Originally Posted by JDG 66

--I pointed that out for him and everyone else:

First, moron, there was no correlation with "liberal" it was with "quite liberal" - so you still lied.

Second, this is what you've been humping all these years???

In addition to "quite liberal" meaning you're a whoos, we have if you "forget people's names" or that you "dated occasionally in high school" makes you Rambo!

Are you, and much more fascinating, some of your pogue forebearers back in the 1950s, really this inanely stupid?

Originally Posted by playwrite

...there was no correlation with "liberal" it was with "quite liberal" - so you still lied...

-Maybe Bobby Playdude was confused by my use of the word "very liberal":

Originally Posted by JDG 66

...indicates that those who are identified as "very liberal" are also usually wussies in combat.

So the question is: Why can't very liberal people control theior amygdalae?

Originally Posted by JDG 66

... The Fighter study also discovered things that would have been difficult to put into practical effect. One of them was that "very liberal" soldiers weren't just natural "non-firers" (which is most guys), but that they were disproportionately "non-fighters." Apparently, very liberal types aren't very good at controlling their amygdalas under stress...

...when I posted about "very liberal" people.

Bobbo Playdude's amygdala must be gettin' real flustered about this.

In the liturgy of the far right, June 17, 1957 is known as "Red Monday," because of four SCOTUS decisions handed down that day that, according to them, were favorable toward "Communists."

It should be interesting to see what term they come up with to denote the last days of June 2015 - assuming Obergefell v. Hodges goes the way all of us must now expect it will go.

http://reason.com/blog/2015/06/23/th...bacle-turns-10

Ten years ago today, the U.S. Supreme Court issued one of the most destructive and appalling decisions of the modern era. In Kelo v. City of New London, a 5-4 majority allowed a local government to bulldoze a working-class neighborhood so that private developers would have a blank slate on which to build a luxury hotel, a conference center, and various other upscale amenities. The city’s goal was to erase that existing community and replace it with a new commercial district that would (hopefully) fill the local coffers with more abundant tax dollars...

In the wake of the Court’s decision, the final holdouts in New London were given the boot and the bulldozers rolled in, leveling the neighborhood. But then nothing else happened. The redevelopment scheme fell apart and the project died. If you visit New London today, you’ll find that the razed neighborhood still stands empty, a depressing monument to the folly of “expert” government planning...


http://www.ocregister.com/articles/p...lo-rights.html

“Now what liberty can there be where property is taken away without consent?” – Samuel Adams (1772)...

It has been 10 years to the day since the U.S. Supreme Court’s infamous 5-4 Kelo v. City of New London decision, which the Institute for Justice, the libertarian public interest law firm which represented homeowner Susette Kelo, recently described as the court’s “most universally despised opinion in modern memory.” In ruling that “economic development” constitutes a legitimate “public use” for the purposes of government eminent domain power, the court sanctioned the practice of governments forcibly taking private property and handing it over to another private party with more political pull, thereby striking at the heart of property rights which were so critical to the founding and success of our nation.

The case sprung from pharmaceutical company Pfizer’s decision to build a plant in New London, Conn., and its subsequent efforts to obtain 15 properties in the adjacent Fort Trumbull neighborhood, including Suzette Kelo’s little pink house. To add insult to injury, Pfizer abandoned its plan just a few years after the Kelo decision, just as its tax breaks were about to expire and after about $80 million of taxpayer money was spent, and the land remains a vacant lot 10 years later...

In a related ruling:

http://reason.com/blog/2015/06/22/in...rty-rights-sco

...according to a 1949 “Marketing Order Regulating the Handling of Raisins Produced from Grapes Grown in California,” the U.S. Department of Agriculture is permitted to demand a portion of each year’s California raisin crop, free of charge. The title to those raisins passes to an entity known as the Raisin Administrative Committee, which is allowed to use the raisins for its own purposes. Those purposes include giving the raisins away for free to school lunch programs or selling them for foreign export. If it sells them, it gets to use the proceeds to fund its own operations.

In a decision issued today in Horne v. Department of Agriculture, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the USDA’s raisin confiscation scheme as an unconstitutional violation of the Fifth Amendment...

I'm amazed that this law was allowed to stand for SIX decades.

Roberts' opinion was joined in full by Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel Alito...

...no surprise above I guess...

Justice Stephen Breyer, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, concurred in part and dissented in part...

...and it's nice to see the proggies on board, at least "in part"...

Justice Sotomayor filed a solo dissent...

...and the self-proclaimed "Wise Latina" proves hereself to be a degenerate moron.

http://reason.com/blog/2015/06/22/th...of-raisins-fro

The Feds Took 182,000 Tons of Raisins from US Farmers. This Insane Flowchart Shows What Happened Next...

As "The Donald" nails down the Hispanic vote for the GOP

the ACA is making certain that the young woman cohort flocks to their brand as well -

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...birth-control/

Obamacare has saved women more than $1 billion on birth control

American women are spending much less money on birth control since the Affordable Care Act started requiring insurance plans to cover contraception, according to a new analysis.

Researchers at the University of Pennsylvania examined health insurance claims from one of the country’s largest private insurers in 2012 (pre-Obamacare) and 2013 (post-Obamacare). They found that spending on the pill, America’s most popular birth control method, quickly fell 38 percent -- from $33 to $20, on average. Spending on IUDs, meanwhile, plummeted 68 percent, from $262 to $84.

The total savings, the health economists estimate: $1.4 billion.

Observe the sharp drop after the mandate took effect: [see link for chart]

One company’s records can’t capture exactly what’s happening across the country. But the findings, published this week in Health Affairs, offer a glimpse into how the cost of birth control is shrinking as the law pushes it toward zero.

Under the ACA, a woman should be able to fill a prescription without opening her wallet. Not all brands, however, are required to be covered with no cost sharing. Some insurance plans have failed to comply with the law, the National Women's Law Center recently found. And some women in the study’s sample were enrolled in grandfathered plans not yet subject to the mandate or whose employers did not participate for religious reasons.

Health economists say the financial barrier to birth control drives up unintended pregnancies and, ultimately, the taxpayer burden. The monthly co-pay for pills, though typically under $50, adds up. And the cost of an IUD, arguably the most effective method on the market, can reach $1,000.

It’s too early to tell how cheaper contraceptives may be affecting the birth rate. Years of research show the stakes remain high, no matter where you stand politically, when it comes to broader access to birth control.

A poor woman in the United States is five times as likely as an affluent woman to accidentally become pregnant and have a baby, the Brookings Institution recently found.

Unintended pregnancies, in general, cost taxpayers $21 billion a year, according to the Guttmacher Institute, a nonprofit reproductive health organization. That averages out to a cost of about $366 per every American woman of childbearing age.

State programs show a stunning connection between increased birth control availability and decreased teen pregnancy.

Between 2007 and 2012, for example, Colorado saw the highest percentage drop in birth rates among teens 15 to 19 in the country, according to a CDC report. Its teen birth rates over that period dropped 39 percent, compared to 29 percent nationwide.

Health officials said a simple public program sparked the change: 30,000 IUDs, offered for free (or close to it) by the state's family-planning clinics.

Free birth control's possible impact on the total number of unwanted pregnancies, and therefore likely abortions, could dramatically shape that issue. A substantial drop in abortion numbers could result in either more or less restrictions, but either way, possibly a significant deflating of abortion as a national issue.

Nice having an adult in the WH.

But what about all the same-sex couples that have now won the right to adopt babies, along with the millions of infertile straight couples already in the market - unless of course these babies get aborted?

This is a tremendous opportunity for the pro-life movement.

Originally Posted by '58 Flat

But what about all the same-sex couples that have now won the right to adopt babies, along with the millions of infertile straight couples already in the market - unless of course these babies get aborted?

This is a tremendous opportunity for the pro-life movement.

You obviously haven't paid much attention to this issue - psss, pro-life folk's interest ends at birth.

The one exception to that rule is they'll fight tooth-and-nail against adoption by same-sex couples.

Originally Posted by playwrite

You obviously haven't paid much attention to this issue - psss, pro-life folk's interest ends at birth.

The one exception to that rule is they'll fight tooth-and-nail against adoption by same-sex couples.

But you ignore the cardinal rule in politics, which is that there are no permanent friends or permanent enemies - only permanent interests.

Look at how shameless the right was at embracing the white ethnic "hardhats," who they had heretofore despised - have you ever seen the most underrated Sylvester Stallone movie of all time, F.I.S.T.? - to get at the "hippies"? Similarly, whatever homosexuality may or may not be to the right, it is nonetheless not murder, the way abortion is - and here is where shadowy groups like ALEC really prove their worth: They can be used to sow discord between gays and feminists without leaving an obvious mark as to the discord-sowers' true origins.

Originally Posted by playwrite

Free birth control's possible impact on the total number of unwanted pregnancies, and therefore likely abortions, could dramatically shape that issue. A substantial drop in abortion numbers could result in either more or less restrictions, but either way, possibly a significant deflating of abortion as a national issue.

You'd think that pro-lifers would be all about contraceptives if they were real serious about reducing abortions, but no...It just goes to show you that it's more of a movement to dictate a very specific type of sexuality to women.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-unaf...act-1436569086

...President Obama dropped by Nashville last week to claim Tennessee as a state where “the law has worked better than we expected” and “actually ended up costing less than people expected,” so let’s test the reality of those claims. As a baseline, in 2015 premium increases for Tennessee plans ranged from 7.5% to 19.1%.

For 2016 BlueCross BlueShield of Tennessee... is requesting a 36.3% increase. One product line from Community Health Alliance Mutual is rising 32.8%, while another from Time Insurance Co. hits 46.9%. Offerings from Cigna, CI -1.79 % Humana HUM -1.40 % and UnitedHealthcare range from 11% to 18%. If this means ObamaCare is working better than the President expected, then what, exactly, was he expecting?

Underlying health costs continue to rise, but this trend is merely about 3.5% to 7% depending on the state. Health plan profits are capped by ObamaCare price controls, so don’t blame corporate greed either...

The detailed, fact-heavy actuarial filings justifying these increases show that they result from ObamaCare’s political regulations. The law bans insurers from charging people prices linked to their health risks in order to force the young and healthy to cross-subsidize their elders. But if premiums don’t cover medical claims, then premiums must rise to fund these cost transfers...

Among those eligible for the ObamaCare exchanges... only about a third have signed up, according to HHS. The number of truants—despite the individual mandate penalty-tax—increases with income and as ObamaCare’s subsidies phase out...

These rate hikes aren’t final, and some may be rejected by state insurance commissioners. In Tennessee, Mr. Obama encouraged regulators to exert such political control. But a business can’t continue to pay more than $1 for every $1 of revenue forever, and ongoing insurance volatility and rising health industry consolidation may ensure that the 2016 premium blast is not a one-time event.

This is a no-excuses moment for liberals...

...but I have no doubt they'll try to find a way to blame this on Bush. Or maybe the Tea Party.

Originally Posted by playwrite

...As "The Donald" nails down the Hispanic vote for the GOP ...

1) I'm sure that people of Cuban and Puerto Rican descent are really upset with anything Trump said about Mexican Illegals.

2) I'm sure that any Legal Immigrant is really upset with anything Trump said about Mexican Illegals.

3) I'd ask Playwrite to tell it to Angelica Martinez or Kathryn Steinle, but they're busy being corpses...

Originally Posted by playwrite

...the ACA is making certain that the young woman cohort flocks to their brand as well...

-Yeah, I'm sure that'll make up for higher premiums, higher deductibles, "if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor," "if you like your insurance plan you can keep your insurance plan," and "a typical family will save $2,500 dollars a year."

And then, of course, all those men who get covered under Obamacare for their uteruses...

When the worst of Obamacare kicks in for 2016, I bet Playwrite will be right in that it will be interesting, but not in a way he'll like.

I'm still waiting for PW to add up all the Donkey's who lost their seats in congress after voting for Obamacare and compare them to the Elephants who voted against Obamacare and lost their seats.

Originally Posted by JDG 66

http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-unaf...act-1436569086

...President Obama dropped by Nashville last week to claim Tennessee as a state where “the law has worked better than we expected” and “actually ended up costing less than people expected,” so let’s test the reality of those claims. As a baseline, in 2015 premium increases for Tennessee plans ranged from 7.5% to 19.1%.

For 2016 BlueCross BlueShield of Tennessee... is requesting a 36.3% increase. One product line from Community Health Alliance Mutual is rising 32.8%, while another from Time Insurance Co. hits 46.9%. Offerings from Cigna, CI -1.79 % Humana HUM -1.40 % and UnitedHealthcare range from 11% to 18%. If this means ObamaCare is working better than the President expected, then what, exactly, was he expecting?

Underlying health costs continue to rise, but this trend is merely about 3.5% to 7% depending on the state. Health plan profits are capped by ObamaCare price controls, so don’t blame corporate greed either...

The detailed, fact-heavy actuarial filings justifying these increases show that they result from ObamaCare’s political regulations. The law bans insurers from charging people prices linked to their health risks in order to force the young and healthy to cross-subsidize their elders. But if premiums don’t cover medical claims, then premiums must rise to fund these cost transfers...

Among those eligible for the ObamaCare exchanges... only about a third have signed up, according to HHS. The number of truants—despite the individual mandate penalty-tax—increases with income and as ObamaCare’s subsidies phase out...

These rate hikes aren’t final, and some may be rejected by state insurance commissioners. In Tennessee, Mr. Obama encouraged regulators to exert such political control. But a business can’t continue to pay more than $1 for every $1 of revenue forever, and ongoing insurance volatility and rising health industry consolidation may ensure that the 2016 premium blast is not a one-time event.

This is a no-excuses moment for liberals...

...but I have no doubt they'll try to find a way to blame this on Bush. Or maybe the Tea Party.

Here's a non- amygdala-dominated article on the ACA in TN pertaining to insurance rates. It not only debunks the typical WSJ scaremongering on the ACA, it clearly shows how the amygdala-dominated like Glick are incapable of independent cerebral lobe thinking.

http://www.healthinsurance.org/tenne...ance-exchange/

Originally Posted by JDG 66

1) I'm sure that people of Cuban and Puerto Rican descent are really upset with anything Trump said about Mexican Illegals.

2) I'm sure that any Legal Immigrant is really upset with anything Trump said about Mexican Illegals.

3) I'd ask Playwrite to tell it to Angelica Martinez or Kathryn Steinle, but they're busy being corpses...

Believing that non-Mexican Hispanics are stupid enough to believe Trump and the GOP's bigotry toward brown people is limited to only those from Mexico is hilariously funny amygdala-dominated 'thinking.' ON the other hand, using the sad situation of two people killed by psychopaths (as if we don't have our own numerous psychopaths) to condemn millions of good decent people is sick amygdala-dominated 'thinking.'

Originally Posted by JDG 66

-Yeah, I'm sure that'll make up for higher premiums, higher deductibles, "if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor," "if you like your insurance plan you can keep your insurance plan," and "a typical family will save $2,500 dollars a year."

Old tired retreats; all have been debunked numerous times. You're about the only person left on this forum that still believes in this horseshit.

Originally Posted by JDG 66

And then, of course, all those men who get covered under Obamacare for their uteruses...

Real men understand the need to share the costs as well as the benefits of perpetuating a healthy human race. Guys like you that have never had women in their lives often miss out on that understanding.

Originally Posted by JDG 66

When the worst of Obamacare kicks in for 2016, I bet Playwrite will be right in that it will be interesting, but not in a way he'll like.

I'm still waiting for PW to add up all the Donkey's who lost their seats in congress after voting for Obamacare and compare them to the Elephants who voted against Obamacare and lost their seats.

Yea, we'll see come 2016. The biggest sigh of relief with the recent SCOTUS decision was from the 2010 crop of GOP Senators - get a clue. The House is solely a product of gerrymandering (House DEMs won the total national vote); and that will be fixed in 2021. You really should be looking at property in Greenland to get a head start on our deporting you morons.

Originally Posted by playwrite

Here's a non- amygdala-dominated article on the ACA in TN pertaining to insurance rates. It not only debunks the typical WSJ scaremongering on the ACA

-Playdude's article confirms the WSJ article's observations on prices.

Originally Posted by playwrite

... Believing that non-Mexican Hispanics are stupid enough to believe Trump and the GOP's bigotry toward brown people is limited to only those from Mexico is hilariously funny amygdala-dominated 'thinking.' .

-That's Illegals.

Originally Posted by playwrite

... Old tired retreats; all have been debunked numerous times....

-They have not been debunked. Obama lierd, or was an idiot.

You're about the only person left on this forum that still believes in this horseshit.

[QUOTE=playwrite;528628]... Real men understand the need to share the costs as well as the benefits of perpetuating a healthy human race.

-Which Obamacare will not accomplish.

As for concern for others:

Originally Posted by JDG 66

...an example of how the selfish Left likes to play games with other people's money instead of its own:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/12/who_gives_to_charity.html

...the idea that liberals give more is a myth. Of the top 25 states where people give an above-average percentage of their income, all but one (Maryland) were red -- conservative -- states...it turns out the conservatives give about 30 percent more...Conservatives are even 18 percent more likely to donate blood...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123258358706104403.html

Over the past several years, studies have consistently shown that people on the political right outperform those on the left when it comes to charity. This pattern appears to have held -- increased, even -- in 2008...

...I wonder if this has anything to do with why proggies can't control their amygdalas:

Originally Posted by JDG 66

http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a325914.pdf

(p. 61, #59)...

Originally Posted by playwrite

... Yea, we'll see come 2016...

-So. I notice that Playdude can't thing of a single R who lost his seat by voting against Obamacare.

Originally Posted by JDG 66

-Playdude's article confirms the WSJ article's observations on prices.

Obviously, you're reading comprehension hasn't yet improve.

The article notes that only initial offers have been reported, and just like they did last year, they are expected to drop significantly by the time of October's final offers. Last year, TN had the insurer with the highest proposed initial rate increase but ended up as the 2nd lowest rate increase state in the Union - most credible forecasters in this area (that excludes you and the WSJ) see the exact same scenario this year.

Why?

The state insurance regulators haven't weigh-in as yet and they have significant powers under the ACA to avoid gouging - you are too lazy/stupid to know about the medical loss ratio and other rate control measures. More importantly, the offerers have not yet had the benefit of what their competitors are offering - such as Cigna 0.4% increase.

The only question between now and October is how many posts of your stupidity about these scary rate increases are you going to post before the final numbers come out. You can bet I'll be re-posting them as great examples of amygdala-dominated sheeple thinking.

Originally Posted by playwrite

...The article notes that only initial offers have been reported, and just like they did last year, they are expected to drop significantly by the time of October's final offers...

-It's PW's reading comprehension that's off. The WSJ article did mention that, and also mentioned that this year looks to be a little different.

Anyone wanna take bets?

And I notice that Playdude still can't think of a single R who lost his seat by voting against Obamacare. How about D's that were thrown out of office or simply fled the scene after voting for Obamacare?

Originally Posted by JDG 66

And I notice that Playdude still can't think of a single R who lost his seat by voting against Obamacare. How about D's that were thrown out of office or simply fled the scene after voting for Obamacare?

You're probably right. But times change and Obamacare is more popular now. It actually got majority support in a recent poll.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

You're probably right. But times change and Obamacare is more popular now. It actually got majority support in a recent poll.

-Wait until all the little nuggets that were held off until now come into play. Shoe, dropping on floor.

Would you like to make a wager that I'm wrong, Eric?

Originally Posted by JDG 66

-Wait until all the little nuggets that were held off until now come into play. Shoe, dropping on floor.

Would you like to make a wager that I'm wrong, Eric?

Are you willing to put on the table your socialist govt's former military benefits?

Originally Posted by playwrite

Are you willing to put on the table your socialist govt's former military benefits?

-Playwrite obviously has a problem understanding what socialism is.

Originally Posted by JDG 66

-Playwrite obviously has a problem understanding what socialism is.

You want some examples of other countries a whole lot less generous in benefits for former pogues?

Originally Posted by playwrite

You want some examples of other countries a whole lot less generous in benefits for former pogues?

-Military retirees = pogues.

He'll be walking that one back...

Originally Posted by JDG 66

-Military retirees = pogues.

He'll be walking that one back...

That must be the Army's definition.

And I'm not talking about these guys -



- these guys are 'deadly!'

Originally Posted by playwrite

That must be the Army's definition.

And I'm not talking about these guys -




- these guys are 'deadly!'

-Ladies and Gents, we just saw the walk back.

Originally Posted by JDG 66

-Ladies and Gents, we just saw the walk back.

Holy crap, maybe this will help Pogue = SOTA

Now you got me wondering about that service of yours

Originally Posted by playwrite

Holy crap, maybe this will help Pogue = SOTA

Now you got me wondering about that service of yours

...still walking!

http://www.wsj.com/articles/how-sing...ise-1438382832

...as Mr. Sanders makes his case for taking the progressive agenda nationwide, it is interesting to consider how that agenda is doing in Vermont.

The answer is . . . not so well. Let’s start with the catastrophic collapse of Vermont’s promises of single-payer health care...

Commissions were created. Proposals written. Consultants hired, including Jonathan Gruber of MIT, who was famously caught on tape explaining that the passage of the Affordable Care Act depended on the “stupidity of the American voter.” The problem came down, as it always does, to money. Single payer would be a boon, Vermonters always heard, if only the state could “figure out how to pay for it.” Yes, people thought, that would be nice...

As time went by it became clear that the proposed solution would be to raise taxes...

Where the governor had once estimated such a system might cost $2 billion annually, calculations now suggested $2.59 billion, rising to $3.17 billion in five years. Paying for it would require an 11.5% payroll tax and a sliding-scale income tax with a top rate of 9.5%. Even then, the system would run in the red by 2020.

The legislature, operating in a vacuum left by the collapse of single payer, had to contend with a deficit of more than $100 million—which happens when lawmakers increase spending by 5% annually during a recession. One of its solutions was a tax on “sugary drinks,” which went into effect July 1...

Property taxes continue to rise as the state grapples with an education system that spends, per pupil, 80% more than the national average, according to one estimate. The results are not noticeably better than in similar jurisdictions...

...This is the progressive paradise from which Bernie Sanders has emerged to deliver the nation. No single payer. Regressive tax on soda pop. Insanely expensive public education. And a statewide heroin problem. Other than that, life here is good. Really.