...

Pfft, that's hardly a majority of Republicans, let alone a Conservative among them. You're playing fast and loose juxtaposing "Republican" and "Conservative". And, I dare say a few Wiki paragraphs probably aren't the best source for accuracy and context. With Clinton in the White House, don't you think if the idea had any traction, especially among Conservatives (who were pulling the Republican strings in the '90s), don't you think this would have been a done deal long ago? Welfare:inner cities. Case closed. Who decides what is "good"? Is it good this program was essentially rammed through congress in the most un-transparent manner possible? It's immature to believe that all things seemingly good out on the outside/in the short term, are ultimately good at their core/over the long term.

Which is one reason why costs are, what 3x or more what they were projected to be while the democrats were selling the idea to the country? With all due respect, what does this matter? Do you not see that Obama has stated several times he refuses to negotiate? Do you not see, at all, that Obama and the democrats have refused to enact a budget in years, which is his Constitutional prerogative? Do you not see that Obama ignores the Constitution and tries to "rule" through executive privilege? Why are the Republicans "at fault" here, exactly? Why, as a registered Republican, do you not see this from the point of view of those who, ostensibly, share some of your political beliefs and look at the democrats and Obama as part of, if not most of, those who "are to blame"?

Source on this? Because, if Republicans wanted anything like this, they had the opportunity with Clinton in the '90s.

Two reasons: 1. The damage it inflicts between now and whatever time in the future you postulate will be incredibly thorough. 2. Once a program has planted roots, the public would prefer it is "fixed" rather than taken away. This is, among other things, a last push to take it away before it's "too late". Stewart doesn't like what he hears from Sebelius over Obamacare: http://hotair.com/archives/2013/10/08/video-stewart-rips-sebelius-over-obamacare/ I like the second, short clip, which is curiously disabled now, but you can find it. But, the point is, even a self-admitted administration defender is finally getting how this will be bad, bad, bad...

Hire him as an assistant.

She used a car as a weapon...anyone can get a car. They should ban cars.

I think you underestimate the breadth and scope of political dissent (giggle). You need to brush up on it.

Anyone smart enough can manage to learn how to succeed within the margins they have to work within. But, saying a non-for-profit brings in money only paints a small portion of the entire picture. A not-for-profit, by definition, doesn't have to be profitable. But, whatever is being cited to make this claim, is old, now, with Obamacare. This is changing the landscape for everyone, even these "profitable" non-profits.

Or buy beer and liquor and smokes. Damn, I forgot, and FIREWORKS! You can't buy fireworks without an ID.

That's probably not true, or the context is so watered down it probably doesn't mean what you think it does. But... So do oil companies, despite consumer costs skyrocketing. Oh, and the Sabres are profitable, too, despite being a crappy team.

Not to mention the government is not supposed to force you to purchase anything. Or at least that was true when America wasn't Amerika.

It's because "we" "allowed" insurance companies to become the primary payment vehicle for health care. Damn, do none of you know a doctor, or have ever run or know people who run a health care clinic of any kind? Between Medicare, Medicaid, and the insurance model, health care providers were not receiving the appropriate payment for services rendered. Those providers, over time, kept increasing prices to try and balance out payments. So, payments rose to the point where they became outlandishly high relative to what you'd pay in a balanced, non-third-party market. Again, you could negotiate paying your health care costs without involving a third party and actually see the difference in costs.

How do they buy their beer? What would these people do if they won the big lotto drawing? How do they get into the casinos? Jeez, I almost forgot, how do they buy their smokes without ID?

And why is that?

You're supposed to be smarter than to resort to hyperbole like this. I would have thought you can discern the difference between political dissent and base prejudice. So, I can't complain about anti-Christian prejudice? Does that mean I can characterize all Muslims as willing to kill all Christians? Can I characterize all Jews as man-handlers of the economy for their own gain? Can I say all secular humanists are advocates of sex with minors?

I want the country to default. The economy is so propped up and the country so politically divided, there is NO rational way of dealing with it. Everything needs to collapse and be rebuilt and it may as well happen now while my kids are still kids. People in this country are so spoiled and stupid, they need their eyes open. Since aliens won't be landing soon, enter the collapse. Bring on the misery so people will wake up finally and see from a fresh perspective the gift they were given and carelessly destroyed.

This is happening all over the place. This is the FACT of the reality of Obamacare. Why did Congressional employees demand either an additional stipend to help cover costs (saying the can't afford it) or an opt out? Why will Congress and the president NOT be participating in this system? This is a fundamental lack of understanding of WHY health care costs so much prior to Obamacare. If, for example, you do(did) not pay through or involve insurance, you could negotiate a substantially lower price of your costs - something tax-free medical accounts are for.

Really, this is how you want to engage in a debate? You want to ascribe all opponents this cartoonish, made-up perspective and attack? And if someone denies holding that perspective you don't want to believe it and try and force the argument into one of minutiae and point-by-point comparisons, eventually looking for the one "gotcha" point you can hold over their heads. You argue like a 12-year-old.

This is such ridiculousness. This is politics for the Comedy Central crowd and hardly worth a response except for the fact that it's a pervasive point of view in the media on the internet. There is zero critical or original thinking here; indeed, it's a robotic regurgitation of the "cool person's" perspective spoon fed to people not interested in actually reasoning through politics, but only interested in being on the "winning team that makes me feel good about myself". The anti-Christian rhetoric is flat out offensive and prejudiced and if I cared enough I would flag your post on that merit alone. It's easy (and lazy) to cherry-pick popularized phrases from the Bible and hold that against an entire group of people. Would a reasoned response with the appropriate lines from the Bible in context even be worth the time? My guess is no. I will just say that when more people are "poor" and unable to contribute to the system which is supposed to uplift the poor, what are you supposed to do? What good is a broken, second rate economy to ANYONE, let alone the poor or children? This anti-business, pro-poor/pro-children narrative looks really good in 10-second clips and on bumper stickers, and I'm sure it makes you feel like you're doing the world good spitting out phrases your heroes in the media and online do, but it's highly deceptive and tragically wrong. As they should. The ACA will put the stake in the country's heart.

Why?

Yes, really well done and for the non-winter months it does sum up the activity here, not to mention represent the colors, architecture, and superficial vibe of the place. One thing I really like about our area is that it is indeed colorful, and I'm talking about the effect of light reflecting off surfaces and nothing else.

Uhm...you need to smoke one and think on that. A little hint: if you're asking the question, you need a better supply.

What do you expect when it's the same architect? Your post has pretty much sealed the deal for me. If I knew how to give odds, I'd give them on Hodgson getting the "C" - it makes perfect sense now that he will.

The little that I caught if looked simply like EJ couldn't get anything done because he was always under pressure. The o line looked like ass. EJ is too much of a rookie yet to keep his cool when pressured like that,

Agreed. At least he's out there doing SOMETHING against players larger than he. And when the coaches can anticipate it, they put Big John out there as well. I think a NHL team needs these types of players - for those wanting PURE hockey, ah, this IS pure hockey. Kaleta lays it out there 100% every game, even when he's not 100%. He's fast, great on the PK, a very good defensive player, and he can finish garbage goals and short-handers when the time comes. Totally worth the money and the roster spot.