Boy! Must be nice, having ABSOLUTELY NOTHING ELSE TO DO IN LIFE than post rant after rant after tiresome rant to Parched.com in your shrieking, hysterical, frothing-at-the-mouth style, John Moron -i (oops - that's "MORELI," isn't it? So sorry.)

You are a card-carrying Teahadist, I take it?

In MA the people voted for it! Also, they only had 8% uninsured. There is a big difference.

You refuse to take the tax credit for the insurance you already have? Strange.

Tax credit? What until your taxes go up with Odumba care!

@ Olddeegee regarding tax credit: Can you explain the in's and outs of this. Strange that I haven't heard anything about it....Income requirements? Tax filing requirements?? Please give us the lowdown. Thanks.

Lars, do you have insurance? If so you're eligible for a tax credit. If you have no insurance, you receive no credit. There. Was that difficult?

Olddeegee,

I believe that you may be confusing a" tax write-off" with a "tax credit", two totally different things....night and day. If people were actually able to receive a "tax credit" then by definition they would have the money to get health insurance. As it stands right now, you have to add up the costs of your insurance premiums, dental care, glasses and prescription drugs, etc. to come up with how much you spent in the year. Then, you can only deduct the amount of expenditures which exceeds 7.5% of your adjusted gross income.

Now, there is a HCTC (Health Coverage Tax Credit), which is a tax credit, but most people don't qualify for that program.

Don't pay your tax. The FBI will come and get you for tax evasion. You might not have health care, but you will get three free meals a day.

@ Oldeegee..........with everyone weighing in...no. It clears up nothing. I currently have insurance, but, not sure what my company is going to do. Clear as mud....Strange, eh? Maybe Plainfield conservative can clear it up.......or maybe you can make it simpler......

Oldeegee.....are you oversimplifying a complex situation. You make it sound simple. I know about the tax filing advantages (if you qualify) as Plainfld Conserv. is referring to. Is this what you are talking about or are you talking about something else? Clarify please.

No confirmation by Oldeegee...guess he's full of ObamaCare.......just another BS'er.

Lars, Do your own taxes, the categories are broken up by income . Your whining doesn't advance the topic, but, you already knew that. The most recent issue of Time magazine had a good breakdown of where you'll fall once the law (that is Constitutional) takes full effect. If you're so well informed, you already know this.

@ Olddeegee...yes, i knew that. You didn't in form me of anything new or groundbreaking at all. But you tried to sell it as some great piece of Obama legislation....ie (You refuse to take the tax credit for the insurance you already have? Strange.). I know now you know less about it than you will ever admit...businessman AND student of history. Better study for your CPA. Better informed than you obviously.

Lars? Apparently your confirmation bias is in full swing. Your confusion is a smokescreen to your political leanings, but your refusal to see the benefits of 30m million Americans being covered gives you away. Why don't you tell me how much it's going to cost you? Are you a CPA? you certainly seem to have the communication skills of someone who can only see numbers. I don't know, or want to know your income level. Start there and figure out for your self where you land.

Olddeegee? My "refusal to see the benefits of 30m million Americans being covered gives you away". I do understand that the United States is in no position to take on this program now. The CBO estimates keep going UP. And its not even started. Over a trillion now and this President has raided Medicare for 500 Billion to try to cover it. Now Seniors won't have the care they did. Thanks Obama....people here, not citizens will have better care than senior citizens. The cost to a family making 30K per year and don't have insurance. Taxed @ $ 200 per month. How many families at 30K per year can afford that? Healthcare reform is needed, many people need it. But it should have been phased in so that cause and effect can be evaluated. This President placed a 2800 page tax bill that stands all alone. No ability to change parts that affect our economy negatively. This is his lack of experience and arrogance. Today he refferred to as HIS bill. What a joke. He had nothing to do with it, but if he wants credit for it, he can have it. No one argues we don't need reform, the majority of us do however, resent 2800 pages of TAX rammed down our throat. The Supreme Court did the opposers a huge favor. And please, no Romneycare talking points...just try another approach. It don't fly. Staes and Federal are different. Healthcare reform should be phased in, taken slowly, and really have HEALTHcare in mind, not a power tax grab. You are so blinded by this ideology its pitiful.

How quickly we forget that Reagan (a Republican)
gave amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants with the IRCA.

Please supply citations.

Yes, Reagan made a mistake in providing amnesty to 3 million illegals but at least he later admitted his mistake, saying it was one of his biggest regrets and that if he could undo it, he would.

You conservatives are always against abortion and contraceptions. You care more for people in womb than you do once the people are born. You dont want someone to have an abortion, does that mean you will raise the child for the next 18 years John?

Great quote:

"Everybody who is for abortion has already been born" - Ronald Reagan

I don't think conservatives are against contraception, they just don't believe in funding other people's sex lives.

But they certainly want to tell people how and when they can at the expense of our tax dollars.

Which is worse paying a little now for contraception or paying for the next 18 years for a child that no one wants. Which is the more cost effective approach?

Plainfield Conservative,

There are no quotes from Reagan saying that he regretted IRCA.

@ Logansdad....a child that no one wants.....? At least your honest. What does Logan have to say about that....I'm sure he Logan doesn't accuse you of compassion does he. Makes him real secure too.

Deal, what does my son have to do with abortion. He knows he is loved. I dont see you stepping up to raise a child that someone wishes to abort.

@ Logansdad who said...."I dont see you stepping up to raise a child that someone wishes to abort."..........you know nothing about me and the family I have raised and the disadvantaged i have helped. How about you?

John, here are the real facts, from factcheck.org:
As we have written many times, the law does not slash the current Medicare budget by $500 billion. Rather, that’s a $500 billion reduction in the future growth of Medicare over 10 years, or about a 7 percent reduction in growth over the decade. In other words, Medicare spending would continue to rise, just not as much. The law stipulates that guaranteed Medicare benefits won’t be reduced, and it adds some new benefits, such as improved coverage for pharmaceuticals.

Most of those savings come from a reduction in the future growth of payments to hospitals and other providers (not physicians), and a reduction in payments to private Medicare Advantage plans to bring those payments in line with traditional Medicare. (MA plans have been paid more per beneficiary than traditional Medicare.)

And it assumes they actually happen. There’s good reason to think that some of those reductions won’t be implemented. The law calls for cuts in the future growth of reimbursement payments to hospitals and other health care providers — that accounts for $219 billion of the Medicare savings in the law. But Congress has consistently overridden similar scheduled cuts in payments to doctors

Actually, the tone is more of bitterness than hate.

We already had death panels long before Obama was elected. They're called insurance companies. They decide daily if someone's life or good health is worthy of them paying a claim before they allow the doctor to give proper care.

That's right go. Go all the way to Canada.

Romney doens't even know how to take care of his dog.

@ Logansdad.
1. At least he didn't eat his (or anyone elses) dog, and,
2. Now the BBC? Thought you used local news.

While Romney didnt eat his dog, he certainly didnt know how to take care of his own. If he can't take care of his own dog, how can he take care of the country?

@ Logansdad....romney can take care of a country just as well as a pot smoking, coke snorting, ghost of a high school student. I don't see how you can even compare the two. Finished high school in a daze, did drugs,m and ate dogs.....yes, thats what YOU want for a leader. I'll take a dog on a ROOF OF THE CAR over the ROOF OF YOUR MOUTH anytime. How can a slug like that lead.......? Oh, he can't. Were living it.

I disagree that the world hated us when Bush was president. Thats YOUR opinion. My opinion is that Bush was a great president. Obama is in way over his head. The world laughs at us because of Obama. Thats MY opinion.

I see a whole new batch of people is learning why it is best to just ignore that particular poster.

Trust me, threads are much better.

You're going to get the same stuff from either Romney or Obama. They are bought out by corporations and a system of bribery.

For what it's worth, Plainfield Independent is probably right. Kerry, if you really believe that, then I have to assume you either get your news from A) FoxNews, or B) A Klan Rally. If that's your opinion, then your opinion is wrong. Even hardcore republicans in congress acknowledge that we have reopened lines of communications with countries that quit dealing with us during the eight years that Bush led the deregulation of banks that put us in an economical trainwreck, and waged a war on a country that had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks.

I really wish people didn't base their politics on skin color.

Who said anything about race! I don't like Odumba!

John,
You talk a lot about immigration. Do you even know where Romney stands on the issue? He's already flip flopped on the issue.
"The speech was a significant departure from the blunt rhetoric Romney adopted during the Republican primary, when he said illegal immigrants should go through “self-deportation” and remove themselves from the United States. At the time, he also criticized one-time rivals Rick Perry and Newt Gingrich for policies seen as friendly to immigrants, and he said he would veto the DREAM Act, which would create a path to citizenship for young illegal immigrant"

http://www.boston.com/politicalintelligence/2012/06/21/mitt-romney-offers-immigration-proposals-speech-before-latino-group/jXcGD8wXOI0vgDdophnFyL/story.html

Now Romney is saying something quite different.

"The former Massachusetts governor, calling immigration reform “a moral imperative,” said he would help immigrants reunite with their families. He would raise caps on the number of immigrants who could secure temporary work visas. Immigrants who earn advanced degrees at an American university would also earn a green card."
"He also said he would complete a 2,000-mile fence along the border, and reiterated his support to providing legal status to immigrants who serve in the military. "
"In his speech, Romney said it was crucial to keep educated immigrants in the United States"
“If you get an advanced degree here, we want you to stay here – so we will staple a green card to your diploma,” Romney said. “We want the best and brightest to enrich the nation through the jobs and technologies they will help create.”
"Romney also said he would work with Congress to give legal permanent residents the same priority as US citizens when applying to bring their spouses or young children to the United States."
http://www.boston.com/politicalintelligence/2012/06/21/mitt-romney-offers-immigration-proposals-speech-before-latino-group/jXcGD8wXOI0vgDdophnFyL/story.html

In 2006, Bush was the second most feared person in the world. Bin laden was number 1 and Kim Jong-Il was number 3.

When Bush left office, the majority of Americans felt the US was less respected than when Bush took office.

In 2010, countries had more of a favorable view of the US once Obama came into office.

Sorry boys but facts do not lie.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/8626041.stm

@ Logansdad regarding the world view of the USA....Where it counts, the middle east, Obama has essentially fallen off the cliff. And this is reported by the Washington (Com)Post..

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/checkpoint-washington/post/arab-worlds-views-of-us-president-obama-increasingly-negative-new-poll-finds/2011/07/12/gIQASzHVBI_blog.html

And this is much newer by almost a year and a half than yours. Looks like theBS runs deep at your place. The headline reads..."" Arab world’s views of U.S., President Obama increasingly negative, new poll finds""...the key words being "INCREASINGLY NEGATIVE"...

@ Logansdad who says... "2006, Bush was the second most feared person in the world. Bin laden was number 1 and Kim Jong-Il was number 3".. You know what this tells me? This means liberals who are polled are haters. PERIOD. And actually he was number three...the Poller? The Buffalo Beast. Really an accurate and unbiased friggin report right Logansdad? Again, liberals polled are HATERS. John McCain was number one? Why do libs hate him? Because he is a Republican. It is simple. Read the narrative they right on the people because the hate just bleeds. Here you go...

http://buffalobeast.com/113/50_most_loathsome_2006.htm

You really want to associate with people and "journalists"???? like this.

In addition to the Buffalo Beast...the last sentence regarding John McCain...."send him back to the bamboo cage"...........I find this despicable of a man that served many years in a POW camp. And you use the local news and outlets like this. Are you proud of this sort of print or would you agree...it's despicable?

Lars, I don't know about you, but the rest of the world is not made up of just the Arab countries. Nice try. Of course the Arab countries are going to hate the US.

I did not get my source from the Beast. I am sure you can google where I found my information and I like how you claim it was only liberal haters that were polled. More bs.You guys can certainly dish it out about Clinton and Obama, but when "the Shrub's" name is used in a derogatory way, you get upset.

Logansdad....I'm not upset and I don't know why liberals always have to imply we are...just simply stating a study that partially blows away your study and is years nbewer. If your only defense is to say how "upset" I am, you lose. You have no defense.

and the Huffington Post

You're kidding right? Please don't tell us that you honestly believe that Fox is a non-biased news source.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapoza/2011/11/21/fox-news-viewers-uninformed-npr-listeners-not-poll-suggests/

I agree with conservative but what is "non bias" and "mews?" Just curious.

Bob are you serious saying the Sun-Times and Tribune are not liberal or non bias?? Try having an article put in their papers slamming Obama , abortion, or religious issues against the government. They will not print it!!'

AAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA....AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Oh my god John, never go changing. I changed my mind. As long as you keep saying things like "At least Fox News is conservative and non bias unlike other mews networks and the Sun-Times and Tribune!" then I want you to stay around forever. You are a gem.

Plainfield headbanger prove that the two papers aren't liberal and non bias. I can.

John,

I can't wait to see you proof that Fox news in non-biased.

Of course, I won't be holding my breath.

By the way, Patch requires you to use a real name. Check the Patch rules.

And saying that other countries laugh at us about Obama isn't anything but an opinion?

Same as for Bush pea brain!

They like to play cards.....race cards.

John, he obviously does not know what he is talking about if he has to resort to nitpicking about commas etc.

Yep, and if they can tax us on this then they can tax us on just about anything. If you don't eat enough veggies or what they deem to be a balanced diet, thereby costing others through higher premiums because of your unhealthy habits, then get ready to be fined....er, "taxed". The possibilities of income to the federal government is going to be endless. They've found a real cash cow here. What's scary is that the Supreme Courts seems to be in on it now. There now seems to be no control over the vast over-reach and power our government has. God help us all.

I'm not the one spewing hate -- you certainly seem to be the one that is very upset. Sorry for your confusion (and your spelling and verbiage).

Renee, please don't be so lost: I did not reply to your post. You just happen to be the closest post to mine. To the contrary, I am quite amused at the verbal rants going on here from the "conservative" side and am not upset in any way.

The most amusing thing is I have changed none of my views about my country or politics since the 1980's, I just see it and tell it like it is. Back then I was considered so conservative that I was invited to Republican political rallies and shook the hands of both Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush. Today the conservatives have me labeled as a liberal because I support a very, very moderate pro-business President. Our country has simply gone way, way too far to the right and nobody claiming to be conservative seems to understand just how far we have gone.

Rupert Murdoch single-handedly did to us what the entire British Empire was unable to do: destroy us from within and conquer us. He just did it through our own freedom of speech by using tabloid journalism and selling it as news. The "news" coming from his channel is no more real than that you would read in "The Sun" or "The Weekly World News." It is nothing short of payback and they are all laughing from across the pond.

Matthew......you are not funny. Is this your attempt at humor, sarcasm? I think some deep rooted feelings are coming out in YOUR speech. Next time try your best idiotic accent'.

Copied and pasted from Wikipedia? Not very original.

Several years ago when confronted with their bias the head of Fox News replied that the channel is an entertainment channel, not a news channel. That should be food for thought.

As Matthew points out, copying and pasting from Wikipedia hardly does your argument any good. It actually does your argument harm when you scroll down the Wikipedia page and find numerous examples of bias, misleading, and completely incorrect reporting.

Fox pushed through a court case in Florida, that was intended to give them the legal right to purposely be deceitful and lie, in their news reports. Not their editorial reports, their news reports.

They won.

It's been almost 10 years since that case, and their viewers seem blissfully unaware of that.

John here are some examples of how Fox News has lied or misrepresented polls and stories. They have used fake footage when covering events. How can you say they are not biased.

http://thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/fox-news-misrepresents-its-own-gay-marriage-poll/politics/2012/05/17/39704

http://www.blogrunner.com/snapshot/D/5/5/fox_misrepresents_bush_policies_effect_on_debt_deficit_spending/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4FwvQYLKK98

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JS1NWYV1i_E

Now thats funny. I dont care who you are.

If conservative means biased to you then you need professional help. Get it soon. Your comments are straight from the Dem play book. Its a shame you cant form your own opinions.

Ah, another in a long line of brilliant posts by Moreli.

You are certainly within your rights to think the President sucks. What I don't like is your derogatory references to the man who is our President. Like him our not; respect the office, if nothing else.

I also am not a fan of ignorant comments and when you say Fox News isn't biased and that the Chicago Tribune is a liberal newspaper; well, you clearly are spewing ignorance.

And since you stated: "I will not comply with Odumba care or pay his dam taxes on it either! Come and get me Odumba!" My question to you is who will pay for your medical care when something happens to you, since you must not intend to get insurance for yourself? Will you be coming to all of us to pay for it or do you, in fact, already have health insurance?

And for you asking for the playbook I am supplying you a link.........con's, you may want to read up on this as well.....

http://theconservativeactivist.com/info/rules_for_radicals.html

Fox News Channel set to make ratings milestone with 10 years atop the Nielsen charts

By Richard Huff / NEW YORK DAILY NEWS
Published: Monday, January 30, 2012, 5:24 PM
Updated: Tuesday, July 3, 2012, 1:54 AM

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/tv-movies/fox-news-channel-set-ratings-milestone-10-years-atop-nielsen-charts-article-1.1014262#ixzz1zYgCHGHZ

________________________

My guess is that they must be doing something right to be able to attract so many more viewers (more than double) than that of rivals such as CNN and CNBC for over 10 years, straight. Just sayin'.

Fox news has high ratings for the same reason everybody stops to look at a wreck.

One thing to keep in mind is if Fox News is fair and balanced as people claim, then why is Canada refusing to grant them a license to broadcast in Canada.

“Fox News will not be moving into Canada after all! The reason: Canada regulators announced they would reject efforts by Canada’s right wing Prime Minister, Stephen Harper, to repeal a law that forbids lying on broadcast news. Canada’s Radio Act requires that ‘a licenser may not broadcast….any false or misleading news.’ The provision has kept Fox ‘news’ and right wing talk radio out of Canada” -Robert F. Kennedy Jr. – Huffington Post

Do you swear by MSNBC?

Lars, I dont watch any cable news station - whether it is MSNBC, FOX news, CNN or HNN. I watch the local stations for my news.

A Logansdad..who said "Lars, I dont watch any cable news station - whether it is MSNBC, FOX news, CNN or HNN. I watch the local stations for my news:..........but Logansdad quotes from the Huffington Post....most liberal website next to moveon.org.

@ Olddg who said "Fox news has high ratings for the same reason everybody stops to look at a wreck.".....except these viewers like what they see (unlike a wreck) and they stick around and invite open minded friends to watch and they stay too (unlike a wreck).....better find a new reason. Fox, it appears, is here to stay and burying the competiton. I suppose you will pull the old liberal stand by (BOYCOTT) right?

Deal, Huffington Post is a newspaper, what does that have to do with TV? Are you able to tell the difference between the two?

Besides are you going to be like John and claim Fox News is fair and balanced?

@LD who said...."Deal, Huffington Post is a newspaper, what does that have to do with TV? Are you able to tell the difference between the two?

Besides are you going to be like John and claim Fox News is fair and balanced?

My point was liberal bias. I know the difference. How about you? You also quote the BBC..........is that print or TV. It sure as heck ain't your local TV news. OOOOps. You really stepped in it. Stay on your own message or don;t try to bring the point to someone else. That was certainly hypocritical.

PS...why are you quoting them (Huffington Post, BBC) to boot? Local TV news can't serve your point?

Deal, wow you really are something. "Stay on my message" what the heck does that mean?

I do get my news from local stations. The links I provided support my comments that were posted unlike you conservative posters who post things without any support to back up your comments.

Is that the best you can come up with? Hit me because the links I provided are not from the local news. I still haven't seen any conservative here post any links to back up the claim that Fox News is fair and balanced. Why is that?

And in regards to BOYCOTTS, isn't a boycott something you conservatives tend to do. Don't like a store using Happy Holiday or Seasons Greetings, the conservatives plan a boycott. Don't like a store or company supporting LGBT causes, the conservatives plan a boycott of the store or company's products.
Btw, I can provide links to support my claims if you want to have them.

But that is just typical of the conservatives here. When you can not support your own comments, you attack the messenger instead of the message

Logansdad.....now you are rambling using aa tone of anger in your post. Go have a cold one and chill. You are the one that brings up news organizations. I use links when necessary. Plenty of people here, including libs spout off w/o supporting evidence. You just don't like yours was challenged. Again, go blow off some anger before your insides explode. PHEW. I guess you are a sensitive guy.

Your posts remind me of an old saying" If you cant dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullsh.."

LOL 78% of all Senate bills were voted down? The Dems were in control, shows what a poor job Obama has done. LOL Also, a recent vote in the Republican led House passed the extension, by 373 to 52 for one year on the student loans. Tell the RIGHT story.

Apparently, you're unaware that the student loan bill fails and was not, as you say "pushed through" by the Republicans. Neither side wanted the increase, they were just at odds at how to pay for leaving the interest rate "as is". Democrats wanted to further tax small businesses out of existence, evoking an even higher unemployment rate, and Republicans merely wanted to eliminate "preventative" healthcare addded to the healthcare act.

Darn, and to think that I got all giddy when I read that you were going to actually be giving us facts (sigh).

Who runs the senate? Duh, Prince Harry Reid of course. Famous for "Dead on arrival", when referring to GOP bills.

Planfld Harber will change the subject when called out. Deflect the subject to distract from misrepresentation.

John,

Were do you get your statistics from?

Do you make them up as you go?

That's nice, but unfortunately for Obama, we have to count EVERYBODY'S vote and according to yesterday's Rasmussen "Daily Presidential Tracking Poll"....

"The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Monday shows Mitt Romney attracting 46% of the vote, while President Obama earns 44%. Four percent (4%) prefer some other candidate, and five percent (5%) are undecided. "

http://m.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll

The law prohibits the IRS from seeking to put anybody in jail or seizing their property for simple refusal to pay the tax. The law says specifically that taxpayers “shall not be subject to any criminal prosecution or penalty” for failure to pay, and also that the IRS cannot file a tax lien (a legal claim against such things as homes, cars, wages and bank accounts) or a “levy” (seizure of property or bank accounts).

The law says that the IRS will collect the tax “in the same manner as an assessable penalty under subchapter B of chapter 68” of the tax code. That part of the tax code provides for imposing an additional penalty “equal to the total amount of the tax evaded, or not collected.” It also requires written notices to the taxpayer, and provides for court proceedings.

So it may turn out that the IRS will be suing those who fail to pay the tax for double the amount. But so far, the IRS has not spelled out exactly how it will enforce the new penalty with the limited power the law gives it.

Skillfully lifted without credit from NBC's The Grio site, word for word. I applaud you, John Moreli, for leaving the Fox News umbrella to go to a biased, liberal network for your statistics!

*slow clap*

http://thegrio.com/2012/02/23/obama-campaign-focuses-on-black-vote-targets-hbcus/

A biased song by an angry liberal.

John, your posts are nothing but lies. You like throwing numbers out there with nothing to back them up.

I already pointed out that your statement about the 500 million is false.

Now I am pointing out that your cost estimate is wrong according to factcheck.org. $1.5 trillion is way off from your estimate of $10 trillion.

The costs of the insurance coverage provisions of the health care law include federal subsidies for lower-income individuals to help them purchase insurance, expansion of Medicaid eligibility and tax credits for small businesses that provide coverage. In March, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office revised its estimate on the gross cost of those provisions of the law over the next 10 years. The updated estimate — $50 billion higher than the year before — came to nearly $1.5 trillion.

But that’s only looking at one side of the budgetary ledger — cost. Even though Romney claims he factored those in, his figure ignores major cost-cutting provisions including cuts in the future growth of Medicare and increased payroll taxes and investment-income taxes on higher-income earners (the same ones Romney had just mentioned).

Once all those revenue streams are factored in, CBO has estimated that the law would actually reduce the federal deficit by $210 billion over the 2012-2021 period (see Table 1, page 2). CBO did not update that overall figure in its latest report.

Logansdad, It was a typo. It should have been 1 trillion not 10. Did you watch
 ‘This Week’ with George Stephanopoulos this past Sunday! The panel talked how Odumbacare was going to cost 1 trillion the first 10 years and 500 million was being taken from Medicare to fund Odumbacare!

I dont watch those Sunday morning shows. They are all conservative biased. If you dont like the teillion dollar cost for Obama care well so be it. I dont like the trillion dollar cost for the wars in the middle east.

He is posting in violation of Patch rules.

Where are the 20 people?. Those liberals posting here could be one person posting under different names. Liberals always post the same thing from the Dem playbook.

Dont worry, you are doing fine.

Why do conservatives think everyone who doesnt follow their belief has some sort of playbook or agenda? The Dems have a playbook and the gays have an agenda.

How is it the conservatives can get a copy of the playbook or agenda but no one else can?

You, truthfully, need a life. The bill is law. We win, you lose. Americans have moved a step closer to a sane, compassionate health-care system. Whatever the cost, it's worth it. Your hatred of those that cannot afford proper care is indicative of the money-grubbing right. You're an anachronism.

Kent, you mentioned "For the Children" as a phrase that liberals like to use. I'd have to disagree with you there. That phrase is used by conservatives all the time when it comes to protecting children from this danger or that danger.

Furthermore what about other phrases conservatives like to use "liberal media bias", "trickle down economics", "fight them there so you don't have to fight them here", "moral values", "socialist, socialist. socialist".

One question for you, are you really in charge of your health care now? Do you think just because you want a specific surgery your health care company will approve it for you?

You don't seem to care if others die due to lack of healthcare. How do you sleep?

We haven't agreed on a thing. Your one of those, small picture people, aren't ya? I've survived quite well for 57 years, self-employed and in wholesale distribution of millions of dollars of merchandise ranging from electronics to musical instruments, so your whine that I don't understand economics is moot . I've voted both Democratic and Republican depending on who offered the best long term solutions to the growing needs of our nation, and as I'm not a fool I pay the taxes I owe and not a penny more. I don't care if my taxes increase, because a society requires infrastructure and an healthy, educated public. Better have that inner anger looked at, it'll eat you up.

You do know that we're not a Democracy, we're a Representative Democracy, right?

Olddeegee, Actually you know the United States is a republic, right? A representative democracy is different.

No Barry, the US is most certainly a representative Democracy. And it is also a constitutional republic. The two are not exclusive. Along the same lines as 'all birds have wings, but not everything that has wings is a bird'.

A true republic, as you claim, would be something like Iran. It is the 'constitutional' part of being a republic that puts a regulation on the rule of the majority within a representative democracy.

Words in the English language, that you are using, have specific definitions.
Learn them.
Do not make them up as you go.

Kent, I never heard global warming used as an example of instilling fear into kids. I will disagree that kids have zero ability to contro global warmingl. They can control their carbon foot print by recycling for one. I feel it is conservatives that try to instill fear into kids. Anytime a taboo subject matter comes up like homosexuality, it is the conservatives that say you will not teach that to my child or that should not be taught in school. When has homosexuality ever been "taught to kids". Showing homosexuality exists in the real world is not teaching about homosexuality. If conservatives do not like what is being taught in a public school, then they should home school their children.

In regards to school lunches, I have never seen a high school that doesn't offer some sort of cafeteria where kids can buy lunches. As for grade schools I would agree with you there, parents should be making their children's lunches. However there are some parents that can't afford to feed their kids. Do you suggest these kids starve? I believe not, that is where the federal government steps in. Is this not the right thing to do?

Until conservatives stop dictating their moral values on everyone, you will will have put up liberals trying to help out the less fortunate and a bigger than you want government.

You are against Obamacare but yet it is the almost the same thing Romeny used in Massachuessetts and wanted to take nationwide. Yet you want to support Romney, who said he would repeal it and said nothing about what Romney would replace it with.
I also see you finally admitted that Obamacare is a LAW.

Every time you say "Odumba," it makes you sound a little bit more ignorant. We get it, you don't like the guy. Name calling I'd expect from a child, but not an adult in a political discourse.

I don't think "Odumba" is going to catch-on like you want it to.

Please supply a list of business that refuse to supply insurance to employes.

List the businesses that are dropping their employees health insurance.

List the businesses that are dropping their employees health insurance.

Then there's no veracity to your statement. You've even created an imaginary relative. Unless you have actual statistics and unbiased facts, your claims are hollow.

You don't need to know my relatives name! Right to privacy and what actual fact or unbiased facts?

List the businesses that are dropping their employees health insurance.

When you get my experience in politics , give me a call. Your posts are nothing but jibberish.By the way , you are posting in violation of patch rules.

You bring nothing to the debate but insults and jibberish. I refuse to debate a person that does not debate on an intelligent level. Typical angry liberal.

You are the typical angry Lib Dem. You bring the same old worn out ideas that never work. If you dont get your way , you scream and cry and use the race card. Try debating a liberal, all they do is scream and name call. Obama has no experience in anything...typical lib Dem.

@ muvin on who said "...Not Black either, sorry. " ......So why do you vote for skin color????? This presidents policies have failed and he is completely out of ideas. All he does is blame and avoid ever taking responisbility for anything. I'm ready for real hope and change.

Speaking of civil union's, how's your husband? Hopefully he is providing insurance for the both of you.

I am not saying its good or bad but it is the way much media works now.
But yes, I agree it is sad.
It is my opinion that Patch & many other news sites (& newspapers, TV News, etc) post things like this in order to "host" the "discussion" & thereby drive up their traffic.
Its unfortunate, but it increases reader interaction & that is good for business according to many business models in use by today's media outlets.

You're dead on, Steve. To be fair to the patch, they aren't the ones who are causing the ruckus and probably would be accused of taking away our freedom of speech if they were to sensor this or any other thread just because things got a little heated. I'm sure, or would hope, that they would delete anything with profanity/death threats, etc.

That being said, I have been witnessed to sites who will actually pay to have hecklers join the conversation in order to amp up sales by being able to show that they receive a high amount of traffic or hits to the site, making believe that their site and threads are popular when in reality it's just full of people at each other's throats by trying to one-up each other or get in the last word...No REAL intelligent conversation going on. I have actually written the advertisers on some of those sites saying that I would never think of buying their products because I thought they showed a complete lack of character to even think of associating their products/services with such nonsense and abuse that was allowed to go on. Some did pull their ads shortly after. Trust me, the stuff that goes on on this site is child's play compared to what goes on on other sites.