Monkeyboy wrote:he's going to punch her so hard when he sees that gif on the internet. You made me look bad, woman!

He's probably gonna miss out on seeing the gif on account of his being blind.

BAHAHAHA holy shit that quote with that picture is amazing

Note: Mark Foley and Tom Foley are different people

Dumb interns.

What the heck is news nation?

jerseyhoya wrote:

Monkeyboy wrote:he's going to punch her so hard when he sees that gif on the internet. You made me look bad, woman!

He's probably gonna miss out on seeing the gif on account of his being blind.

lol, is he really blind? Well, someone will tell him about it. And then he'll try to punch her, using her voice as a guide.

TenuredVulture wrote:What the heck is news nation?

I guess a crappy afternoon show on MSNBC. Can't say I've had the privilege of watching.

I hear a lot of Republicans talking about problems with their "brand". Do Democrats talk that way? I think they may have a fundamental problem.

TenuredVulture wrote:I hear a lot of Republicans talking about problems with their "brand". Do Democrats talk that way? I think they may have a fundamental problem.

Much easier to fix the packaging than the product. Though tbf the Dems did both with Clinton.

jerseyhoya wrote:Twitter had rep bill young dead for a few minutes, but now it thinks he's alive again.

He was also rumored to be dead in 2011 - http://www.nationaljournal.com/congress ... d-20111021

Has now passed

marriage equality in New Jersey


chris christie is no doubt sitting pissed, somewhere

Obamacare Website Failure Threatens Health Coverage For Millions Of Americans - From my favorite conservative publication, the Huffington Post

I feel like what the first 19 days of the Affordable Care Act era has been missing the most is the sneering condescension of docsmooth at righty wonks and commentators questioning the promises made by the administration about the law and the wisdom and eventual policy success of Obamacare

We're not at that point yet, but it would be the most Democrat thing ever yet to win this fight, have the Republicans look really, really bad, then fuck up your main accomplishment.

Some guesses on why the obamacare website is a steaming pile of poop that cost more than LinkedIn...

1) The US government's internet infrastructure is quite antiquated. The infrastructure is probably not a whole lot newer than when the Social Security, IRS, etc. websites initially launched.

2) There's probably only a handful of web designers directly employed by the federal government, definately not enough for such a herculean project as healthcare.gov. So the federal government contracts out most web design projects to government contractors who then subcontract out the actual work. This complicates things even more and is not conducive to such tech projects. You end up with the top "tier" of contractors enriched by a half billion dollars while delivering a massive clusterfuck of 404 pages.

I also wouldn't be surprised if some republican programmers did stuff to fuck up the site. I mean, they did everything else they could do to mess everything up, so I don't see why they wouldn't resort to that. This is what happens when a big chunk of the people in the government want to destroy that very government. The south has indeed risen again.

Frankly, I think we need to go further than eliminating only the ACA because of the website problems. I think we need to expand the idea by requiring any enterprise with website troubles to close. For example, for years the MLB.tv website has been a nightmare to navigate, so MLB is, therefore, a failure and should be required to close. I know lots of people who have trouble with the Amazon.com website, so let's get rid of that faulty business, too. I don't know anyone who has successfully been able to use the websites for Aetna or Blue Cross/Blue Shield. Why are they being allowed to continue to sell health insurance?

In arguing against the expansion of Medicaid in Virginia, the Koch Kadets point to a University of Virginia study that found worse surgical outcomes for Medicaid patients than for the uninsured and, therefore, contend that Medicaid coverage is worse than no coverage at all. It's better for Virginia's 400,000 uninsured to remain uninsured than to have Medicaid coverage.

I think they're onto something.

Think of the savings if we were to eliminate health insurance altogether? People will encouraged to take more responsibility for their own health rather than frittering away money needlessly on doctor and hospital visits. Break an arm? Rub some dirt on it! Got cancer? It's your unhealthy lifestyle!

As Eric Cantor argued during the shutdown, we just want the fairness of the same rules applying to everyone. What would level the playing field more than no one having health insurance?

The last two posts in here are fantastic

in other news, Oregon's percentage of uninsured persons went down 10%

So Ted Cruz is taking in tons of money for all this. Hmm. His Senate seat is presumably safe, and he's not going to be President. So, um, any reason to think think this whole charade was little more than a fundraiser mostly for various consultants and such?

I can't figure which is worse for the Republicans--that the party is deeply split and demoralized, or that tons of money that could go to winning marginal seats in Congress is instead being channeled for quixotic primary fights.

Why does no one (on either side) seem to credit the Dean strategy (expand the playing field by recruiting strong if impure candidates in as many districts as possible) as the way to win the legislative branch?

I miss Howard Dean.