birdog1960

look, i am anti abortion. i would have no problem doing sonograms in this instance but i respect the right of colleagues to not do them for the same reason i want my colleagues to respect my refusal to prescribe the morning after pill, for example. and patients should have the right to choose a doctor whose beliefs coincide with theirs. your wife's sonograms were done for the purpose of ensuring a healthy birth, right? surely, you can see the difference in this situation?

except that the supreme court and thus the govt officially disagrees with you. a supreme court decision might be nuanced in process but not in application.

it's not hypocritical, if you believe that government intervention can be a good thing. that's the starting point for many progressives.

if you don't see a conflict between less government and legislating anti abortion activities by doctors then you are either willfully or inherently ignorant. it doesn't require taking a side on this actual issue to see this obvious point.

less government anyone?

like so many other issues, conservatives just don't see the obvious hypocrisy here or choose to ignore it as evidenced by the number of replies to your thread.

not so much a victory for the status quo as a defeat for the bad guys. this doesn't change the math, just takes privatization of medicare off the table.

bull ...this election is more meaningful than the bill ever was. that wasn't a serious piece of legislation. everyone knew it couldn't make it through the senate. it was posturing without consequence (except the negative repug political consequence seen yesterday). this election has consequences and may be foreshadowing much bigger change.

it is similar in the sense that bottom tier companies within an industry will often offer better benefits than competitors to lure top talent. a good organization understands the need for good people at all levels. similarly, top tier companies offer employees perks to retain talent and remain top tier. the bills...not so much.

politico sees it as a bit more significant event than you.

i think this was gingrich's tack on that wing nut show "meet the press"....didn't work out so well for him. and didn't we already have a starting point? it was passed into law about a year ago.

did you see the debate between the 2 (davis no showed) aired on cspan? 90% of it related to the ryan budget and medicare. these were/are the deciding issues.

we learned from the masters...

the story IS the 47%...in kemp's old district. spin it however you want, Ryan's medicare plan is a huge loser

if the shoe fits...glad i live far from dallas and have never seen its appeal

this...dems learned all they needed to know about scare tactics from the repugs and the healthcare reform bill. live by the sword, die by the sword. this boils down to insurance companies deciding rationing versus govt panels deciding it. rationing itself is a forgone conclusion. even the clueless conservatives in the 26th must know this and they chose gov't.

now, even more than before, there will be a dearth of top candidates for any future coaching vacancies with the bills...and who can blame them? they should be doing MORE than other teams. this is incredibly short sighted.

his dentures were carved from wood

in the sense that tax breaks are usually bought and paid for, yes they are the same. bp probably missed a payoff. the US companies appear to be paid up, at least as far as the senate is concerned.

interesting that you bring up russia. are they wiser than us in this matter? and YOU might want to do the math for big oils' roi in regards to republican senators.

the math works out pretty well for the oil companies... you assume that the increase in the cost of drilling wells will make them unprofitable. if it's such a trivial sum, how could this be? you also assume that because these are american companies, they have the best interest of americans as a goal. really?

and even an accountant understands the time value of money. with huge sums, that time value becomes quite large and will be even larger if inflation remains high. in the case of the govt, having the money in hand sooner also decreases borrowing costs (all discretionary govt spending is currently borrowed). some country clubs accept new members for refundable deposits of $50000 or so. why do they do this? because they can invest all the deposits and if they're reasonably lucky, make 5% or more per year on them (that and it serves to keep the "riff raff" out). in this case, the oil companies = the country clubs and the individual taxpayers = the members. one gains the time value of money at the expense of the other.

no. there is significant value to the oil companies in this little accounting question. it amounts to billions of dollars and is unique to the oil industry (as pointed out from the "small" investors perspective in the investopedia article. if it was only worth a trivial sum, would you expect to see the ceo's of the big 5 testifying before congress over this and then call in the markers on their republican stooges?

maybe we're not as clueless as you assume. " There are several tax breaks available for oil and gas investors that are found nowhere else in the tax code". the defeated bill would not have touched small investors (who actually need very big bucks to play in a partnership). it was directly aimed at the big 5. here's the paint by number version

"fyou" will suffice....and if you're disabled secondary to your vision, then i sincerely apologize