikiLeaks can no longer accept MasterCard-branded products," the credit card outfit says.

• TECH: Wikileaks' servers in Sweden attacked by distributed denial of service attack.

• MONEY: Postfinance, the Swiss postal system, strips WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange of a key fundraising tool, accusing him of lying and immediately shutting down one of his bank accounts. The bank says that Assange had "provided false information regarding his place of residence during the account opening process."
Assange had told Postfinance he lived in Geneva but could offer no proof that he was a Swiss resident, a requirement of opening such an account. Postfinance spokesman Alex Josty told The Associated Press the account was closed Monday afternoon and there would be "no criminal consequences" for misleading authorities. "That's his money, he will get his money back," Josty said. "We just close the account and that's it."

Tuesday 7 December

• MONEY: Credit card company Visa withdraws ability to make donations or payments to Wikileaks. "Visa Europe has taken action to suspend Visa payment acceptance on WikiLeaks' website pending further investigation into the nature of its business and whether it contravenes Visa operating rules," said a spokesman.

I didn't know Joe Lieberman played in Halloween 3.

>> ^NetRunner:


He the war in Iraq is ending. He's been trying to give Guantanamo detainees trials, but Congress has thrown up numerous, massive roadblocks in his way, led by Republicans and turncoat Dems that the Democratic base hate (e.g. Joe Lieberman). The Bush Doctrine is completely and utterly gone, over the loud objections of the Republicans, who clearly intend to reinstate it if they get power again.
What the fuck are you smoking?


Haha. Partisanship keeps the blinders on. Obama is the new Bush. Embrace it.

>> ^NetRunner:
>> ^blankfist:
I'm also glad he's ending the war in Iraq. And reinstating Habeas Corpus. And not continuing the Bush Doctrine.
New party slogan: Democrats. The new Republican.

He the war in Iraq is ending. He's been trying to give Guantanamo detainees trials, but Congress has thrown up numerous, massive roadblocks in his way, led by Republicans and turncoat Dems that the Democratic base hate (e.g. Joe Lieberman). The Bush Doctrine is completely and utterly gone, over the loud objections of the Republicans, who clearly intend to reinstate it if they get power again.
What the fuck are you smoking?


So, not saying I know much about our government because I don't completely understand our silly nonsensical law structure that changes weekly anyways, but Obama is able to do so much---yet Republicans can just say no on the issue of Gitmo and boom! Obama stopped. Not to mention the issue of the constitution being on his side...

I get the filibuster, or other motions that shelve actions forever... but I understand also there is a way to get things done in office regardless of any roadblocks and their, uhem, "size." If not, well then that is your failure as a politician. It is your job to get shit done…

I am not saying Obama has not succeeded on issues important to Americans. I am saying failure cannot be acceptable because your opponent was smarter or stronger than you...

>> ^blankfist:

I'm also glad he's ending the war in Iraq. And reinstating Habeas Corpus. And not continuing the Bush Doctrine.
New party slogan: Democrats. The new Republican.


He the war in Iraq is ending. He's been trying to give Guantanamo detainees trials, but Congress has thrown up numerous, massive roadblocks in his way, led by Republicans and turncoat Dems that the Democratic base hate (e.g. Joe Lieberman). The Bush Doctrine is completely and utterly gone, over the loud objections of the Republicans, who clearly intend to reinstate it if they get power again.

What the fuck are you smoking?

He kinda reminds me of Joe Lieberman.

@Throbbin, I can't blame you for thinking that. He's the President, he's the most visible, most popular, and most powerful single Democrat there is. The press always has a strong tendency to make every political issue into a story about the President's personal political fortune, and that seems even more pronounced with Obama.

He's also the head of the Democratic party in theory, but we don't exercise the kind of party discipline you find in, well, virtually every other democratic country. There's no real punishment for failing to maintain party discipline on key policy votes (see Ben Nelson, Blanche Lincoln, Joe Lieberman, etc.).

Ultimately, the real power to do things in this country resides in Congress. Obama has a larger-than-average amount of sway due to being the President, and due to having his party in the majority, but he doesn't have anything like total control over what happens in Congress.

There's not much more I can add to what John Cole said:

I can’t get over those assholes that shot that man’s pets over a miniscule amount of pot (and more than likely based on faulty information from an informant with whom they cut a deal). I’ve only had Lily 11 months (today!), but I would be out for blood if someone shot her, cop or otherwise. I’d be a helluva lot less rational than that guy was. At the very least there would have been a tasing on that video or another shooting (of me) as I lost my shit all over the place.

And why don’t we get to see pictures of these brave servants to the community? Why aren’t pictures of cops who do this in every newspaper and on every nightly show when it happens? They are obviously tough guys, of course they would want the press! Here’s Butch McCraskin, local member of the SWAT team. He likes football, Nascar, reads Soldier of Fortune, loves no-knock raids, and has tazed a teen-ager and bagged three corgi’s. He drives a big Dodge Ram truck with an NRA sticker to compensate for his tiny penis. Can’t you smell the macho? I wonder what he has cooking?

I’m wondering at what point Americans are finally going to have enough of this shit. They cut pensions slightly to keep the nation from going completely broke in Greece, and they are fire-bombing shit in protest. Here, unless you are a member of the elite you are a third class citizen, subject to any number of abuses to your life, property, and dignity, and no one seems to care or is too preoccupied.

Is Dancing with the Stars on tonight?

*** Update ***

The pit bull these tough guys shot and killed was crated. The corgi they shot survived was loose, but could hardly be considered a threat. This isn’t about law enforcement or safety to officers, this is about terrorizing people.

Not much I can add other than I'd be out for blood if anyone shot either of my dogs too.

I dunno what's broken in America that people feel so resigned about this kind of thing.

I guess it's that whole individualism thing -- it didn't happen to me, just some other poor dumb fuck, why should I care about it? Why should I stick my neck out, he was using illegal drugs! Plus, as we know from Arizona, it's completely okay to violate people's rights if you think they might be doing something illegal, like being here without the right paperwork.

Oh, and Joe Lieberman is talking about stripping citizenship from people who the government thinks might be associated with a terrorist group...

I'm sure this will all be made better when the Republicans take control of congress, because we all know they're serious limited government guys, right?

I'm gonna agree with blankfist, and Milton Friedman on this one.

You get politicians to do the right thing by making the politics of doing the right thing more favorable than doing the wrong thing.

The right people can be convinced to do the wrong thing (Obama backed down on giving terrorists civilian trials), while the wrong people can be convinced to do the right thing (even dipshits like Joe Lieberman voted for HCR).

I gotta say, I have a real love/hate relationship with the way liberals refuse to unify.

Psychologic is right. Joe Lieberman and Ben Nelson deserve the credit for what became the final demise of the public option. They're the ones who committed to joining a Republican filibuster of the Senate bill until it was stripped.

It's true that if there had been even one Republican who came out in favor of it, it would've been passed (probably only 61-39, but it'd pass), but that's a fantasy universe where good policy ideas on the left attract votes from the Republican side of the aisle.

I'm not sure that Obama being more engaged about the public option would've gotten it through. Maybe if we had some way of making Obama angry, and getting him to turn into The Rock Obama, he could have played hardball with Democrats, and threatened them with primary challengers, stripping them of chairmanships, etc. Ultimately though, I'm not convinced he really had any stick to wield against either Nelson or Lieberman. There's no other Democrat who could hold onto a Senate seat in Nebraska other than Nelson, and Lieberman seems to have simply been looking for an excuse to join the Republican party ever since the netroots successfully helped Ned Lamont beat him in the Democratic primary in 2006.

I'm honestly not sure there are 51 votes for it in the Senate. That campaign to get signatories to a letter for passing the public option under reconciliation petered out around 40 or so Democrats, and that was counting a lot of people who didn't actually sign the letter, just people who made approving noises about the idea. That makes me think that whether or not there are 51 Democrats who wanted the public option, there weren't 51 willing to try to use reconciliation to pass it.

It's my opinion, as a really, really avid follower of all this, that we just didn't have the votes for the public option.

I'm shocked and pissed about that, and I definitely think the nearly 20 Dems who were only for the public option when it was subject to the filibuster need to be ran through the wringer, but we go into these things with the Democrats we have, not the ones we wish we had. I'm all for a Congress entirely composed of Graysons, Weiners, Sherrod Browns, with a couple Sanders and Kuciniches, but we're a long way from that now.

I think this bill was the best deal we could have gotten in the 111th Congress.

It does not implement any level of government price setting (i.e. its 0% socialist). However, it does collect taxes from the rich, and uses the money to buy insurance for the poor.

It puts lots of new restrictions on insurance companies to make sure their profits come from serving their customers well, not from denying them care. Same for doctors and hospitals, it will make an attempt to change their incentives towards being based on patient outcomes, and not number & size of procedures done.

It does not, and will not solve every health care problem in the country, but it's going to vastly improve the state of our health care system, and provide care to a huge number of people who didn't have access to it, or who couldn't afford it until now.

It's not perfect, but it's definitely a step in the right direction.

I think the main effect this bill will have is that we'll keep reforming our health care system as we go. The public option isn't dead, it just didn't get baked in from the start. We can keep pushing for it, and working to elect people who will fight for it, and working to defeat people who helped kill it...like Joe Lieberman.