Unlike GWB (who couldn't explain his way out of a paper bag), Obama WANTS to field questions from the frothing idiots. It's a big reason he's holding the town meeting right now.

He'll first ask what part of the healthcare reform bill supports their assertion. When the questioner can't answer that simple question (because he has no fucking clue), Obama will ask where he got the idea and explain that he HAS read the bill and there is nothing there to support his allegation. Obama will then explain that people need to independently confirm what is in healthcare reform bill and that there are countless analyses and links to the bill's actual text to find their answers.

It's time for these idiots to defend themselves on the merits. They know they can't, because every one that's been challenged has declined.

Is not good enough. It has to be eliminated entirely. I'm extremely skeptical and disappointed with any concessions made to Big Pharma. They offer a finite savings, but the concessions seem indefinite. Thats a losing proposition.

In poker parlance, I consider this a raise. Obama will lay his cards down in conference committee, and basically tell the blue dogs: "ok, now that we're in conference, we're going to go mostly with the House bill. You can either be part of a successful bill that catapults the party or be THE REASON for it's failure. If you're the latter, don't worry about the republicans, cuz you aren't making it out of the primaries next election. And until then, your life will be a FUCKING HELL (Rahm may deliver that last part)"

Using the link provided by Wolfmason, I clicked the link that discusses how life expectancy is calculated:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_expectancy#Calculating_life_expectancies

Nowhere did I find ANY discussion stating that acts of social violence were considered a variable impacting life expectancy values. The closest term I found was war, but that cannot be equated with intra-societal acts such as homicide.

She clearly pulled all of these "facts" out of her fat ass. I know Jon really did his homework (as he usually does when he sets out to nail someone), but what I want to see is this woman facing a real professional who can immediately disprove this bullshit and expose her as the lying SoS she is.

Jon nailed her with logic, but she was still able to make these assertions relatively unchallenged. Unfortunately, getting these people to appear opposite real experts is impossible (because they know they're full of shit), but I think the gauntlet needs to be laid down.

I want to see more challenges from HCR supporters. These people should be challenged to debate the issues on the merits.

Even if you accept the "jujitsu" interpretation of Obama's actions (i.e., he's holding out until the bill gets into conference and then will hammer out a progressive bill at the last minute before the Medical Industrial Complex can mount an effective counter-campaign), progressives must unite and aggressively demand a public option, if only to provide the rationale for such a change. Less optomistic scenarios make an aggressive progressive movement even more crucial.

It's time to march on Washington. I'de say sometime in late September/early October to allow enough time to organize but before it gets too cold. I'de buy a plane ticket in a nanosecond.

But it's got to be huge. MLK civil rights march huge.

I'm still waiting for an announcement to March on DC for the public option. I'de buy a airline ticket in a heartbeat.

First of all, there was no question about the call whatsoever. She clearly foot faulted. This ain't F'ing horseshoes. I don't really understand why she has to stand right on the baseline anyway. It isn't like she's charging the net 50%+ on each serve. At least McEnroe was a true serve-and-volley player (but I don't excuse his past conduct either).

Second, I hate this BS concerning "Well, it was late in the match and that made it questionable." Bull F'ing shit. NOT making a call like that late in a match is what destroys the game.

I've NEVER heard of a player making physical threats against linesperson or umpire. That is WAY over the line.

I appreciate Serena William's talent and her contributions to the sport, but letting that conduct slide is setting a REALLY bad precedent.

My take: she was losing the match and she knew it. Clijsters was just too much for her that day. That knowledge and yet another mistake on her part made her lose control. But there should be serious consequences for that kind of lapse in judgment.

I'll say it again: progressive organizations need to form a coalition, set a target date and push for a huge rally to push for the public option. With a month's notice, people could start making travel arrangements now. I'de buy an airline ticket in a heartbeat.

A huge turnout in DC would completely reverse the rightward tack this issue has been taking for months.

"When the actors approached Ms. Kaelke with their provocative costuming and outlandish scenario, she could not take them seriously. So she met their outrageousness with her own personal style of outrageousness. She matched their false scenario with her own false scenarios.

'They were not believable,' said Ms. Kaelke of the two actors. 'Somewhat entertaining, but they weren't even good actors. I didn't know what to make of them. They were clearly playing with me. I decided to shock them as much as they were shocking me. Like Stephen Colbert does – saying the most outrageous things with a straightface.' While her sense of humor might not be funny to many people, the fact is that she spun false scenario afterfalse scenario and the videographer ate them up."

That has to go down as the worst decision of all time. Stupid beyond belief.