UPDATE: Health care bill clears Senate hurdle

Saturday, November 21, 2009 | 8:36 p.m. CST; updated 8:45 p.m. CST, Saturday, November 21, 2009

WASHINGTON — Invoking the memory of Edward M. Kennedy, Democrats united Saturday night to push historic health care legislation past a key Senate hurdle over the opposition of Republicans eager to inflict a punishing defeat on President Barack Obama. There was not a vote to spare.

The 60-39 vote cleared the way for a bruising, full-scale debate beginning after Thanksgiving on the legislation, which is designed to extend coverage to roughly 31 million who lack it, crack down on insurance company practices that deny or dilute benefits and curtail the growth of spending on medical care nationally.

The spectator galleries were full for the unusual Saturday night showdown, and applause broke out briefly when the vote was announced. In a measure of the significance of the moment, senators sat quietly in their seats, standing only when they were called upon to vote.

In the final minutes of a daylong session, Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., accused Republicans of trying to stifle a historic debate the nation needed.

"Imagine if, instead of debating whether to abolish slavery, instead of debating whether giving women and minorities the right to vote, those who disagreed had muted discussion and killed any vote," he said.

The Republican leader, Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, said the vote was anything but procedural — casting it as a referendum on the bill itself, which he said would raise taxes, cut Medicare and create a "massive and unsustainable debt."

For all the drama, the result of the Saturday night showdown had been sealed a few hours earlier, when two final Democratic holdouts, Sens. Mary Landrieu of Louisiana and Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas, announced they would join in clearing the way for a full debate.

"It is clear to me that doing nothing is not an option," said Landrieu, who won $100 million in the legislation to help her state pay the costs of health care for the poor.

Lincoln, who faces a tough re-election next year, said the evening vote will "mark the beginning of consideration of this bill by the U.S. Senate, not the end."

Both stressed they were not committing in advance to vote for the bill that ultimately emerges from next month's debate.

Of particular contentiousness to moderates is a provision for the government to sell insurance in competition with private companies, subject to state approval — a part of Reid's bill expected to come under significant pressure as the debate unfolds.

Even so, their announcements marked a major victory for Reid and the White House in a year-end drive to enact the most sweeping changes to the nation's health care system in a half-century or more.

At the White House, press secretary Robert Gibbs issued a statement saying the president was gratified by the vote, which he says "brings us one step closer to ending insurance company abuses, reining in spiraling health care costs, providing stability and security to those with health insurance, and extending quality health coverage to those who lack it."

The legislation would require most Americans to carry insurance and provide subsidies to those who couldn't afford it. Large companies could incur costs if they did not provide coverage to their workforce. The insurance industry would come under significant new regulation under the bill, which would first ease and then ban the practice of denying coverage on the basis of pre-existing medical conditions.

Congressional budget analysts put the legislation's cost at $979 billion over a decade and said it would reduce deficits over the same period while extending coverage to 94 percent of the eligible population.

At its core, the legislation would create insurance exchanges beginning in 2014 where individuals, most of them lower income and uninsured, would shop for coverage. The bill sets aside hundreds of billions of dollars in tax credits to help those earning up to 400 percent of poverty, $88,200 for a family of four.

The House approved its version of the bill earlier this month on a near party line vote of 220-215, and Reid has said he wants the Senate to follow suit by year's end. Timing on any final compromise was unclear.

All 58 Senate Democrats and two independents voted to advance the bill. All 39 votes in opposition were cast by Republicans. GOP Sen. George Voinovich of Ohio was the only senator not to vote. Montana Sen. Max Baucus, the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee who has labored on health care for more than a year, flew in from his home state on a government plane for the vote and was returning afterward to be with his ailing mother.

While timing made Landrieu and Lincoln the final two Democrats to announce their intentions, Sen. Paul Kirk of Massachusetts had a clear claim as the 60th vote.

Appointed to office this fall after the death of Kennedy, who championed health care issues for decades, Kirk said he spoke for those "who for so many years revered and loved and elected and re-elected (him) ... that I think they're all — they all, as we do, have him in our minds and our hearts tonight. ..."

Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., echoed those sentiments later in the evening when he referred to Kennedy's "lifelong quest" for national health care and said "tonight and in the days to come we will pay him the highest compliment by fulfilling that" goal.

At a post-vote news conference, Reid said he had telephoned Kennedy's widow, Vicki, with the news.

In hours of debate before the Saturday evening vote, a few Republicans piled copies of the 2,074-page bill on their desks while others criticized it as a government takeover of health care and worse.

"Move over, Bernie Madoff. Tip your hat to a trillion-dollar scam," said Sen. Kit Bond, R-Mo., likening the bill's supporters to the imprisoned investor who fleeced millions.

In her remarks, Landrieu said, "I've decided that there are enough significant reforms and safeguards in this bill to move forward, but much more work needs to be done." She also touted the $100 million included in the legislation to help her state cover its costs under Medicaid, the state-federal health care program for the poor.

Lincoln referred repeatedly to the political controversy surrounding the issue. She said $3.3 million has already been spent by outside groups advertising either for or against health care legislation in her state, and said, "these outside groups seem to think that this is all about my re-election. I simply think they don't know me very well."

To finance the expanded coverage, Reid proposed higher taxes as well as cuts totaling hundreds of billions of dollars in projected Medicare payments. Hardest hit would be the private insurance Medicare plans, although providers such as home health agencies would also receive significantly less in future years than now estimated.

The bill raises payroll taxes on incomes over $200,000 for individuals and $250,000 for couples. Reid eased the impact of an earlier proposal to tax high-value insurance plans, which has emerged as one of the principal methods for restraining the growth in health costs.

The bill includes tax increases on insurance companies, medical device makers, patients electing to undergo cosmetic surgery and drugmakers.


Like what you see here? Become a member.

Show Me the Errors (What's this?)

Report corrections or additions here. Leave comments below here.

You must be logged in to participate in the Show Me the Errors contest.


Ray Shapiro November 21, 2009 | 10:28 p.m.

("Forced health insurance on shaky legal ground:
“No law shall be passed that restricts a person’s freedom of choice of private health care systems or private plans of any type. No law shall interfere with a person’s or entity’s right to pay directly for lawful medical services, nor shall any law impose a penalty or fine, of any type, for choosing to obtain or decline health care coverage or for participation in any particular health care system or plan.”)
source and more:

(Report Comment)
Charles Dudley Jr November 22, 2009 | 3:29 a.m.

The one problem is that our nation as a whole does not take care of itself very well. It feeds itself on the huge variety of fast food drive through "troughs" (yes troughs as in eating like hogs to a trough) and quick in and out eating places that are not the healthiest of diets. We all do it willingly or unwillingly knowing and not caring.

Now when all of this irresponsibility is allowed to continually go on and the states themselves and the citizens too take no measure to regulate such establishments when they are afraid of upsetting free trade and big money then we have what we do now.

Each state's Medicaid program on overload,Medicare on overload and both in danger of a total meltdown.

Society itself breeds and creates what it wants the most. Insanity or a seemingly controlled version there of.

If the states looked after their citizens better my guess is that the Federal side of Government would not step in at all but then we go back to the states actually working to help educate their citizens in these issues. We can also go as far back as the failure of the "Traditional Family Unit" which I think Mr Shapiro might agree with.

There is a "Root Source" to all of our issues we face today if you research back far enough in history.

IMHO the Feds are only stepping into this mess as a stop gap type of measure due to the lack of responsibility the states have chosen to make as their decisions,the lack of private and free market to actually regulate itself and the lack of a serious mentality by citizens themselves to be able to properly take care of themselves as a whole.

This is all over money,greed,self centeredness and all brought to you by the "Good Ole American Way Mentality" of I am going to do what I want to do whether it be with my body or with my life and the rest of the world can go get bent.

Welcome to the future folks of the Home of the Brave,The Free and The Hopelessness of a "Society Gone Rogue" on itself.

(Report Comment)
Ray Shapiro November 22, 2009 | 1:23 p.m.

("At the White House, press secretary Robert Gibbs issued a statement saying the president was gratified by the vote, which he says "brings us one step closer to ending insurance company abuses, reining in spiraling health care costs, providing stability and security to those with health insurance, and extending quality health coverage to those who lack it.")
1. I have never considered insurance companies abusive.
They are actuarial driven sellers of financial instruments.
If there is wide spread breaches of contracts taking place, consumer action watchdog groups or class action lawsuits would have been resolving this in courtrooms all ready.
2. The spiraling health care costs "they" mention may be a result of their poorly administered/managed government programs. To seek to infuse government financially inefficient run programs with more monies from corporate and taxpayer sources is in itself a bad business decision and politically unwieldy.
3. If there's concern about non-government health care costs, politicians could very well offer some partnering with the private sector as opposed to over regulation, mandates, take-overs and excessive taxation.
Increasing bureaucratic government payroll will not make for a leaner, more efficient government machine. It fails to address or resolve any real/core public problems or issues.
Meaningful opportunities are being missed due to an obsessive lefty progressive agenda of "nanny state" takeover, interference and control.
Improving the current tiered infrastructure of our current health care providing systems would be a better way to move us towards this goal. I do not see this administration focusing on this more "American" approach to achieving "security and stability." We are being conned, so to speak.
4. Access to health care currently exists in America via several options.
The nice sounding "extending quality health coverage to those who lack it," will always be a carrot dangling from a string on the stick "they" hold, a dream and a ploy to make others jealous of those who can afford the most and best available.
Politicians use this "dream" to create conflict between the "haves" and those who consider themselves "have nots" through jealousy and resentment.
In the end, they just want your votes.

(Report Comment)
Charles Dudley Jr November 22, 2009 | 1:52 p.m.

>>> 1. I have never considered insurance companies abusive. <<<

When the average middle class working household cannot afford health insurance for their entire family after all of the bills are paid each month,food enough for all in the freezer,frig and cupboards there is a major problem that does need to be addressed and that is what this Health Care Bill is all about.

If Big Money Corporations were not so concerned with these Golden Parachute schemes,larger than life profit margins and they actually cared about anything besides their own pocket books we would not be at this moment in time now.

All of this has sprung up over greed by the Big Money Corporations in their lusts for more and all the while giving you the average consumer the finger in your face.

Obama is not responsible for all of this as the brain washing Hannity,Savage,Limbaugh and Beck drones would have you believe nor how can he be as this has been a serious underlying issue in this country since clear back in the 1970's.

(Report Comment)
Ray Shapiro November 22, 2009 | 9:18 p.m.

("If you are upset with the new task force findings and want to ensure that we are able to celebrate more birthdays, join the group "Obama is Not My Doctor!!!" I'm sorry, I understand that we need healthcare reform, but he should not be telling women not to get preventative screening that has been PROVEN to help save lives!")
source and more:

Dear Ray:
Right now, Sarah Palin is on a highly publicized, nationwide book tour, attacking President Obama and his plan for health reform at every turn.

It's dangerous. Remember, this is the person who coined the term "Death Panels" -- and opened the flood gates for months of false attacks by special interests and partisan extremists.

Whatever lie comes next will be widely covered by the media, then constantly echoed by right-wing attack groups and others who are trying to defeat reform.

As we approach the final sprint on health reform, we can't afford more deception and delay. We need to be ready for anything -- and have the resources to respond with ads, events, and calls to Congress when the attacks come.

So we're setting a big goal: $500,000 in the next week to help push back against Sarah Palin and her allies.

Mitch Stewart
Organizing for America

-Acknowledging how politics work, and in an attempt to "separate the wheat from the chaff," I'd sooner believe the American Cancer Society before trusting a government task force under the auspices of HHS and sooner cull the sentiments of an extreme righty like Sarah Palin before trusting an Obamadrone like Mitch Stewart.
(But maybe that's just me.)

(Report Comment)
Charles Dudley Jr November 23, 2009 | 4:30 a.m.

What is funny there Ray is that Sarah Palin is no better still than Limbaugh,Hannity,Beck or Savage for that matter and the only real difference is she wears a skirt.

And I still find it amusing people still call it ObamaCare when these bills are started in the House then go to the Senate then to Obama to sign. So how can it really be ObamaCare when this issue was going on clear back in the 1970's long before Obama came even into any part of the political scene of recognition.

Shouldn't this really be called something more fitting like "Private Sector,Big Money,Bigger Corporation's Greed screwed our Health Care Industry and the citizens of this entire Nation so the Feds now have to clean up their mess care"?

Ya that's more like it now.

How in heck can anybody in truth put the all of the blame on Obama when he is not the base root of this Health Care Issue to begin with?

Unless that is you are only looking for a scape goat to escape the realness of reality. Oh now we get onto shaky ground here don't we? Dare we go there Ray and if we do will that just upset people's little boat they float in.

(Report Comment)
Ray Shapiro November 23, 2009 | 12:07 p.m.

("the Progressive Change Campaign Committee:
"Any Democratic senators -- including Joe Lieberman -- who support a Republican attempt to block a vote on health care reform should be stripped of their leadership titles. Americans deserve a clean up-or-down vote on health care reform that includes a public option.")

So like the shenanigans being played here is that Obamaphytes advocate that Democrats be shunned for following their own professional expertise, wisdom and fiscal conservatism and just passively rubber stamp any "bad bill" instead of trying to do that which is prudent?
(Remember, Lieberman was Al Gore's VP man.)
No wonder Joe became an Independent.
These Dems choose to discount, discourage and refuse to tolerate moderate ideas from their own party members.
Might as well change their name to the new Progressive Party and get rid of all those pesky blue dogs and independent critical thinkers.
Steam roll over them all.
Damn the torpedoes...full speed ahead!

(Report Comment)
Charles Dudley Jr November 23, 2009 | 1:40 p.m.

Zeik Heil Michael Savage wannabee.

(Report Comment)
Ray Shapiro November 23, 2009 | 3:32 p.m.

A Brief Biography of Michael Savage
"...he is a national leader who works across Party lines to find common ground, who speaks his conscience, and who gets things done for Connecticut and the country.")
Senator Lieberman
Who's this Zeik person Chuck Dudley, Jr. is apparently extending a Nazi salute to?

(Report Comment)
Charles Dudley Jr November 23, 2009 | 4:32 p.m.

ray most of your commentary as of late comes across just like Michael Savage.

Which cannot be a bad thing at times as on some views I myself agree with him but when I hear his voice in every one of your rambling post I see here I tend to wonder when the Black Triangular Aircraft are going to start floating over your area of town.

It is just an observation and nothing more. Carry on.

(Report Comment)
John Schultz November 23, 2009 | 6:58 p.m.

"Zeik Heil"? OK...

(Report Comment)
Ali Tharmar November 23, 2009 | 7:19 p.m.


Stop attacking people personally. This comment about Ray

"I hear his voice in every one of your rambling post I see here I tend to wonder when the Black Triangular Aircraft are going to start floating over your area of town" is completely uncalled for and sounds half incoherent as well.

Frankly, a lot of people think you're a fruit loop and don't come to these forums because they don't need "the business," if you know what I mean.

I mean, who do you think you are, anyway? You've gotten so high-handed and so demeaning, it gets really old reading you after a while!

If you want to attack someone, attack their ideas, not their person.

Honestly, you're living in a glass house if you're attacking Ray like this.

Sorry -- I'm just fed up and finally decided to speak out.

(Report Comment)
Charles Dudley Jr November 23, 2009 | 8:56 p.m.

Ali Tharmar it is called freedom of speech,freedom of expression and being able to post your view points.

Thank you for posting your's and I will take them under suggestion.

The point is I was just expressing my opinion of how ray has been coming across as of late with the continual Obama-Attackathon Mentality and it so much reminds me of those Radical Right Wing Nut Cases like Hannity,Beck, Oreily, Limbaugh and yes Savage too with his postings sounding more like the ramblings of Savage every day.

It is an observation and nothing more or are you mad because I do not think they way you think I should to suit your own self centeredness?

(Report Comment)
Charles Dudley Jr November 23, 2009 | 9:03 p.m.

Ali Tharmar one added note: Before you go off on here talking whatever it is about me why don't you meet me in person for lunch some time.

I'll be having lunch with a group of friends next month at one of the fine dining places around Columbia. We really have a great time.

The time and place will be posted openly on my own community forum board under Community Chat/The Lunch Room. Come and join us and get to know me. :)

(Report Comment)
Ray Shapiro November 23, 2009 | 10:01 p.m.

("It is clear to me that doing nothing is not an option," said Landrieu, who won $100 million in the legislation to help her state pay the costs of health care for the poor.")
How did Ms. Landrieu win this $100 million?
Was there some kind of publishers clearinghouse sweepstakes going on in the legislature that the average American taxpayer didn't know about?

("ABC News' Jonathan Karl reports:

What does it take to get a wavering senator to vote for health care reform?

Here’s a case study....")

(Report Comment)
Ali Tharmar November 23, 2009 | 10:05 p.m.

The Hitler reference wasn't cool either. Based on his name alone, I'd assume Ray is Jewish, or at least has Jewish members in his family. Do you know how utterly insensitive that was? What are you thinking? Think first, engage typing hand second. How about that?

Did you know that Michael Savage is Jewish? Yeah, how about that? Combining a Hitler reference with Michael Savage is about as inane a thing anyone could do.

Freedom of speech is one thing, but you post with Ray nearly every day. Is he your friend, or someone you feel it's okay to abuse and demean because you know him so well?

You abuse your friends under the guise of free speech? That's not what free speech is about.

You've stooped to a new low here, Chuck. Get over yourself and stop preaching to the rest of us about how to behave.

(Report Comment)
Ray Shapiro November 24, 2009 | 12:20 a.m.

@Ali Tharmar:
Thank you.
-Ray Shapiro

(Report Comment)
Charles Dudley Jr November 24, 2009 | 5:17 a.m.

Ali Tharmar yes I know Ray Shapiro quite well in fact and until all of this Health Care issue came up and we began to look at things from different view points all was peachy and keen.

Yes I know Ray and Michael are Jewish but the comment was not meant in any form of maliciousness as you portray here but as a lil jib at the style of posting or radio commentary as it comes across. Both tend to get overtly too excited at the ends of their long diatribes and end their commentaries with off the wall ramblings. Hitler did the same thing if you have ever watched old film footage.

History can teach you alot if you pay attention to the messages.

Also when it comes to the Obama Bashing crowd when they post up here or anywhere for that matter practically crying and trying to put the total blame on Obama for all of their worries and issues that he inherited from many many Presidents and Congresses before him I kind of think that is real pathetic by nature and it does remind me of Hitler killing off the Jews only in this case it is the Jews doing a total character assassination against one person.

Then again the Jews killed many messengers of many various messages over the centuries haven't they?

You can sit up here crying about my style of posting all you like and that is your right to do so but it is also my right to be able to express openly observations I see. You have those same rights too. Isn't that a good thing. :)

What I find quite funny is now you are trying to tell me how to behave by your last sentence on your post which you chide me over too. Too funny.

FYI I take alot more trash talking and back stabbing in real life than you will ever see here on any blog,forum or online news outlet ever.

It is always a give and take situation. You choose what you will take and for how long before you give some back.

Have a great day even with the rain moving in.

(Report Comment)
John Schultz November 24, 2009 | 9:49 a.m.

Obama didn't "inherit" any problems from Bush, he actively sought out the mantle of president. If he didn't know what he was getting into, or if the pressure is too much, tough noogies. And way to bring up the Hitler references again, how long will it be until you realize I have the same surname as the famous sergeant from Hogan's Heroes and trash me accordingly?

(Report Comment)
Jake Sherlock November 24, 2009 | 12:20 p.m.

Before this comment thread goes any further, I think a reminder is in order about our comments policy:

"Comments containing personal attacks; profanity; nudity; attacks on race, creed, or religion; or illegal material are prohibited."

Chuck, your comments toward Ray and his religion have absolutely NOTHING to do with this report. These "lil jabs" (your words) are personal attacks levied because you don't like his posting style (your rationale). You're willingly violating the comment policy, and if you continue to do so, you will face a permanent ban from this Web site.

(Report Comment)
Ayn Rand November 24, 2009 | 12:23 p.m.

While a senator, which of these problems did Obama seek to remedy by sponsoring or supporting (i.e., voting for) legislation?

(Report Comment)
Charles Dudley Jr November 24, 2009 | 12:51 p.m.

@ Jake Sherlock will all those who continually belittle my posts,style and views be given the same permanent ban too? Just asking. After all one man's religion is only a view point isn't it? Just as one man's view points are not Religion either.

@ John Schultz every President knowingly inherits the problems of the last one before him. The thing is what can be done to stop this madness in the future due to it seems the two parties will never ever work together for a more level headed solution to anything ever. In fact what can be done too in limiting Congress from having members in those offices until they finally die off?

In reality the two party system is shot to hell in a hand basket.

@ Ayn Rand since you like to ask questions here is one back to you. Which Senator has not ever done wrong in any kind of a vote ever that somebody down the line has not picked,pointed out or been targeted for character assassination over? I am not dodging your question but asking you the same question in another form. The answer is the same for both questions.

@ The present Health Care Issue we are dealing with now.

Instead of all of these Savage,Hannity,Beck and Limbaugh wannabe's crying up or protesting up here daily why don't you toodle on down to Jeff City and get with those who can make the differences you want on a daily basis lobbying yourself into happiness. As somebody once told me: since you have all of this time to post here why not go do something productive with your time.

Can some of you take your own advise you put forth?

I mean really would any of you in the group above have what it takes to stand toe to toe with our President and tell him how you really feel or any Congressman for that matter. I highly doubt you would or could so I guess this is the absolute best you can do on this issue huh?

It is obvious when these stories are presented by the Missourian Staff we will always have these kinds of threads going on. The question is what good does it really do anybody to post views here when all we do is sit behind our computers and play comment tag. We all must lead pretty droll lives don't we.

(Report Comment)
Ayn Rand November 24, 2009 | 1:03 p.m.

Chuck, you're missing the point. If Obama has believed for years that health care needed to be reformed, then he should have started trying to reform it while a senator. If he believed that the wars were a waste of money and lives, then he should have voted against more funding and troops while a senator. If he believed that schools are underfunded, he should have started to try to remedy that while a senator. If he believed that the housing and mortgage industries were on an unsustainable path, he should have started to try to remedy that while a senator.

Those are just four examples. During the campaign, one common criticism of Obama was that not only did he accomplish little as a senator, he also made little effort to accomplish anything.

It's like a parent who spends years enabling a child who's a drug addict and then starts complaining when the situation gets so out-of-hand that it no longer can be excused or ignored. Real leaders don't wait to lead.

(Report Comment)
Ray Shapiro November 24, 2009 | 3:53 p.m.

("...the Jews doing a total character assassination against one person.")
Please be so kind enough to disclose where "the Jews" are doing a "total" character assassination.
Or would you prefer to clarify that anti-Sematic allegation?

(Report Comment)
Kansas Wiley Stafford November 24, 2009 | 4:43 p.m.

"and it does remind me of Hitler killing off the Jews only in this case it is the Jews doing a total character assassination against one person.

Then again the Jews killed many messengers of many various messages over the centuries haven't they?"

Holy cats! What the hell kind of person says stuff like this?

(Report Comment)
Charles Dudley Jr November 24, 2009 | 4:57 p.m.

@ Kansas Wiley Stafford the type of person who still believes in telling things as they are with no candy coating. It is a long lost traditional value in and amongst our nation due to the overtly persuasion of Political Correctness.

@ Ayn Rand I am sure if not almost positive he was busy cleaning up the mess the guy before him left just like he is now. Be real.

@ ray shapiro It is not a Anti Semantic by far but it is the reality of the world we live in today. If you cannot deal with reality as it is today what are you really going to do when this entire mess gets worse due to both political parties do not want top work with each other.

No more good can come out of this thread besides the constant bickering back and forth now.

I'm done so you can argue amongst yourselves. If you wish to continue the arguments you wish to go on with you know where my forum is. All of us have put the Missourian through enough.

(Report Comment)
Ray Shapiro November 24, 2009 | 5:27 p.m.

No Chuck.
Look in the mirror and say these words out loud.
"I, Chuck Dudley Jr. have put the Missourian, and any 'so called' friends through enough."
Have fun on "your" forum.

(Report Comment)
Charles Dudley Jr November 24, 2009 | 6:37 p.m.

ray shapiro don't play coy here acting like you have not done your share too in all of this.

You want to argue bring it to my email box or to my forum.

(Report Comment)
Ray Shapiro November 24, 2009 | 7:01 p.m.

Coy regarding what?
I have nothing to argue about. Hence, don't expect any argument to come your way via your email box or any of your personal forums.
I will however comment on articles and issues published in the Missourian and have an obligation to respond to personal attacks when they are directed at me on this venue. (Especially when those personal attacks come from an ex-friend.)

(Report Comment)
Keith Novinski November 25, 2009 | 2:40 a.m.

I think you're being a little hard on Chuck. After all, he just got done telling you that what he wrote wasn't, in his words, "a Anti Semantic". Then again, maybe you're right because all of his posts can be charitably described as Anti Sematic. Also, for what it's worth, I've never thought you were especially coquettish.

(Report Comment)
Charles Dudley Jr November 25, 2009 | 3:43 a.m.

As I said if you want to argue bring it to my email inbox or my forum. That goes for you too Keith.

(Report Comment)
Ray Shapiro November 25, 2009 | 10:30 a.m.

@Keith Novinski:
You win a free Thanksgiving Day dinner at Nephews!
When it comes to semantic pragmatic language disorder, being anti semitic or anti sematic, how can one expect to do the charitable thing and constantly turn the other cheek when one discovers that you've run out of cheeks?

Although I respect and acknowledge our Thanksgiving, Ramadan, the approach of Christmas, Chanukah and Kwanzaa, sometimes I too find solace using the dictionary as my bible.

Kudos to you.
Be well.

(Report Comment)
Keith Novinski November 25, 2009 | 5:45 p.m.
This comment has been removed.
Keith Novinski November 25, 2009 | 11:04 p.m.

@Ray Shapiro
"Ali Thamar it is called freedom of speech, freedom of expression and being able to post your viewpoints."

"You can sit up here crying about my style of posting all you like and that is your right to do so but it is also my right to express openly observations that I see. You have those same rights too."

"if you want to argue bring it to my email inbox or my forum. That goes for you too Keith."

Has our self-described and self-appointed free speech advocate just announced that he's had enough of our free speech and that he wants us to do our arguing in private? How does that work? Does he only value free speech when we say something that pleases him and coversely dislike it when we use it to point out a flaw in his argument or the way he expresses it? I'm confused, but I guess that's to be expected, as I suffer from a developmental disability, as you know. Likewise, that's why I misspelled "semantic" in my last post--I wrote "sematic" when I meant to say "semantic". In any case, I'm sorry too that I used the word "coquettish". I wouldn't want any of our readers to think we were talking about that game where you use a wooden mallet to knock a wooden ball through metal hoops that you stck in the ground. In a similar vein, I'll try not to use the word "linguistic", lest someone thinks it's a sport that involves a balance beam or a dish that's served at The Pasta Factory. Have a Happy Thanksgiving and may you always find solace in your dictionary. Be well and prosper.

(Report Comment)
Keith Novinski November 27, 2009 | 10:26 p.m.
This comment has been removed.
Charles Dudley Jr November 28, 2009 | 4:25 a.m.
This comment has been removed.
Keith Novinski November 28, 2009 | 4:53 a.m.
This comment has been removed.
Charles Dudley Jr November 28, 2009 | 8:54 a.m.
This comment has been removed.

Leave a comment

Speak up and join the conversation! Make sure to follow the guidelines outlined below and register with our site. You must be logged in to comment. (Our full comment policy is here.)

  • Don't use obscene, profane or vulgar language.
  • Don't use language that makes personal attacks on fellow commenters or discriminates based on race, religion, gender or ethnicity.
  • Use your real first and last name when registering on the website. It will be published with every comment. (Read why we ask for that here.)
  • Don’t solicit or promote businesses.

We are not able to monitor every comment that comes through. If you see something objectionable, please click the "Report comment" link.

You must be logged in to comment.

Forget your password?

Don't have an account? Register here.