It's a lot more fun to use their 'sister' towing company, Buck Naked!
Typical Liberal rhetoric. Conservatives don't "hate the poor." We hate anyone having to be poor. We have different solutions to those living in poverty than the liberal programs that have increased their number and made it a GENERATIONAL condition for far too many.
Compassion and altruism is a human characteristic. Liberals don't have a monopoly on it, as much as they would like to think they do.
@ Drift Boat
HaHaHa!!! I thought the same thing.
Drones?...look like sporting clays to me.
The latest. From Sunday to Monday, 29,000 signed up for health insurance on the ACA health exchange site. It seems, despite all of the gop's fearmongering, there is a surge beginning.
There are too many people lacking health insurance; they will enroll. This program will get more popular by the day and especially after the first of the year when people actually start using their new Obamacare.
This will be a negative issue for the gop as it could really backfire on them.
I remember when Real Clear Politics had Romney up and even winning on election day. When it comes to presidential polls, I only look at Nate Silvers', polls.
Yes, I am counting Colorado as blue for presidential elections only. There is a sizable amount of Hispanics in the state. Pa has a history of fooling the gop presidential candidate, they spend a lot of money there and still lose. Ohio has seen a resurgence in the amount of turnout from blacks the past 2 elections. Iowa, who cares? Christie would also probably lose NC.
Between Christie and Hilliary, Hilliary would certainly win!
I think that's what a lot of people see in Christie, someone who might be able to break through the partisan road blocks, which are clearly a problem in Washington today. Much like Romney, he's a conservative governor from a liberal state, except he has a bit more personality than Romney did.
His biggest challenge is going to be winning the Republican bid in the first place, because he's not socially conservative. If he wins the Republican nomination, he'll be able to pander to the middle quite well. The only question will be how much of the far right he loses in the process and then, will it matter?
On RealClearPolitics, the latest polls show a 5 point lead for Christie in Iowa over Clinton, only a 1 point lead for Clinton over Christie in Ohio, a 4 point lead for Christie over Clinton in Pennsylvania, a 2 point lead for Christie over Clinton in Virginia, an 8 point lead for Christie over Clinton in Colorado, and only a 2 point lead for Clinton in Florida over Christie. That's not counting New Jersey, and its 14 electoral votes that normally go blue but could turn in favor of the governor they voted in with a landslide victory.
If you took last year's election and switched Colorado, Virginia, Pennsylvania, and Iowa from blue to red, then you can take your pick of either Florida or Ohio, and it throws the election over to Christie's side. There is a long time between now and 2016, so a lot will certainly change, but the sentiment of the public isn't nearly as left leaning as you make it out to be. There is a very strong center that will have a say in the election, and if someone more moderate like Christie gets the nomination from the GOP side, there will be a lot of swing states in play.
By the way, I'm not sure where you get your 246 count from. You must be counting Colorado as a solid blue state.
The democrats are not worried about Christie. The democrats are only concerned with getting their base out to the polls. Damn the so-called platforms, it is all about math.
In a general election for president, the democrats already can reasonably claim 246 electoral votes, it only takes 270 to win. I can see Christie losing the southwest, N. C., Va, FL.
Christie has skeletons in his closet. He was vetted by Romney as his vp running mate, but, issues were present in his past, so they left him by the wayside. Also, What has Christie actually accomplished? He did a hell of a jb during the aftermath of Sandy, however, he was hugging Obama like they were long lost lovers.
Once again, I don't listen to or read Fox News sites, and I don't listen to talk radio.
I typically read CNN or CNBC to get as little partisan influence in my news as possible, and I know those sites likely have a slight left lean.
Watch the mid-terms, not so much for the GOP-Dem battles, but watch the GOP primaries to see how the Tea Party faction fares this time around. That'll tell you a lot about the direction things are going with the GOP.
If the mainstream GOP is successful in quieting the extreme, you can bet Christie will be on the ballot in 2016, and that'll spell a difficult battle for Hillary. A lot of polls already show a Christie lead over Hillary in some swing states, and in others, the margin is at best a couple points.
There you go again listening to partisan hacks. There are only a hand full of dems, all running in red states, that are distancing themselves from the ACA. The other myth has already been debunked, the sticker shock. Every one who complained of sticker shock, the news media went behind them and checked on the exchange. In 99% of the cases they found that those people complaining would be able to get insurance on the ACA exchanges for less money than they were paying. One gentleman came on fox and said, as a small businessman, he would probably have to close up because of the extra cost of Obamacare. Well, the news media checked him out and found that he only had 2 employees and was therefore exempt from the ACA.
You are the one behind on the latest news. The ACA had 1.5 million people to visit the site today with no computer crashes. There has already been 1.5 million new people added to Medicaid through the ACA in the states that had the good sense to participate. This law will be successful. Until there is enough young healthy adults signed up, the subsidies will keep the overall prices down. Remember, medicare and medicare, part D started out very shaky too. But, now the American people swear by it.
In Va., you are totally wrong. People backed away from Cuccinelli because they saw, from day one that he couldn't win. He had pissed off too many women and had zero support from minorities. Hell, he had the weakest democrat that they could find to run against and he still lost.
Grove, we are at the stage now where if the democrats come out and vote, the gop loses. When you tell those poor people who are not reliable voters that the gop is trying to take their healthcare away from them, they will go to the polls. It is almost a 100 to 1 poor the didn't have healthcare but have it now thanks to the dems than the less than 1 percent that cry sticker shock.
Grove, except in a few deep south red districts and states, the gop is underwater. The numbers are just not with them, women, minorities, etc. Without getting more of a share of these voters, the gop will lose.
Grove, the middle that you talk abut just doesn't exist anymore. This is now between the have nots, the haves and the have mores. There are more haves and have nots than the other. This is where the election will be decided.
I thought you were always up with the latest OTP.
Even the left leaning news sites have been discussing how much poliical capital the ACA has cost the Dems lately.
What happens when insurance companies don't get the number of healthy young folks they were promised this year? They'll have to raise premiums next year. There is a lot of sticker shock this year already. Who do you think people will blame next year when people have to pay even more?
The big failure of the plan was the assumption that young people, who typically don't have expendable income, would elect to spend money on insurance they likely won't need. It's essentially a tax on the young, who are already stacked with college debt with entry level salaries. The hope was that those people, with no expendable income would subsidize the poor. If it doesn't work, everyone else pays more.
Go read some articles on the shift. Polls have pushed the Dems near even with the GOP (some even showing a GOP lean) even though the GOP (led by the Tea Party) did themselves a ton of damage during the shut down. The shift over this short of a time frame has been shocking to me honestly. I thought it would take years for the GOP to rebuild political capital. It only took months, and they didn't have to do anything.
And again, you need to recognize the difference between the mainstream GOP and the Tea Party. The Virginia governor's race is a great example of the mainstream GOP throwing the Tea Party out. Many GOP groups either didn't contribute to the campaign, and some even donated to the Dem cause. If the GOP is successful on ousting much of the Tea Party influence in mid-terms, you can expect that the GOP will gain a ton of ground between 2014 and 2016, especially if things go poorly with the ACA. The big elections in 2013 all went the way the mainstream GOP wanted, including the Virginia governor race.
As I always said, you win elections with the middle, and the ACA is hurting the Dems with a lot of the middle right now. This is the political equilibrium at work, as I've always told you. The GOP is working it's way back to the middle as we speak, and if they play it right, they certainly can take a lot of power back over the ACA and a strong mid-term showing, particularly by getting moderate conservatives to win primaries.
Sure a lot of the poor benefit from ACA, but who do you think they vote for, with or without the ACA? It's the middle you have to worry about, and those are the people, young people in particular, that are harmed by the ACA. That's the big battle the Dems will fight in 2014 and 2016. The best thing the GOP can do is not rock the boat between now and mid-terms.
The democrats Have not lost any capital over Obamacare, as a matter of fact they have gained. You have to understand that the gop that have been attacking Obamacare weren't going to vote democratic anyway, but, the people that have insurance for the first time, a good portion of those people will vote democratic because they have healthcare now. Remember the name the gop stuck on the ACA, Obamacare. If anyone takes a permanent hit, it will be the president and he cannot run again. Which is worse, attacking the democrats for giving people that never had insurance before the opportunity to get it or the republicans for trying to take it away and refusing to allow the expansion of Medicaid in their states that the poor will finally have insurance? Me, I would rather be running on a platform of trying to give healthcare to all than to take it away. That tactic was tried in the Va. governors race, but, who won? Yes, and he was a personal friend of Obama. Just as I predicted, the gop lost to single white women badly and blacks and other minorities and the blacks turned out at a higher rate than in other off year elections.
Hilliary will not have to do too much to distance herself from Obama, remember, she ran against him in 2006. She also won't be bogged down with the scorn of color (she is white you know) Her citizenship nor her religion or loyalty will not be questioned either.
The gop's problem is that they are against everything and not for anything. You can't win elections by being the do nothingness congress in modern history. You can't win by just being against something, you have to articulate what you are for and with the disparity in wealth and income, it is what they are for that will hurt them. Women make up 53% of the electorate, you don't win statewide and national elections by losing them by double digit margins.
Saying that Obama promised the people that they could keep the insurance they had is overblown. The total number in the group that lost their insurance is approx. 1,5 million and only .065% will not be able to get insurance under Obamacare, better or the same policies for less money. But, say only 4 million people sign up under the ACA, say, at least 1/4 of them didn't vote in the last elections but, because they now have insurance go to the polls to keep that insurance, that would be a big pickup for the dems. That is why the gop fought it so hard.
The gop has done absolutely nothing to correct their image, the image that caused them to lose in the last two election cycles. They have made no gains with the part of the electorate that voted overwhelmingly democratic.
This is an interesting topic to me, because I have been watching the GOP struggling with this party Civil War.
If you read the articles, the business wing, or mainstream wing of the GOP is currently pushing for more moderate conservatives. They're already starting to spend heavily in trying to win GOP primaries in districts where they think they have a chance to oust the Tea Party candidate. The mid-term elections will likely see a mild shift in the Republican party as some of the Tea Partiers are removed from office, pushing Tea Party influence further to the fringe.
The big question will be what the GOP decides to do in the 2016 Presidential election though. The mid-terms will likely go by without a ton of strife between the mainstream GOP and the Tea Party. The 2016 Presidential primaries though will be the true battleground.
Given the political capital lost by the Dems over Obamacare's roll out, it's pretty clear that Christie would have a very good chance to win the White House, even against Hillary. Paul or even Rubio wouldn't stand a chance. If the GOP manages to get Christie on the ticket for 2016, it'll be a signal to the Tea Party that they aren't welcome.
The question is what happens to them. Do they become a fringe third party like the Green Party? Do they suck it up and settle for having marginal influence in the GOP? The next 3-4 years will be interesting to watch in the evolution of the GOP.
Of course the roll out of Obamacare could play a role too. If there is a failure to enroll a lot of the younger, healthier folks they hoped to enroll, the premiums will increase a good bit for 2015, and you'll have even more unrest in the public, and the Dems will bare the brunt of the blow.
It's already being said that Hillary will have to distance herself from Obama to have a good shot in 2016. If Obamacare continues on the path it looks to be headed, then it'll be similar to McCain trying to follow W. Bush in 2008.
Off Topic: Memphis State Sucks.
I know, but it makes as much sense as the rest of this drivel. Ranje, I love ya, but you can, at times, be full of shit.
Lemme see if I can pull all this together. I once caught an std (we didn't have initials back then) from a girl I knew in an AP class (brilliant and beautiful) at Central High. Had I gone to MUS or CBHS, I might not have learned a valuable lesson for another year or two.
Now I used to have an IQ way above the norm, but did I avail myself of even a gas station condom. No. Three years later I was considered qualified to vote. And so here we are today.
Lighten up Francis. I don't know who peed in your cornflakes this morning, but it wasn't me.
If you want to get technical we can. A visual inspection of your intended partner would be the first step. Of course running a culture, of the swabbed areas, before engaging in relations, is also most informative. Then we have physical barrier protection to prevent disease both for males and females.
"Spare me the bullshit, will ya."
I understand you are not in need of more bullshit, you do seem to be full of it.
As to OTP, his point is valid because courts have ruled that at large only elections for boards/councils/whatever are unfairly discriminatory, as I said not always as there are other factors.
If I offended you by suggesting you could catch a disease from your spouse, that is your problem. It is true and not unusual.
I have no problem with monogamy, but have little sympathy for the cuckold.
Wow and I thought I'd just skip over another endless schools debate and then wham! From burning issues of the day to burning discharge. Now I don't even want to know how or why this thread evolved. Can this flyer community discourse or what?
Perhaps? What? It always depends on that. There is nothing you can do about that except be choosy, which means, well, what I said in the first place.
Spare me the bullshit, will ya.
The same could be said for the "at large" voting issue. Stating that oPt has a valid point is kinda like saying L. Ron Hubbard had a good point whe he recommended the use of a dictionary. It may be "valid", but people often confuse validity with "truth". Saying some position or argument is valid has no more meaning than saying someone has all the correct parts to make a shoe.
And here's your only Christmas gift
From the CDC 2011 report
In 2011, a total of 1,412,791 cases of Chlamydia trachomatis infection were reported to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) (Table 1). This is the largest number of cases ever reported to CDC for any condition. This case count corresponds to a
rate of 457.6 cases per 100,000 population, an increase of 8.0% compared with the rate in 2010. Rates of reported chlamydial infections among women have been increasing annually since the late 1980s, when public programs for screening and treatment of women were first established to avert pelvic inflammatory disease (PID) and related complications.
The continued increase in chlamydia case reports in 2011 most likely represents a continued increase in screening for this usually asymptomatic infection, expanded use of more sensitive tests, and more complete national reporting, but it also may reflect a
true increase in morbidity.
In 2011, the overall rate of chlamydial infection in the United States among women (648.9 cases per 100,000 females) was over two and a half times the rate among men (256.9 cases per 100,000 males), reflecting the large number of women screened for this
disease (Tables 4 and 5). However, with the increased availability of urine testing, men are increasingly being tested for chlamydial infection. During 2007–2011, the chlamydia rate in men increased 36.2%, compared with a 20.2% increase in women during this period. Rates also varied among different racial and ethnic minority populations. For example, in 2011, the chlamydia rate in blacks was over seven times the rate in whites.
Did you read that last sentence? Here I'll print it again.
Rates also varied among different racial and ethnic minority populations. For example, in 2011, the chlamydia rate in blacks was over seven times the rate in whites.
Here's the rest
The prevalence of infection was greater among young economically disadvantaged women aged 16–24 years who entered the National Job Training Program (NJTP) in 2011 in 46 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. The median state-specific prevalence was 10.3% (range: 4.1% to 18.7%) (Figure K). Among men entering the program in 2011 in 48 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico, the median
state-specific chlamydia prevalence was 8.0% (range: 2.7% to 13.0%) (Figure L).
Among adolescent females aged 12–18 years entering selected juvenile corrections facilities, overall chlamydia positivity was 15.7%. Among adolescent males of the
same age entering selected juvenile corrections facilities, overall chlamydia positivity was 7.4% (Figure BB).
Check out where these epidemiologists are getting their data from!
In 2011, as in previous years, the South had the highest gonorrhea rate among the four regions of the country. (should we include a demographic map of what race lives where?) Never mind. It's in the report. In fact there's a very simplistic line graph on page 12 that shows the rates. With enough data, not only could you calculate the rate of increase (slope) that is vastly different, but you can calculate the disparity among the races in rates of incidence.
A few more little gems from the report:
In 2011, the gonorrhea rate in blacks was 17 times the rate in whites.
While rates in 2011 increased in all four regions, the rate in the South remained more than twice the rate in the West.
In 2011, the P&S syphilis rate among blacks was seven times the rate among whites
And by the way, the CDC gets its data from U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) - public health individuals!
OTP would argue with a lamp post. And lose.
By Leonard Gill
download this issue
click here to see more »