BREAKING: Bush Vetoes Children’s Health Insurance
BREAKING: Bush Vetoes Children’s Health Insurance
President Bush’s veto of an SCHIP expansion was only the fourth veto of his presidency. AP reports that the White House “sought as little attention as possible, with the president wielding his veto behind closed doors without any fanfare or news coverage.” House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD) said that they have not yet scheduled a date for an override vote, but it could be “next week” or “the week after.”
UPDATE: Families USA has released a “Bush v. kids” SCHIP ad. Take a look:
UPDATE II: The House has scheduled its SCHIP veto override vote for Oct. 17.
UPDATE III: Medical organizations are condemning Bush’s veto:
“Today’s veto of the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) will have a serious negative impact on low-income children and their families across this nation.” [Jay Berkelhamer, President of the American Academy of Pediatrics]
”The number of uninsured kids has increased by nearly 1 million over the past year, and action must be taken to reverse this trend. The AMA strongly urges members of Congress from both political parties to stand on the side of America’s parents and children by voting to override the veto.” [Edward Langston, Chair of the American Medical Association's board of trustees]
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
294 Responses to “BREAKING: Bush Vetoes Children’s Health Insurance”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
He's VERY compassionate.
If you make more than $800,000 a year...
October 3rd, 2007 at 10:12 amthey are so far removed from the real world, it's scary.
BUT, he sure looks like a guy I'd have a beer with.
stupid americans.
October 3rd, 2007 at 10:12 amI want my country back!
Caring for America's chldren is not a GOP value. And you thought it was tough being a Republican in 2006 . . .
October 3rd, 2007 at 10:13 amThis is the bill I like to see the Congress 'override'..
October 3rd, 2007 at 10:14 amWhen sick children's needs are less important than a corporate war, America sorely needs to re-examine it's priorities.
What have we become?
Where are we going?
We have just one way out of this, and the clock is ticking. We've gone from global leader to world wide joke, all in the name of freedom.
How many freedoms will you lose today? How many tax dollars will be wasted on an illegal invasion instead of needy children?
C'mon, America! We're better than this.
October 3rd, 2007 at 10:15 amIt's time for Congress to stand up to this wannabe dictator. If they don't do it for the health of children, what will they do it for?
I'm hopeful, but I'm not holding my breath.
October 3rd, 2007 at 10:16 amWHAT BUSH????NOT ENOUGH MONEY LEFT TO KILL OUR TROOPS IF YOU SIGN SCHIP?!?!!?WHITE TRASH MOTHERF*CKER!!!
October 3rd, 2007 at 10:16 amI WONDER IF HE DID THAT LITTLE SELF SERVING SHIT LAUGH HE DOES AFTER HE TOOK AWAY HEALTH CARE-REPEAT TOOK AWAY HEALTH CARE FOR A MILLION,REPEAT MILLION,REPEAT MOTHERF*CKIN MILION CHILDREN. THANK YOU ASSH*LE.
how is this breaking? we already knew he hated American kids.
October 3rd, 2007 at 10:19 amMust be part of his No Child's Behind Left program?
October 3rd, 2007 at 10:19 am#11, its the no child left alive policy.
October 3rd, 2007 at 10:19 amIf there was any better way to alienate every single mother in America, I can't think of it.
October 3rd, 2007 at 10:20 amThe sign of a true misanthrope is his disdain and hatred for fellow man. Anyone who hates children is even lower on the evolution scale than that.
October 3rd, 2007 at 10:21 amSick kids are a drain on corporate profit margins. End of story.
October 3rd, 2007 at 10:21 amSince spineless Bush and his group of GOP Psycho-Phants intend to keep this below the radar, I should think that the Dems would shout it from the rafters. Internet blogs should keep this fact alive in the minds of american voters.
October 3rd, 2007 at 10:22 amBush's New Campaign: 'KIDS DON'T MATTER".
October 3rd, 2007 at 10:23 amIt's clear that Bush's version of "fatherhood" is "sink or swim" and, as evidenced by his two psycho-twins, they will sink before they learn to swim. Any real father would have the qualities and capability for compassion for those less fortunate; obviously, he was only a sperm donor for Laura.
October 3rd, 2007 at 10:25 amIt will not surprise me that some pundits will defend this whether on television or in other media outlets,and on TP here.
But people should be ready to confront these heartless people.
We spend billions and billions of dollars daily on many very questionable governmental spending programs and wars,but issues of children's health must not and should not be questioned.
Those who voted in the Congress to stop funding for children should be stopped from being called Congress members as a result.
When it comes to children's welfare...partisan voting and politics should be put aside...
October 3rd, 2007 at 10:26 amYet this monster spends $500,000 per minute on Iraq and can't find money for our children?
October 3rd, 2007 at 10:26 amThis POS and those that spawned him are all about robbing this country.
October 3rd, 2007 at 10:26 amThat's how they rate their 'success'.
tarazan: This is going to be a real trick to spin by the reichwingnuts. The only ones willing to attempt it will be the ones who have nothing left to lose.
October 3rd, 2007 at 10:26 amThis veto should bring ALL parents out in the streets!
October 3rd, 2007 at 10:27 amBushco:
"Healthy children are bad for drug companies and the health care industry"
October 3rd, 2007 at 10:28 am#23, it should, but wont.
October 3rd, 2007 at 10:28 amOne would think that Chimpy and his disciples in Congress would want to keep those po' kids alive at least long enough to send them off to be cannon fodder.
October 3rd, 2007 at 10:29 amdaryll, i think you've thanked him enough.... is that hair gel?
October 3rd, 2007 at 10:30 amI predict that within the next year, Shrub is going to have some big presser to announce a new initiative with children all around and the backdrop prominently saying "Putting Children First".
I'm going to hate to be right on this, but it certainly fits his M.O. Most likely, the "initiative" will be something good for children like providing exercise by returning them to the coal mines.
October 3rd, 2007 at 10:31 amWhat story will the MSM splash across the front page so they can conveniently "forget" to mention this development, or at least relegate it to the back page? A new development in the O.J. Simpson saga? Britney's latest fiasco?
Any truth to the rumor that they are advertising for another runaway bride?
If all else fails, they can just cut and paste a couple of headlines from the supermarket tabloids.
October 3rd, 2007 at 10:33 am"Suffering for the little children", I guess, is OK with Daryll as long as Bush says so.
October 3rd, 2007 at 10:34 amBush continues to work towards complete destruction of the GOP.
October 3rd, 2007 at 10:35 amAre you so shallow to believe Bush would veto this because he doesn't care about children?
Of course many of you don't care about the truth. Your only agenda is to divide this country and destroy the people who don't agree with you and especially destroy Bush. get over it and think about the country for a change. (I aim that observation towards the individuals that think it's cute to post their foul language and participate in character assassination instead of responding to issues that need intellectual discussions and not immature babble!)
Obviously, there are some other issues at hand here. I'd like to know what's in the rest of the bill. Also, is this bill going to further lead to a government take over of the health care system?
Even though you don't like Bush, there has to be a serious reason why he vetoed it. There are probably a good many in congress who voted for this bill just because it would look bad to be voting against the "children's health care" bill. Maybe they are the ones with no cajones?!?!?!?!?! That's the way bills work. Politicians put something in a bill that can't possibly be voted against while also filling the bill with garbage that normally wouldn't survive.
All that aside, I don't have ANY interest in the government running my health care, whether I can afford it or not! No health care is BETTER than government run health care!
October 3rd, 2007 at 10:36 amDid you see that lamebrain Dana Perino yesterday saying to the effect of "why should people in my home state of Wyoming have to pay for the high cost of health insurance in other states"? Good question, Dana, considering Wyoming is one of the biggest leech states in the country. Why should our high East Coast taxes have to pay for your roads and bridges? Can't you collect enough revenue in your own state to do that? Oh that's right--this is all ONE country and we're supposed to pull together for the common good.
October 3rd, 2007 at 10:36 am"President Bush is fiscally responsible for maintaining our economy."
Comment by Daryll
Ah ha, ah ha ha, a ha ha ha, ah ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha...
October 3rd, 2007 at 10:38 amI feel sorry to state this: most of us here are time wasters, including myself. All we do is scream, spit and "then"? Nothing happens. These guys enjoy ignoring us.
Whats happening is - The present age is when "all neocon" must become a kind of god anywhere. Enrich at all cost regardless of how dirty and ugly the scheme is. With the war going on....most of the nations treasury are been looted by a very small cabal who are in main control of just these line" Media, Health, Politics *I am talking real power welders like the snakes in AIPAC, not the flakes and phoney quack politicians like H'lary passing recommended bills by sponosors* Oil and Energy.
Its a waste of time just making these "LOW NOISES"....we need a voice. Join an anti-war group or something besides just this.
Take ACTION!
PS: Lets not Bash Edwards or Obama anymore. They are both playing the game evasively. They are not going to rule their town except with the support of the Jewish Lobby. They need to play the idiot for them if they are going to get any of their support. They also needs our support too.
October 3rd, 2007 at 10:38 amWhere's Tom Ridge when the GOP needs him most? Good ole Tom would be raising the "terror alert" to Red and announcing either a major Al Quida opperortive was killed ( for the third time) or there's a lot of "chatter" and to get the duct tape ready,,
October 3rd, 2007 at 10:39 amBush To Children: DROP DEAD
October 3rd, 2007 at 10:40 amZimzone, are you watching the stock market? We our on the verge of a recession. President Bush is fiscally responsible for maintaining our economy. The President is not against the bill, he is against the expansion of the bill because of provisions listed in the bill that are completely insane.
Comment by Daryll — October 3, 2007 @ 10:32 am
What? Huh? We're constantly hearing from the "conservative" cheering section that the economy has never been stronger and that Bush's tax cuts are responsible. Now you're telling us that we're near a recession! I'm really confused!
Which is it, Daryll?
October 3rd, 2007 at 10:41 amAll that aside, I don’t have ANY interest in the government running my health care, whether I can afford it or not! No health care is BETTER than government run health care!
Comment by MaverickCoast — October 3, 2007 @ 10:36 am
Sure it is. That would be why ever other industrial nation in the world provides national health care. Because it's such a bad idea.
What a goofball.
October 3rd, 2007 at 10:42 amContinue to laugh. You know that I am telling the truth. Socialized medicine is bad for our economy.
Comment by Daryll — October 3, 2007 @ 10:41 am
It's bad for the economy of the drug companies and the health insurance companies. Otherwise, not so much, in spite of your firm declaration. It's odd, isn't it, that the rest of the developed world has "socialized medicine"? Why are you so afraid of it?
And what's this I hear about a recession, Daryll!?
October 3rd, 2007 at 10:43 amDana Purina = contaminated meat.
She's from Wyoming? That explains a lot. Did Cheney dig her up?
Dana, tell us, how many lies can one tell before getting sick & fed up with it? 1,000? 1,000,000? 500,000 / minute?
October 3rd, 2007 at 10:44 amWhen we gave a 60 BILLION dollar arms package to the Middle East (including 20 BILIION to Saudi) no one on the right batted an eye. But when we want to fund children's health care, suddenly we have to watch our spending.
October 3rd, 2007 at 10:45 amSick kids are a drain on corporate profit margins. End of story.
Comment by Zimzone — October 3, 2007 @ 10:21 am
It's the healthy kids that hurt profits; where would Big Pharma be if we took a collective interest in making kids well??
October 3rd, 2007 at 10:45 amContinue to laugh. You know that I am telling the truth. Socialized medicine is bad for our economy.
Comment by Daryll
What you are telling is AN OPINION. Plus this opinion is based upon your prediction of what would happen to the economy if there is "socialized" medicine. Of course this would be building on the grand tradition of amazingly clairvoyant predictions.
This only proves my belief that the rightwing and corporations choose profits over people's lives every time.
October 3rd, 2007 at 10:46 amFirst of all - children can't vote so they don't count
Second - Daryl the tax to pay for this bill comes from cigarettes at SIXTY CENTS a pack. So how does that hurt "all" Americans ? Bush is taking care of the tobacco lobbyists.
Third - We ALL benefit from roads, police and fire service, EMT's, schools, libraries EVEN THOSE WHO COULD AFFORD THEIR OWN.
That is what society is about banding together for the good of all.
Why are conservatives so mean spirited and selfish ?
October 3rd, 2007 at 10:47 amSocialized medicine is bad for our economy.
Comment by Daryll — October 3, 2007 @ 10:41 am
#
Yeah, sure, just look at what it's done to the Euro. BTW, were yopu upset when he gave 20 BILLION dollars in arms (funded by US taxpayers of course) to Saudi Arabia?
October 3rd, 2007 at 10:47 amLet's fund S-CHIP like we are funding the Iraq occupation - patriotically, unquestioningly, and with borrowed money that our children will have to pay back. At least with S-CHIP the children who benefit will also pay.
\sarc off
October 3rd, 2007 at 10:47 am18% of GDP goes toward healthcare. More than double what other industrialized nations spend. It's unsustainable, and universal health care coverage is inevitable.
October 3rd, 2007 at 10:47 amRe: Comment #30
Darryl (or is it your other brother Darryl?) --
Looks like you'd better have a talk with the following Republican senators (I would argue that Lieberman qualifies, as he has been bought by the Repukes), and set them straight. They were all part of the 69-30 majority that passed the legislation that Chimpy just vetoed.
Alexander (R-TN)
Bond (R-MO)
Coleman (R-MN)
Collins (R-ME)
Corker (R-TN)
Domenici (R-NM)
Grassley (R-IA)
Hatch (R-UT)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Lieberman (ID-CT)
Lugar (R-IN)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Roberts (R-KS)
Smith (R-OR)
Snowe (R-ME)
Specter (R-PA)
Stevens (R-AK)
Sununu (R-NH)
Warner (R-VA)
While you're at it, you can send a note of thanks to the following senators who agree with you...
Allard (R-CO)
October 3rd, 2007 at 10:48 amBarrasso (R-WY)
Bennett (R-UT)
Brownback (R-KS)
Bunning (R-KY)
Burr (R-NC)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Coburn (R-OK)
Cochran (R-MS)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Craig (R-ID)
Crapo (R-ID)
DeMint (R-SC)
Dole (R-NC)
Ensign (R-NV)
Enzi (R-WY)
Graham (R-SC)
Gregg (R-NH)
Hagel (R-NE)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Isakson (R-GA)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Lott (R-MS)
Martinez (R-FL)
McConnell (R-KY)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Thune (R-SD)
Vitter (R-LA)
Voinovich (R-OH)
You must be referring to second and third world countries.
Comment by Daryll — October 3, 2007 @ 10:47 am
#
Like France, Great Britain, Australia...
October 3rd, 2007 at 10:48 amYou must be referring to second and third world countries.
Comment by Daryll — October 3, 2007 @ 10:47 am
You mean Western Europe? Wake up, Daryll.
October 3rd, 2007 at 10:49 amI bet the coward mimicked some kid pleading for cancer treatment, "Please don't let me die." The he smirked and signed the bill and praised Jesus for the guidance.
This is Chimpf*cks perfect veto. Instead of spending money to save kids here he can spend the money to kill and maim Iraqi kids. Two evil acts with one stroke.
Speaking of strokes, can I ask Jesus to give Bush one for Christmas? Just a little one, where the drool leaks out of one side of his mouth. Please Jesus, I have never asked you for anything. Please grant me this tiny wish.
October 3rd, 2007 at 10:49 am"Continue to laugh. You know that I am telling the truth. Socialized medicine is bad for our economy."
Comment by Daryll
You haven't posted a truth since you got on here, Daryll.
October 3rd, 2007 at 10:49 amAnd after all this time, I still can't determine whethere you a very successful parody troll, or that you really are simply so stupid as to believe the fairy tales you post.
Congratulations!
Daryll, the "christian" shows his "christian compassion" by supporting Bush in sentencing poor children to death.
October 3rd, 2007 at 10:50 amOctober 3rd, 2007 at 10:50 am
Continue to laugh. You know that I am telling the truth. Socialized medicine is bad for our economy.
Comment by Daryll — October 3, 2007 @ 10:41 am
Proof? Have we had fully socialized medicine in this country? Are countries with it suffering economically? I'm pretty damned sure that every citizen in a country with socialized medicine pays less money than Americans. Many pay LESS for a HIGHER STANDARD of care.
Regardless, sometimes it isn't about the money. Socialized medicine will provide health care to every single American that needs it. Sometimes, the Market can be harmful. Such as with medical insurance, where the Market dictates that the Corporation should try its best not to pay for medical care. Total Capitalism doesn't work. Total Socialism doesn't work. A combination DOES work. Well, at that. Stop trying to privatize everything, and acknowledge that others do NOT want to socialize everything.
October 3rd, 2007 at 10:50 amDaryll sez:
But...but...I thought the economy was supposed to be booming! 14,000 stock market and all that, right? Isn't that what all those tax cuts to the wealthy were supposed to fix?
Better recheck your talking points list, Daryll.
October 3rd, 2007 at 10:50 amIf the bill was signed by the President, your taxes would have significantly increased. STOP COMPLAINING!!!!
Comment by Daryll — October 3, 2007 @ 10:48 am
We don't mind paying taxes when it goes to a useful, intelligent cause, Daryll. We mind paying taxes when it goes to prop up corporations and wage war.
We don't mind, because investing in the health of our children is ultimately intelligent and life-affirming (you know, God?). A healthy workforce is an effective, productive workforce.
October 3rd, 2007 at 10:50 amMaverickCoast-
My take on this is that Bush's "serious reason" for vetoing the bill was so that he could try to at least appear to be fiscally responsible by pointing the finger at "those tax and spend Democrats". It's ALL politics and nothing to do with the children to Bush. If you haven't noticed, the Reps have been outspoken in their attempts to not allow ANY Democrat sponsored Bill to pass NO MATTER WHAT. Hense your Dear Leaders "serious reason". Cost? You've got to be kidding! This President and his lackies for six years in the House have done nothing but piss away more money than any time in history! If there were provisions that he didn't like, he could try to work in a bi-partisan manner to achieve the passage of this bill. But that would take a touch of give and take which THIS President hasn't and won't ever do. All you Reps know how to do is take! There are so many reasons why your party is circling the crapper and STILL you hard righters can't see that your clinging to a turd!
October 3rd, 2007 at 10:52 amGreat job Bush! Way to show that by expanding the money coverage that people need to stop turning to government to solve all their problems.
It is funny, the help the poor gov't, will increase taxes on cigs which are heavily used by the lower middle class and poor to pay for their children to live to smoke, too, in order to pay their own bills.
The "common good" is always expanding government. $50 billion! Which we know will increase 10 fold by the time all the "particulars" are worked out.
Where is it coming from...close other inept government programs? I think not. Government never closes programs that don't work. They just expand them for the "common good".
That is what is truly killing the middle class. Not rich corporations or BIG OIL. It is government. Social program gov't.
Good job Bush. Now let's reform the medical system away from government and then you will see the prices go down. The more government provides to healthcare or education, don't you realize the prices go up. And then they throw more money at it and the prices go up. And the prices go up. And the services PROGRESSIVELY get worse.
Politicians just want to get their hands on the worker's money...Give me a chance to get my hands on some of that Medicare Advantage money, and I'll be there in a shot," Rockefeller said.
So don't think it is just a rich thing because it is not and I am far from rich but I get tired of seeing my two job paycheck dwindled down for programs that have been proven over and over not to work.
That is for both sides of the aisle.
The proverbial staplier that costs thousands of dollars. PLEASE!
October 3rd, 2007 at 10:52 amOn the one hand SCHIP should be passed and the GOP votes are needed to override the Bush veto. On the other hand, if the GOP members of the senate again back Bush we will have total domination by Democrats in 2008, which will lead to a much needed cleansing of Bush, Cheney, the GOP and the neocons.
October 3rd, 2007 at 10:53 am#65 but it is both a dem and rep bill.
October 3rd, 2007 at 10:53 amThat has to be the worse persuasive comment that I have ever heard. Your comment basically implies that you want America to become a communist state. Also, why should we tax tobacco. Why not increase your taxes.
Comment by Daryll — October 3, 2007 @ 10:53 am
Daryll, wake up! Look at the rest of the world: Australia, Western Europe, Canada. . . do they look like Communists to you? No, they have vibrant successful economies, and they all have universal health care.
We tax tobacco because people like you refuse to allow taxes to be raised on anything else! "sin taxes" are the only option left, because "conservatives" have shifted the tax burden on lower- and middle-class workers from corporations and the wealthy. We wouldn't require taxing tobacco (nice of you to look out for the tobacco companies, Daryll) if we could get back to a progressive tax structure.
October 3rd, 2007 at 10:58 amAnd while you are at it Jesus, please have Daryll stick his finger in a light socket and realign those crazy currents in his frontal lobe. Something has gone terribly wrong inside that head.
October 3rd, 2007 at 10:59 amI'd like to hear that reason. Bush didn't give a reason, did he?
Something only a person with health coverage could say.
October 3rd, 2007 at 10:59 amJesus was essentially a communist, Daryll, if you care, seeing as you seem to have abandoned your pulpit , in favor of the soapbox....
October 3rd, 2007 at 10:59 amAt least CNN reported it, despite Bush attempting to keep publicity down to an absolute minimum. I wonder if Fox also reported it?
October 3rd, 2007 at 11:00 am#51 Chris L
October 3rd, 2007 at 11:00 amSaudi Arabia did not get 20 billion dollars worth of weapons ( funded by US taxpayer) from USA.
They purchased them, a big difference !
Bush wants to let the children die here so they won't have to die in Iraq/Iran. That's compassionate conservatism for you!
October 3rd, 2007 at 11:00 amUltimately, it is not my responsibility to provide healthcare for single families, and parents who made the decision not to apply themselves for the greater good of humanity. It is a shame that we currently have too many families on our welfare system (mostly minorities).
Comment by Daryll — October 3, 2007 @ 10:58 am
Actually, Daryll, most of the families in the welfare system are white. What do you make of that?
And it is a shame that so many people are living in poverty, even those people who work two or three jobs to support their families. I agree, it's a terrible shame. Who do you think is to blame? Maybe it's the companies that have shipped the living-wage jobs overseas. Or the corporate fat cats who have driven our industrial base into the ground through sheer incompetence.
I'm sorry to hear that a "Christian" doesn't feel any responsibility for the health of children. I think Jesus would have a lot to say to someone who claimed to follow him and turned his back on children.
October 3rd, 2007 at 11:01 amNo health care is BETTER than government run health care!
Comment by MaverickCoast — October 3, 2007 @ 10:36 am
Funny, but I don't hear anyone saying that about Medicare.
October 3rd, 2007 at 11:04 am#69 and added sixty one cents increase. I did not say all Americans. I was saying lower middle class and poor who consume a higher per capita amount of cigs then any other group.
I never said, "no taxes!" I was referring to the ever increasing tax liablilty but on the American worker for countless social programs that have proven to fail year in and year out but government does not cut said programs they keep throwing more money at it by increase the wager earners tax liability.
If a company is making and selling a product that no one is buying do they continue to make and attempt to sell it?
And how I am being mean spirited and selfish? How about I contribute my free time to coaching sports to underpriveleged children. I also give to St. Judes.
Programs that have proven to work and help children. Unlike countless government programs such as Medicare and Medicaid that are failing more and more and the prescription medical programs. Or the education system in the entire country comparable to international competitors.
All government does is throw more money at the problem and most of it gets losts or used improperly. How about radical change? Try something new.
October 3rd, 2007 at 11:04 amContinue to laugh. You know that I am telling the truth. Socialized medicine is bad for our economy.
Comment by Daryll — October 3, 2007 @ 10:41 am
The prescription drug plan for seniors that is now part of Medicare was great for the pharmaceutical companies.
October 3rd, 2007 at 11:05 amUltimately, it is not my responsibility to provide healthcare for single families, and parents who made the decision not to apply themselves for the greater good of humanity. It is a shame that we currently have too many families on our welfare system (mostly minorities).
Gotta love that compassionate conservatism
October 3rd, 2007 at 11:05 amI aim that observation towards the individuals that think it’s cute to post their foul language and participate in character assassination instead of responding to issues that need intellectual discussions and not immature babble!)
ASSHAT
October 3rd, 2007 at 11:07 amIt is a shame that we currently have too many families on our welfare system (mostly minorities).
Comment by Daryll — October 3, 2007 @ 10:58 am
Can you provide some evidence that welfare families are mostly minorities? I was under the impression that there are more white families on welfare than non-whites.
October 3rd, 2007 at 11:08 amJesus said that, “In order to eat, you must workâ€.
Comment by Daryll — October 3, 2007 @ 11:03 am
Of course, Jesus also fed the 5000, healed the poor blind beggar who couldn't work to eat, and performed nearly all of his miracles in the form of restoring physical health. How communist/socialist of him!?
October 3rd, 2007 at 11:11 amDaryll believes in the supply side Jesus.
October 3rd, 2007 at 11:12 amJesus also said, "What you do to the least among you, you do to me"
No place in Daryll's cult for such a twisted belief.
October 3rd, 2007 at 11:13 amDaryll,
When Cheney and his family goes to the hospital...who pays? The same with all politicians in Washington D.C.
Of course this is not called social medicine by them and you, as long as they benefit.
All of them millionairs....
If our nation can pay for millionairs health bill, why can't our nation pay for a poor child bill? !!
October 3rd, 2007 at 11:15 amesus said that, “In order to eat, you must workâ€.
Comment by Daryll — October 3, 2007 @ 11:03 am
You don't think middle class Americans are working and contributing to society?
October 3rd, 2007 at 11:16 am#80 Go to Canada and how about most military hospitals in this country and see how great they are compared to the private sector.
GEEZ, most military doctors refer people to the private sector for better care.
Go to Britain. Go to France. They are trying to overall their failing healthcare system. They have opened private care in some places in Britain even though it is against the law because the government cannot afford to take care of their own citizens.
The expansion of the SCHIP was a dems attempt to have people who can afford healthcare to cancel their medical healthcare to go under the government healthcare. Why?
If you can afford it, pay for it. Why should anyone else have to pay for something you can afford? Sounds like socialism to me. So much for a free America.
The SCHIP program already covers children who are at the poverty level. Why expand it to those who can afford it?
So government can slant it so that it makes conservatives look bad and get more socialist every day.
Can anyone say a HUGO CHAVEZ state? Once they have control over your mind with government schools and then your body with social healthcare...next will be your soul.
Why give government so much control? Why would anyone want to have that much control of a group of people? Why would anyone allow government to have such control? Why does everyone think that America is great because of its government? Isn't it great because of its great independent spirit of the people? Why so much comformality?
WHY?
October 3rd, 2007 at 11:18 amComment by ANeccessaryEvil — October 3, 2007 @ 11:04 am
My goodness! You are full of accusations this morning without any kind of supporting evidence. I just need some clarification from you on a few things:
1) When you say "countless social programs that have proven to fail year in and year out but government does not cut said programs they keep throwing more money at it", which programs are you talking about? And what kind of proof of failure are you talking about? Yes, it's true that anti-poverty programs haven't eradicated poverty, but that's not a reason to kill the programs. Any more than you would do away with your police department because they have failed to wipe out crime completely.
2) When you say "countless government programs such as Medicare and Medicaid that are failing more and more and the prescription medical programs", how do you see Medicare and Medicaid failing? Medicare is one of the more successful government programs in that they provide needed health care to a significant segment of our population efficiently and with low overhead (FAR lower than private for-profit providers). I tend to agree with the prescription programs (I assume you are talking about Medicare Part D). That's a convoluted program intended to appease private companies more than help the elderly. It should be a single-payer system.
3) When you say, "All government does is throw more money at the problem and most of it gets losts or used improperly.", do you have some specifics on this, or are you just repeating a tired right-wing talking point? This accusation of government waste has been repeated so often without any substance that people now believe it without question.
October 3rd, 2007 at 11:19 am#86 Jesus also helped those who helped themselves and did not sloth.
October 3rd, 2007 at 11:19 amWell, when I am driving I see just as many Lincoln Navigators and Hummers with cigarette smokers as those waiting for a bus. Where is the proof that lower income are the smokers ? Again, long term illness are smoking related. I love it when conservatives pretend to give a damn about anyone else. Give me a break.
And yes, cigarettes have NO USEFUL PURPOSE tax them.
October 3rd, 2007 at 11:22 amIt looks like these right wing fundie pukes are channeling Marie Antionette.
It's so easy and simple in their mind. If your kids get sick and you have money for insurance, take care of them. If you don't have money, just pray to Jesus, if he wants your kid to get over the meningitis he will make it happen. If he doesn't, you can watch your kid die in your arms.
F*ck em, let em eat cake.
October 3rd, 2007 at 11:26 amCan anyone say a HUGO CHAVEZ state? Once they have control over (sic)
Comment by ANeccessaryEvil — October 3, 2007 @ 11:18 am
Add Karma Recommend (0) | Report Abuse
Wingnut alert. One payer healthcare does not give them control over your body, or your soul. Sorry you need to turn of Rush, and Fox for a few weeks clear your head. A one payer system, would allow for lower healthcare costs, and a healthier population.
Those of us who are insured pay thousands extra every to cover the catastrophic illness for uninsured. Read up a bit on it. It is amazing how sick you people are.
October 3rd, 2007 at 11:29 amThe every expanding federal government.
Get upset about wiretapping but go ahead and have control over my body.
Let me text message and talk on the phone without anyone easing dropping but tell me when I can go to the doctor or cannot go or if I can get a second opinion or not.
October 3rd, 2007 at 11:30 am#97 the one payer should be you and not the federal government. Read and learn more you left wing give up my liberty because I am too lazy to take care of myself.
October 3rd, 2007 at 11:31 amIf this all sounds vaguely familiar, it should. As I wrote last month ("S-CHIP on Bush's Shoulder"), the unfolding saga over children's health insurance is a repeat of then-Governor George W. Bush's performance in Texas. There, Bush first opposed the S-CHIP program and then tried to limit its scope with restrictive income eligibility requirements. Facing certain defeat over the popular program, Governor Bush ultimately caved to public pressure. Of course, he then took credit for it.
Of course, this time Bush isn't running for anything.
For the details, see:
October 3rd, 2007 at 11:31 am"Bush Repeats His Texas War on Children's Health Insurance."
Fiscally responsible???? Really?? Bush signed the National Defense Act which gives the federal government the right to take money for to reduce the national deficit. And where, you say, is that money the feds are taking coming from, the answer CHILD SUPPORT payments.
Yes, that's right, not only does Bush veto SCHIP he also is dunning custodial parents that receive over $500 a year in child support. So it is conceivable that a single parent raising a child in this country has now lost insurance AND has reduced support payments.
How is this fiscally responsible?? How has ANYTHING Bush done fiscally responsible?
October 3rd, 2007 at 11:31 amThanks for that link Krazny....
October 3rd, 2007 at 11:32 amDaryll seems to have been raptured.
We could only hope!
And Jesus did all that without one single government edict forcing him to it, and without having to steal from the rich to give to the poor.
Comment by O. Bigfoot
Ouch! You really took the hot air from the Liberals on that one!
October 3rd, 2007 at 11:33 am#93 according to my Sunday school class Jesus also said to share his shoes, his garments with those who needed them.
National healthcare is fisically and politically sound for every country, prevent illness, people can continue to earn and pay taxes that keep a country sound. People bankrupted because of an illness end up on welfare, because conservatives can't take them out and drown them. So Mr. & Mrs. conservative pay now or pay forever.
October 3rd, 2007 at 11:33 amIt looks like campaign 08 should frame up like:
Republicans
vs
Our Children.
October 3rd, 2007 at 11:35 amWe pay for government interference. We pay for those who are able to pay for insurance but choose not to.
Yeah, there are a those that truly cannot pay but there are more that rather have that Hummer and smoke that pack of cigs instead of taking care of themselves and getting healthcare.
The more doctors have to fill out paperwork to send to gov't year in and year out take up about 30% of your bills if not more.
If you paid cash and the doctor took only cash for non-surgery procedures healthcare would be lower. Simple economics.
The more government forces itself in healthcare the higher the prices have gotten. In leaps and bounds.
October 3rd, 2007 at 11:35 am"Go to Canada and how about most military hospitals in this country and see how great they are compared to the private sector. "
Ask any Canadian if they'd swap their medical benefits to participate in the U.S. system. The answer is always: No.
October 3rd, 2007 at 11:36 amAnd Jesus did all that without one single government edict forcing him to it, and without having to steal from the rich to give to the poor.
And so if the Republicans would just START acting like Jesus, all this shit would figure itself out.
October 3rd, 2007 at 11:36 amBUSH VETOES SCHIP
October 3rd, 2007 at 11:37 amI just had to LAUGH at this……
Bush has BORROWED more money than ALL the previous presidents put together…….
“fiscally responsibleâ€, that just cracks me up……..
Comment by RemoveBush
You're right. Bush and the Republicans have been fiscally irresponsible!
Unfortunately, it would be worse with Democrats in total control!
October 3rd, 2007 at 11:37 amThe more doctors have to fill out paperwork to send to gov’t year in and year out take up about 30% of your bills if not more.
October 3rd, 2007 at 11:37 amCitation on this bs statistic, please.
#107 Just another B.S. slant by the left...you should be free to choose and not have government tell me where I should have to go...
HMO....GREAT?!
October 3rd, 2007 at 11:37 am"And Jesus did all that without one single government edict forcing him to it, and without having to steal from the rich to give to the poor."
If not for a government edict, Jesus might have been born in a seaside condo, with a silver spoon in his mouth.
His daddy was on his way back home to be registered for tax purposes.
October 3rd, 2007 at 11:38 amMaverickCoast sez:
Prove it.
October 3rd, 2007 at 11:39 amDoes anyone really give a rat's ass about what some mythological creature did or didn't say? How does the Bearded Wonder's supposed opinion have anything to do with the subject?
Bush chooses to kill Iraqi kids and also chooses to kill our kids. Is that the right thing to do or not? Let's leave unicorns and Jesus out of the argument.
October 3rd, 2007 at 11:39 am#114 this is from 2005 but a recent article had it higher
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/11/11/BUGM8FM8I11.DTL
October 3rd, 2007 at 11:39 am#118 there is no killing of children chosen by anyone but those that believe gov't is the answer...is gov't your Bearded WONDER!?
Socialism at its worse!
October 3rd, 2007 at 11:41 amDoctors already spend 20 hrs a week in paperwork...how much more time away from the patient?
October 3rd, 2007 at 11:42 amThe sad little president has to hide behind close doors to veto legislation that benefits poor children.
What a pathetic, coward.
The GOP will get their very public fanfare in 2008.
October 3rd, 2007 at 11:43 amOnce again, libs scream "victim" ....
Dems tried to expand insurance targeted for poor children to cover adults and children of families making $80,000 per year, and Bush vetoed that expansion. Reps simply want to insure all needy children first.
Hill'reh's most recent approach to health care is the best place to start - mandating insurance for everyone, and subsidizing those who can't afford it through government / business assistance. Within that system, the government can offer their own insurance policies (as long as money taken in is kept away from the general budget) in competition with private insurance companies - Dems win if/when all Americans choose the government's policy.
October 3rd, 2007 at 11:44 amAnother item in a long litany of actions that indicate how shameful and uncaring the citizens of the United States have become. How do we explaing to our children the murder of 10's of thousands of Iraqi's and the neglect of 10's of thousands of our own children?
October 3rd, 2007 at 11:45 amhere is more sites to check with more government paperwork overhead
http://home.austin.rr.com/austintxmd/Pages/overhead.html
October 3rd, 2007 at 11:46 am#124 site where Reps put everything on American Express Card.
what about the lefts rich cronies? Soros and most of Hollywood....
October 3rd, 2007 at 11:47 amUnfortunately, it would be worse with Democrats in total control!
Comment by MaverickCoast — October 3, 2007 @ 11:37 am
Yeah those Clinton years of balanced budgets were just much worst. Yeah right..... That's why you Cons hated him so much
**Psst.... did someone lace this idiot's koolaide with LSD?
October 3rd, 2007 at 11:50 amRe: Comment by texaslady — October 3, 2007 @ 10:47 am
That has to be the worse persuasive comment that I have ever heard. Your comment basically implies that you want America to become a communist state. Also, why should we tax tobacco. Why not increase your taxes.
Comment by Daryll — October 3, 2007 @ 10:53 am
Actually, texaslady's argument is one of the best on this thread. conservatives love to make logic, illogical (your quip about a 'communist state'). Why should we tax tobacco? Why not, are you a smoker?
October 3rd, 2007 at 11:50 amWhy does the Presi666dent hate poor children?
October 3rd, 2007 at 11:51 am#126 proof that they are just too lazy to take care of themselves are really on gov't to hold their hand to cross the street. Just keep enabling people till they are too fat to care and will vote for anyone that will give it to them for "FREE"
What happened to working hard and doing it yourself and then when those things don't work go to your local community for help?
And lastly, you ask the gov't for assistance. Not the other way around.
October 3rd, 2007 at 11:51 amNo child in this country is turned away from health care.
Comment by O. Bigfoot — October 3, 2007 @ 11:47 am
Liar.
October 3rd, 2007 at 11:51 amCultist: "And Jesus did all that without one single government edict forcing him to it, and without having to steal from the rich to give to the poor."
Wow. Using Jesus to justify NOT giving aid to people in need. That's a good one. Here's some more of Jesus:
For when I was hungry, you gave me food; when thirsty, you gave me drink; when I was a stranger, you took me into your home, when naked you clothed me; when I was ill you came to my help, when in prison you visited me. Â Â Â Â Â (Matthew 25: 35-37)
And how about Jesus' tacit agreement with the idea of progressive taxation:
“For everyone to whom much is given, of him shall much be required.†— Luke 12:48
October 3rd, 2007 at 11:52 amYou’re right. Bush and the Republicans have been fiscally irresponsible!
Unfortunately, it would be worse with Democrats in total control!
Comment by MaverickCoast — October 3, 2007 @ 11:37 am
How do you figure that? The Democrats HAVE been in total control in the past, and their spending never came anywhere NEAR what the Republicans are doing with the national budget now.
October 3rd, 2007 at 11:53 amPatriot Acting -
Read 113
Have you heard what the Democrat candidates want to give away if they are elected? It would make the GOP's spending spree look like nothing! And I'm still waiting for a Democrat to take responsibility for anything they do wrong.
Example: Trent Lott had to step down as Rep. Senate leader for a comment he DIDN'T even make. The Democrats thought that his comment had a meaning behind it that was offensive! (What the h*ll?) Durbin insults the troops DIRECTLY witjh a comment he makes but DOESN'T step down. Without a question, if you're familiar with these two episodes, Durbin's comment was far more damning than that of Lott's. Matter of fact, Lott shouldn't have had to step down! What about William Jefferson who's freezer was filled with money??? He's still serving. DEMOCRATS DON'T HAVE ANY HONOR OR DIGNITY, LET ALONE TAKE ANY RESPONSIBILITY FOR WHAT THEY DO.
I say it's time to regain control of this government. Spending is out of control and so are the politicians. The right has been fiscally bankrupt and the Left have had a lack of character and respect for others INCLUDING THE PRESIDENT!
Solution: Kick out any politician that has made a career of it and stop the character assassination and destructive politics being perpetrated by MoveOn and Media Matters!
You have to admit, the Democrats have taken politics to a new low every day....and it's because of MoveOn and Media Matters! It's also time to revisit the STUPID McCain/Feingold campaign bill.
That was a mistake!
October 3rd, 2007 at 11:55 amRet. Col. Jack Ripper,
Quotes from Christ are lost on the conserv666ative Christ666ians. They just use him as political fodder.
October 3rd, 2007 at 11:56 am#131 SCHIP program as it was orginally helped poor children. The proposed bill wants to expand to those who already have healthcare because the government wants them to drop their healthcare and become more dependent on gov't. And once someone becomes dependent on someone on something they become enabled. What happens ten years from now? Expand it further. Which weakens healthcare...look at Canada and Europe.
Check out the movie "Dead Meat"
October 3rd, 2007 at 11:56 amCons hate Clinton, because he was successful.
October 3rd, 2007 at 11:56 amChoices have consequences and the deciderer is responsible for the consequences. If I choose to drive drunk and kill some family, I am responsible for their deaths, que no?
Bush chooses war in Iraq, Iraqi kids die. Their blood is on his soft little hands.
Bush vetos S-CHIP legislation. There will be some kids who die as a direct consequence. Their blood is on his hands, but not his conscience.
You Bush defenders will cover the little coward's actions regardless of the consequences and it astounds me. How is it ok to spend a trilion dollars killing Muslims and making the world more dangerous, all for a mad man's ego, but not ok to spend money on insurance for kids?
F*cking wierd logic.
October 3rd, 2007 at 11:57 amLittlefoot sez:
Recognize these words, Littlefoot?
(emphasis mine):
October 3rd, 2007 at 11:57 am
Wrong again my friend. Jesus said that, “In order to eat, you must workâ€.
Comment by Daryll — October 3, 2007 @ 11:03
1. I am not your friend. I am not friends with stonehearted hypocrites.
2. How dare you quote Jesus to defend your stone hearted hypocrisy. You are one of the lowest scumbags it has been my displeasure to see post here.
It is a wonder you can sleep at night.
October 3rd, 2007 at 11:57 amMaverickCoast,
Hey retard, spending has been out of control for six years while the republic666ans have controlled every branch of government. F'n putz!
October 3rd, 2007 at 11:58 amLittlefoot sez:
Keep shouting the lie all you like...but it's not any closer to truth now than when you started.
October 3rd, 2007 at 11:58 amNope. Entirely truthful and correct.
Comment by O. Bigfoot — October 3, 2007 @ 11:57 am
Prove it with links to your sources, credible links.
October 3rd, 2007 at 11:59 amBigfoot, what foreign enemies wanted to kill us in Iraq? I thought it was BinLaden In Afghanistan that was after us? Or have you had just enough cool aid to think differently about that and about caring for children .......... yes, let them eat lead paint right if they dont know any better ..... your quite a guy.
October 3rd, 2007 at 11:59 amComment by MaverickCoast — October 3, 2007 @ 11:55 am
Bush was such a lovely guy during the 2000 campaign. My favorite, is when his operatives in South Carolina, spread the rumor, that John McCain had an illegitimate half-black child. How about the Swift Boat Vets ads against Kerry? You reference a number of left leaning organizations, but never address the plank in your own eye.
October 3rd, 2007 at 12:04 pm"I know of know law stopping you."
October 3rd, 2007 at 12:07 pmToo F'n funny!
so what is required of those given all these "entitlements"
Jesus did not say government shall force upon thee...
October 3rd, 2007 at 12:10 pmRemoveBush,
Don't argue with retards, it only annoys the retards and wastes your time
October 3rd, 2007 at 12:10 pm#119 You effing idiot.
That article shows how much time doctors spend on INSURANCE Company paperwork, not government related squat.
You are one dishonest MOFO, but what else should we expect from a Bushit water carrier.l
October 3rd, 2007 at 12:10 pmNo child in this country is turned away from health care. In New Mexico, the state estimates thousands of children who are eligible for Medicaid are not in the program simply because the parents havn’t bothered to sign them up, and if a child has a health crisis, and needs treatement, they are treated by doctors and hospitals under the idea of “presumed eligibilityâ€, which means they get care first while applying for Medicaid, or other funding is located.
The idea that children are denied health care in the United States is patently false. It’s a bogus issue used by the left to demonize anyone who opposes it, and appeal to the heartstrings of the uneducated.
And from the outrage expressed here, it appears the more uneducated, the louder the screaming.
Comment by O. Bigfoot — October 3, 2007 @ 11:47 am
Strawman argument alert! Try to focus here, Bigfoot. Children who qualify for Medicaid aren't the issue. They are covered and will stay covered. I agree that parents of eligible children should sign them up, and it's a bureaucratic problem when they don't, but that's not the topic here.
The issue here is that slice of children from families who are too well-off to qualify for Medicaid, but not well-off enough to afford private insurance. These are children of workers in low-paying jobs with employers who don't provide health care benefits for their families. It can cost upwards of $1,000 a month to provide health insurance for a family of four if one has to pay for it completely out of pocket, and many families can't afford to pay this PLUS rent, food, and other necessities.
It's not that children are being "denied" health care. Insurance companies are usually glad to have them as long as the premiums are paid (unless they have some kind of pre-existing condition that might cost the insurance company a lot of money, of course). Children who have a life-threatening emergency aren't "denied" health care, either, as they will be treated in an emergency room whether they can pay for it or not. Then when the bill comes, the family just goes bankrupt when they cannot pay.
Making sure that all children have access to health care, including those whose families can't afford it, just makes good sense. Healthy children grow into healthy productive adults. Unhealthy children grow into sickly disabled adults who drain the social system more than contribute to it. Even taking the emotion out of the equation leaves the logical premise that denying children access to health care is a short-sighted solution that will create a long-term problem.
October 3rd, 2007 at 12:12 pmRUCerious,
See #157
October 3rd, 2007 at 12:13 pmCan't we all take a moment and e-mail our representatives to let them know we WANT this Bill and that we will remember how they voted. Those of you against it do the same, but you had better hope you never need the help you want to deny others. Life can go up or down and not everyone rides a silver spoon to the end.
October 3rd, 2007 at 12:15 pmI really wish we could edit our posts…â€I know of know law stopping you†is of course supposed to read: “I know of no law stopping you.â€
Comment by O. Bigfoot — October 3, 2007 @ 12:03 pm
I'm with you. It's frustrating when I post something, see a typo, and can't correct it. I can make a new post with a correction, but by that time, it's several posts down the page from the original.
TP -- put edit capability on the wish list? Pretty please?
October 3rd, 2007 at 12:16 pmNope. Entirely truthful and correct.
Comment by O. Bigfoot — October 3, 2007 @ 11:57 am
Still waiting for your links to proof of your statement.
October 3rd, 2007 at 12:18 pmEither back it up or retract.
Why do my tax dollars go to fund Bush's War? Bush went into Iraq for his personal vendetta, not to make my country safer. Trillions will be spent for that mad man's brain fart.
I probably pay more in taxes than you make in a year, BigO retread. I don't regret one penny going to help my fellow citizens, or to build highways and bridges, or to research stem cells, or to go to the moon.
I really regret pissing away a fortune because some coke freak thought Jesus told him to kill Muslims.
And the money should be the least of our concerns. We are losing lives of good people for Bush's egotistical War. But please, keep covering for the pitiful coward. You Bush defenders are exposing yourselves and the Repugnicunt party for who you truly are and the what you stand for. You are a Democrats dream come true.
Thank you for your continued support.
October 3rd, 2007 at 12:19 pmGod forgive me, but I hate these people so much!!!!
October 3rd, 2007 at 12:20 pmBesides, it seems the Chicoms are all for that.
Comment by O. Bigfoot — October 3, 2007 @ 12:12 pm
Something else you Neocons are responsible for. No real inspections of the imports. No oversight. Just let China import poisons with no restrictions.
Thank Bush for that, along with the export of jobs.
October 3rd, 2007 at 12:21 pm"I really wish we could edit our posts…"Comment by O. Bigfoot
I wish, just for fun, I could edit your posts.
October 3rd, 2007 at 12:22 pm#161, yeah, rocks, I know, I know, but the BS is so damn deep...
October 3rd, 2007 at 12:23 pmVeto! Woo Hoo! Well now mommy and daddy will have to forego that bottle of gin every other day and use the money to provide health care for their kids!
Comment by Michael — October 3, 2007 @ 12:20 pm
Wow! That was brilliant!
October 3rd, 2007 at 12:23 pm#154 That is total propanda bogus left winger junk.
Where in the Bill of Rights does it say that healthcare shall be provided by government?
The preamble of the Constitution reads general welfare...not healthcare.. just general welfare...which is the food stamps, emergency room access to get healthcare never mind the many "free clinics".
October 3rd, 2007 at 12:23 pmHow do you figure that? The Democrats HAVE been in total control in the past, and their spending never came anywhere NEAR what the Republicans are doing with the national budget now.
Comment by missmolly
We had a bunch of Republicans with NO cajones to stand up to out of control spending!
OUR GOVERNMENT, ie. weak-kneed Republicans and Liberals, are creating a population of citizens (& non-citizens) that expect the government to do everything for them. TOO MANY PEOPLE HAVE THEIR HAND OUT!
AT SOME POINT WE HAVE TO SAY TO THE PEOPLE THAT GOVERNMENT IS NOT THE SOLUTION!
YOU CAN BET that if Democrats regain the White House, government run health care could become a reality. DO YOU KNOW HOW MUCH THAT WOULD COST??? It would dwarf any program or expense the government currently has! Besides, do you think the govt. could run it better? No.
That is NOT to say that some people truly do need help, BUT, there are way too many people who take advantage of the govt. and who don't try to be productive and independent citizens.
What ever happened to 'ask not what your country can do for you - ask what you can do for your country.'?
We have lost sight of that.
October 3rd, 2007 at 12:24 pm#168,
Pretty typical. Get out of the trailer from time to time, you'll see that not everyone drinks as much as you.
October 3rd, 2007 at 12:24 pmmichael, back for another round of me posting your lies and slip-ups?
Gonna run off again?
Since you had been bragging of "Looking for Wayne", it has been hilarious to see you running away.
October 3rd, 2007 at 12:24 pm#167,
Don't sweat it God hates them too.
October 3rd, 2007 at 12:25 pm“God forgive me, but I hate these people so much!!!!
Comment by Leftside Annieâ€
Are you fererring to the lazy b*stard irresponsible parents who won’t provide for their children?
Comment by Michael — October 3, 2007 @ 12:22 pm
No, I think Annie was referring to you and the evil monsters you associate yourself with. BTW, most of those "irresponsible parents" work two and three jobs.
October 3rd, 2007 at 12:26 pmThat means that the MAIN purpose for the govt. is to ensure that it’s people are well and taken care of…… That does mean providing, and not throwing them out on the streets only to say “fend for yourselfâ€.
That IS the purpose of a government! To protect, defend, and ensure the welfare of the people.
You are simply CLUELESS.
Comment by RemoveBush — October 3, 2007 @ 12:05 pmâ€
Nope.
It says "promote" the general welfare, NOT "provide"
October 3rd, 2007 at 12:28 pmFrom Yahoo,
Liberals and toothless southerners both tired of our federal government
Secessionists meeting in Tennessee
CHATTANOOGA, Tenn. - In an unlikely marriage of desire to secede from the United States, two advocacy groups from opposite political traditions — New England and the South — are sitting down to talk.
ADVERTISEMENT
Tired of foreign wars and what they consider right-wing courts, the Middlebury Institute wants liberal states like Vermont to be able to secede peacefully.
That sounds just fine to the League of the South, a conservative group that refuses to give up on Southern independence.
"We believe that an independent South, or Hawaii, Alaska, or Vermont would be better able to serve the interest of everybody, regardless of race or ethnicity," said Michael Hill of Killen, Ala., president of the League of the South.
Separated by hundreds of miles and divergent political philosophies, the Middlebury Institute and the League of the South are hosting a two-day Secessionist Convention starting Wednesday in Chattanooga.
They expect to attract supporters from California, Alaska and Hawaii, inviting anyone who wants to dissolve the Union so states can save themselves from an overbearing federal government.
If allowed to go their own way, New Englanders "probably would allow abortion and have gun control," Hill said, while Southerners "would probably crack down on illegal immigration harder than it is being now."
The U.S. Constitution does not explicitly prohibit secession, but few people think it is politically viable.
Vermont, one of the nation's most liberal states, has become a hotbed for liberal secessionists, a fringe movement that gained new traction because of the Iraq war, rising oil prices and the formation of several pro-secession groups.
Thomas Naylor, the founder of one of those groups, the Second Vermont Republic, said the friendly relationship with the League of the South doesn't mean everyone shares all the same beliefs.
But Naylor, a retired Duke University professor, said the League of the South shares his group's opposition to the federal government and the need to pursue secession.
"It doesn't matter if our next president is Condoleeza (Rice) or Hillary (Clinton), it is going to be grim," said Naylor, adding that there are secessionist movements in more than 25 states, including Hawaii, Alaska, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Texas.
The Middlebury Institute, based in Cold Spring, N.Y., was started in 2005. Its followers, disillusioned by the Iraq war and federal imperialism, share the idea of states becoming independent republics. They contend their movement is growing.
The first North American Separatist Convention was held last fall in Vermont, which, unlike most Southern states, supports civil unions. Voters there elected a socialist to the U.S. Senate.
Middlebury director Kirpatrick Sale said Hill offered to sponsor the second secessionist convention, but the co-sponsor arrangement was intended to show that "the folks up north regard you as legitimate colleagues."
"It bothers me that people have wrongly declared them to be racists," Sale said.
The League of the South says it is not racist, but proudly displays a Confederate Battle Flag on its banner.
Mark Potok, director of the Southern Poverty Law Center's Intelligence Project, which monitors hate groups, said the League of the South "has been on our list close to a decade."
"What is remarkable and really astounding about this situation is we see people and institutions who are supposedly on the progressive left rubbing shoulders with bona fide white supremacists," Potok said.
Sale said the League of the South "has not done or said anything racist in its 14 years of existence," and that the Southern Poverty Law Center is not credible.
"They call everybody racists," Sale said. "There are, no doubt, racists in the League of the South, and there are, no doubt, racists everywhere."
Harry Watson, director of the Center For the Study of the American South and a history professor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, said it was a surprise to see The Middlebury Institute conferring with the League of the South, "an organization that's associated with a cause that many of us associate with the preservation of slavery."
He said the unlikely partnering "represents the far left and far right of American politics coming together."
October 3rd, 2007 at 12:29 pmComment by RemoveBush — October 3, 2007 @ 12:25 pm
RB, Littlefoot had no response for that argument when I posted it way up in post #143...I doubt he's made any progress since then...
October 3rd, 2007 at 12:29 pmGod forgive me, but I hate these people so much!!!!
Comment by Leftside Annie
Hey, LS Annie, considering the Left is doing everything they can to get rid of God, HOW CAN YOU EVEN ALIGN YOURSELF WITH THEM if you believe in God?
October 3rd, 2007 at 12:30 pmWhy would anyone want to work....I mean the gov't will pay for food, healthcare, school, housing, transportation, and the give cash so you can have your cable, cell phone and other little perks.
Oh yeah, you can also go to the government if you cannot pay your mortgage...since you reached way beyond your grasp. Remember it is never your own fault. It is BIG BUSINESS AND OIL and yes, the gov't fault for you trying to make it on your own in the world. Trying to be a free spirit, an entrepreneur and get out from the wings of the MotherLand of Big Government.
The SCHIP program is even being forced on some states that don't want it and did anyone notice that is backed by BIG INSURANCE...oh yeah, left wingers, big insurance wants it so they can raise prices.
But remember it is "for the children"
October 3rd, 2007 at 12:32 pm#
#
“What ever happened to ‘ask not what your country can do for you - ask what you can do for your country.’?
#
#
“What ever happened to ‘ask not what your country can do for you - ask what you can do for your country.’?
We have lost sight of that.
Comment by MaverickCoast — October 3, 2007 @ 12:24 pmâ€
I ask that EVERYDAY when YOU righties keep saying this war is “just†but refuse to support it by joining the military.
I guess this only means something when it supports your case??? Typical Republican, only means what you want it to mean.
Comment by RemoveBush
I guess you mean that there are no Republicans serving...
Yeah, whatever you want to believe
October 3rd, 2007 at 12:34 pmComment by O. Bigfoot — October 3, 2007 @ 12:32 pm
When your links consist of the wingnut daily, and the sludge report, don't be surprised we don't take you seriously.
October 3rd, 2007 at 12:37 pmRemove Bush
re: post 179
The Constitution says..."promote the general Welfare" NOT provide.
Good try.
October 3rd, 2007 at 12:38 pmMaverickCoast, What can you do for your country?
October 3rd, 2007 at 12:40 pmAn affordable sane healthcare system does promote the general welfare.
October 3rd, 2007 at 12:41 pmBS! If they need to work 2 - 3 jobs why did they have kids?
Comment by Michael — October 3, 2007 @ 12:33 pm
Look, Michael, I'm not playing 20 questions with you (I'm low balling that number it in your case). There are plenty of reasons why someone would have to work 2 and 3 jobs now, considering there were many good American jobs that are now outsourced.
Now, go pester someone else.
October 3rd, 2007 at 12:41 pmComment by O. Bigfoot — October 3, 2007 @ 12:40 pm
More like me giving you the middle finger for being stupid. But call it whatever you want if it makes you feel better, and stops your whining.
October 3rd, 2007 at 12:42 pmMaverickCoast sez:
How exactly does one "get rid of God", MC?
If He can truly be "gotten rid of", he's not much of a god, is He?
October 3rd, 2007 at 12:43 pmRep. Rahm Emanuel, D-Ill.
Quote:
"Today the president showed the nation his true priorities: $700 billion for a war in Iraq, but no health care for low-income kids; $50 billion in subsidies for huge oil companies; but no health care for low-income kids; $8 billion lost to waste, fraud, abuse, and no-bid contracts in Iraq, but no health care for low-income kids,"
"Millions of American children and their families won't forget that they are on the bottom of the president's priority list,"
October 3rd, 2007 at 12:44 pmThe SCHIP program is even being forced on some states that don’t want it and did anyone notice that is backed by BIG INSURANCE…oh yeah, left wingers, big insurance wants it so they can raise prices.
Comment by ANeccessaryEvil — October 3, 2007 @ 12:32 pm
-----
lol, wut? How do you think big insurance will raise the premiums on CHIP if it's expanded?
October 3rd, 2007 at 12:44 pmMaverickCoast sez:
Sophistry...and not particularly good sophistry at that...
October 3rd, 2007 at 12:45 pmLittlefoot sez:
Wow....that was truly breathtaking.
Littlefoot will never die of stab wounds, as he possesses an almost superhuman ability to miss the point.
October 3rd, 2007 at 12:46 pmBS! If they need to work 2 - 3 jobs why did they have kids?
Comment by Michael — October 3, 2007 @ 12:33 pm
Isn't it your side that is against abortion and birth control? So your suggesting married couples practice abstinence only too? Way to jack up the divorce rate nimrod.
October 3rd, 2007 at 12:50 pmMaverickCoast,
Yeah right, only Christ666ian conserv666ative republic666ans believe in God right?
"thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment"; in addition to the second, "thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself", these are what Jesus Christ called the two greatest commandments
Lets see, how does the republic666an party display it's love of thy neighbor. Well there's the love of war taken to our neighbors, then there's the love of immigrants, then there's the love of money, power and might.
Quit using God to justify your black hearted agenda.
October 3rd, 2007 at 12:51 pmIt is contradictory for conservatives to be against abortion and then turn around and fight against providing those same children with health care.
October 3rd, 2007 at 12:51 pmHowever, if you want to be realistic rather than ignorant, 12 dollars every other day multiplied by the number of days in the average month comes to about 180 bucks. More than enough for the average doctor visit, even if one went to the doctor once every month.
It’s called personal responsibililty, people. You liberals really ought to try it sometime.
Comment by O. Bigfoot — October 3, 2007 @ 12:38 pm
The cost for my daughter's 5th grade physical requiring immunizations, $600. I have full health insurance coverage but it doesn't cover "well child" care. I paid that much because I don't qualify for low income help and I have to pay for all the people who go to the doctor and can't pay the bill. My kid couldn't get in school without a physical. It is obvious you have no idea what's going on with the healthcare system.
October 3rd, 2007 at 12:56 pmWow….that was truly breathtaking.
Littlefoot will never die of stab wounds, as he possesses an almost superhuman ability to miss the point.
Comment by TripMaster Monkey — October 3, 2007 @ 12:46 pm
LOL! Hilarious!
October 3rd, 2007 at 12:58 pmCase in point. My neigbor single mom, works part time, can't find a second job. Her four year old has been sick for two weeks. Her part time job doesn't provide health care for her or her child.
She doesn't want to take her to the ER, as it's only a stuffy head and sore throat.
Her (former) family doctor won't see patients who aren't insured.
How sick does Sophia have to get before her mom finally takes her to the ER.
October 3rd, 2007 at 1:12 pmAbuses of healthcare are on the providers side as well, I am working on a $20,000.00 overcharge by a hospital to Medicare for a client right now. How about putting some of that irrate tax payer act toward the doctors and hospitals and pharmacuetical companies.
Doctor's visits costing $100 + and amoxicillian (an old drug) costing upwards of $30.00 parents are doing what they can to maintain healthy kids. Good nuitrition etc.
Parents can be the most health conscious in the world but school brings germs and kids get sick. Many employers either do not carry health insurance or insurance is too costly for the employee to afford.
I realize those of you with your dumb comments aren't real, just reading from a script while you are paid to do what ? Be disruptive for what means? You don't agree with TP or the posters so go to a Website that shares your mean spirited selfish philospy.
October 3rd, 2007 at 1:13 pmHow sick does Sophia have to get before her mom finally takes her to the ER.
Comment by RUCerious — October 3, 2007 @ 1:12 pm
More importantly, how much more will it cost when Sophia goes to the ER, instead of being treated by a family doctor?
October 3rd, 2007 at 1:14 pmMaverickCoast sez:
Unfortunately, it would be worse with Democrats in total control!
Prove it.
Comment by TripMaster Monkey
Have you been listening to what the Democrat candidates are proposing?
This is not even taking into consideration what other areas of our life they would have an effect on. Take a look at Liberal ran cities.
They are doing away with American traditions that have been around forever. San Francisco has such a hate for the military, they won't even alow the milirtary to film a commercial!
Democrats are beholden to the likes of MoveOn.org and Media Matters. Two organizations that don't have the best interest of this country in mind.
October 3rd, 2007 at 1:18 pmQuit using God to justify your black hearted agenda.
Comment by rocks911
Last time I checked, it wasn't Conservative groups trying to rid this country of God.
What part of that don't you get?
October 3rd, 2007 at 1:22 pmComment by MaverickCoast — October 3, 2007 @ 1:18 pm
A lot of frantic, raving words there, but nothing supporting your original assertion that Democrats would be less fiscally responsible that Republicans.
Take a deep breath, and try again.
October 3rd, 2007 at 1:25 pmMaverickCoast sez:
re: post 179
The Constitution says…â€promote the general Welfare†NOT provide.
Sophistry…and not particularly good sophistry at that…
Comment by TripMaster Monkey
So you DON'T want to accept what is REALLY in the Constitution.
Promote=Provide
Sorry, I passed English. You must not have.
October 3rd, 2007 at 1:25 pmI don't think Daryll can be another Jake pseudonym--both his comments and his sentences are too long for Jake. However, since he parrots Republican talking points, I recommend not bothering to read any comment from him. Above all, do not comment on any comment from Daryll.
October 3rd, 2007 at 1:25 pm219 - EXACTLY my point ! Everyone pays a minimum for the minor problem and we avoid the cost of days in the hospital or breast surgery, heart bypass. How come conservatives can't see such a simple equasion ?
Insurance companies are refusing preventative care and fighting against paying for the illness that could have been prevented. As an insurance Administrator I have seen this happen for years.
October 3rd, 2007 at 1:25 pmMaverickCoast sez:
The part where you assert that it's possible to "get rid of" God, and that this is the goal of the Liberals.
October 3rd, 2007 at 1:26 pmUh 222 - the kids you don't want to be born might be the ones fighting in the military some day for your freedom. Or maybe paying Social Security so you can retire. Better grow up a little before opening your mouth and inserting foot.
October 3rd, 2007 at 1:27 pmThere's a proposal to increase federal spending on children's health insurance by 35 billion dollars over the next five years. It would be funded by an increase in cigarette taxes. Supporters say this would provide insurance for millions of low-income children who are currently uninsured. Opponents say this goes too far in covering children in families that can afford health insurance on their own. Do you support or oppose this increased funding for this program?
Support 72
Oppose 25
Unsure 3
No wonder bush crawled under his rock to veto this bill.
http://www.pollingreport.com/health3.htm
October 3rd, 2007 at 1:29 pmMaverickCoast sez:
pro·mote (prÉ™-mÅt') pronunciation
tr.v., -mot·ed, -mot·ing, -motes.
1.
1. To raise to a more important or responsible job or rank.
2. To advance (a student) to the next higher grade.
2. To contribute to the progress or growth of; further. See synonyms at advance.
3. To urge the adoption of; advocate: promote a constitutional amendment.
4. To attempt to sell or popularize by advertising or publicity: commercials promoting a new product.
5. To help establish or organize (a new enterprise), as by securing financial backing: promote a Broadway show.
Honestly...how do you not get this?
Passed English? I have my doubts.
October 3rd, 2007 at 1:30 pmWhat cracks me up about Daryll is that the religion he says he practices (Christianity) has a very specific directive when it comes to taking care of others. Jesus has said that those who give to others are the ones who get into heaven, not those who horde their money and grumble about supporting others.
But then again, I always knew Daryll was no real Christian, but instead a hypocrit who is more interested in telling a homosexual couple they're going to hell (and Daryll's going to heaven, *gloat* *gloat*) and telling a woman that her body is his to decide what to do with, and that she's going to hell (and he's going to heaven, *gloat *gloat*)
Oh well. He's still being used by the people who think he's a kook and should be ridiculed behind his back even as he votes for them.
October 3rd, 2007 at 1:31 pmThis progressive does not want to "get rid of God", just keep some of his followers from playing God with the lives of those who do not share their beliefs.
October 3rd, 2007 at 1:31 pmRepublican Motto (should be a bumper sticker, eh?):
SAVE THE ZYGOTES. FUKC THE CHILDREN!
October 3rd, 2007 at 1:31 pm232 - Great Idea !!! And how about the same health benefits as Bush and Cheney get. Cheney's bills alone for his heart care would fund the Children's Insurance bill.
October 3rd, 2007 at 1:37 pmHOW CAN YOU EVEN ALIGN YOURSELF WITH THEM if you believe in God?
Comment by MaverickCoast — October 3, 2007 @ 12:30 pm
How scary is this - the perfect admission from one of our 28%ers? No wonder everyone but these people are abandoning the Rethuglican Party.
October 3rd, 2007 at 1:38 pmMichael sez:
Because all their taxes are going to fund a demented occupation of imperialistic expansion, and their paychecks are going straight into the gas tank of their car?
October 3rd, 2007 at 1:39 pmHis compassionate conservatism is really at work now.
October 3rd, 2007 at 1:43 pmLet's hope the clowns in congress grow some balls and override the idiot's veto.
Suggest you write and e-mail your representatives and senators, national and local party hacks, newspapers and TV stations in protest over this cowardly, irresponsible act. Do the same to the white house in DC and Crawford, also to the idiot's family in Maine. Flood the mailboxes.
Why did they have children?
Comment by Michael — October 3, 2007 @ 1:41 pm
Actually, right now, we're wondering why your parents had YOU.
October 3rd, 2007 at 1:46 pmMichael sez:
Why did the administration destroy the average American family's financial ability to raise children?
(BTW, until the current state of affairs goes on for thirteen more years, your "why did they have children" argument is invalid.)
October 3rd, 2007 at 1:46 pmDuring Nixon's time a few strong Republicans told him to leave to save the party. Where are those Republicans now? Their party is going down in flames and Bush/Cheney don't give a rat's ass.
October 3rd, 2007 at 1:47 pmSo, Mike you have your whole life planned out and are certain there are no lay-offs in the future AFTER you had children?
Consider that one of those children "poor people had" might be a doctor who has the answer for your illness one day. Never discount another human beings worth.
October 3rd, 2007 at 1:54 pmWhat happened to that Market you Republicans are always spouting??? This is just an example of the “Market†and because they “chose†not to let the military film in the city, they “hate†the military.
Did you ever think that maybe they are showing that they do not support this war, and by not allowing the military to USE SF as a backdrop for their recruitment tools, are standing by what they believe?????
Comment by RemoveBush
This isn't the first time San Francisco has snubbed the military. Don't you think the women and men of the military have made enough sacrifices to earn OUR respect and maybe DO SOMETHING FOR THEM for a change?!?!?!?!?.
Turning them down to shoot a commercial (for no good reason) is the equivalent of spitting on them considering what they have sacrificed for EVERYONE!!!!
October 3rd, 2007 at 1:58 pmMichael sez:
We know you haven't. You should...you might learn something.
October 3rd, 2007 at 1:59 pmI know how to comfort babies…….. I’ll make sure after I kick you a** that I have a towl to put over my shoulder to pamper your crying COWARD a**.
Comment by RemoveBush
Ahh, your true colors starting to show?
October 3rd, 2007 at 1:59 pmAt this point it's safe to conclude:
1. Bush is really Al Gore in disguise and is bitter over losing the 2000 elections so he's going to do everything he can to kill conservatism in American
2. Bush really really really hates this country
3. Bush is being controlled by people who really really really hate this country.
October 3rd, 2007 at 1:59 pmI vote to choose whether to spend for the war or healthcare. Gee, what to do, what to do. Mike you put your dollars to the war, I'll add mine to healthcare.
October 3rd, 2007 at 2:00 pmDuring Nixon’s time a few strong Republicans told him to leave to save the party. Where are those Republicans now? Their party is going down in flames and Bush/Cheney don’t give a rat’s ass.
Comment by texaslady — October 3, 2007 @ 1:47 pm
Unfortunately, Goldwater died. And along with him went his brand of honest but conservative politics. The few holdovers of his ilk have been hijacked by the current model of the party, which adheres to a philosophy of strength through sticking together and banning any kind of dissension (come to think of it, that's a good definition of fascism).
This lockstep model has always been around to some degree (for both parties), but truly became dominant for the Republicans in 1992 with Newt Gingrich's Contract With America. It was at that point when congressional elections ceased to be local and became national. The winning Repubs moved, functioned, and acted like a monolithic entity, as they realized their power grab came about because of their banding together. They have functioned this way ever since -- even though they are being led by criminals who operate the country and our foreign policy to suit their personal interests and the interests of their benefactors.
Of course, this means that when the lead lemming goes over the edge of the cliff, so goes the entire group.
October 3rd, 2007 at 2:05 pm268 - It is difficult for me to understand the "my party right or wrong" idea. Of course I was taught to be an independent thinker, to research and come to my own conclusion even listening to the other side's opinion. Oh my, what a novel idea !
October 3rd, 2007 at 2:13 pmMike - the terriorist are here, they sold out our industries, our environment, our surplus budget. And on card #1 and #2 the names are Bush and Cheney. If China were to call in our loans we don't have to worry about Osama, China, a real communist country owns us all.
October 3rd, 2007 at 2:21 pmSorry, fantasy boy……. But MORE people want Universal Health Care than they do this ILLEGAL War……
Comment by RemoveBush
Sorry, but most people would be AGAINST it if they actually got the truth and knew how it would REALLY change health care and choice (for the worse) AND the actual cost to not only you and I but to the economy!
Our way of life would take a SEVERE hit and MOST people would NOT be for it after hearing the details.
WHY DO YOU THINK HILLIARY'S PLAN FAILED YEARS AGO?
October 3rd, 2007 at 2:24 pmbigfoot: "No child in this country is turned away from health care."
michael: "Why did they have children?"
Michael: “Stop looking to the rest of us to provide for your welfare!"
Daryll: "If you have to work two or three jobs to provide health care for your family, so be it."
NecessaryEvil: "If you can afford it, pay for it. Why should anyone else have to pay for something you can afford?"
Hey guys, these arguments are just great!!! I suggest that next year, when your Repub candidates are just getting hammered over this issue, that you call them and suggest they use these arguments on the campaign trail! I'm sure these arguments will resonate with the voters.
October 3rd, 2007 at 2:31 pmBe prepared or suffer the consequences!
Comment by Michael — October 3, 2007 @ 1:50 pm
You appear to believe in personal responsibility to the point where anyone who cannot provide for themselves deserves to live in the street, deserves to starve, deserves to die. And if a person loses his job, loses his pension, gets a disabling illness, suffers an accident, too bad. If they didn't "prepare" for their pension to go bankrupt, for the employer they trusted to not outsource their job, for their insurance company to not go out of business, then it's their fault and they deserve what they get. The government shouldn't give anybody a handout. Ever. It will only enable them.
Have you ever thought about what this country would look like if your philosophy was actually implemented? Picture the Depression. Picture Hoovervilles for people who have lost the roof over their heads because they got crapped on financially and weren't "prepared". Picture businesses dying in your town because people can no longer afford to buy goods and services to keep them going. Picture this creating more poor and homeless people. Picture beggars in the streets.
Now, I know you really don't care about other people and what happens to them as a result of their "irresponsibility." So I'll put this in terms you can understand. The above scenario WILL CAUSE YOUR PROPERTY VALUES TO GO DOWN! Furthermore, if you have a business, expect it to suffer when people can't afford to buy from you. Their "consequences" WILL affect you.
October 3rd, 2007 at 2:35 pmMaverick Coast - do you mean like the Medicare prescription program that Bush pushed through with false numbers? Do you mean like Medicare NOT being able to get the same costs as the VA hospital gets for its drugs?
Healthcare will NOT be free, but hospitals will be reined in with what they can charge. A three day stay for a kidney stone procedure that the hospital screwed up, the hospital is charging $19,652 to Medicare and supplemental insurance with an additional charge of $766. to the 74 year old man they forgot to deflate the catheter when they pulled it out. Yeah, I hope you are a guy and can get the picture.
Are you aware of what the premiums are people are paying now for substandard care? How can you think it will be more? We were charged $250.00 for a 5 minute, "how are you doing?" Who is worth that?
America's healthcare is out of control and needs a new plan. Hillary's plan failed for many reasons, one of which things weren't as bad as today.
October 3rd, 2007 at 2:37 pm268 - It is difficult for me to understand the “my party right or wrong†idea. Of course I was taught to be an independent thinker, to research and come to my own conclusion even listening to the other side’s opinion. Oh my, what a novel idea !
Comment by texaslady — October 3, 2007 @ 2:13 pm
Yes, this is how I was brought up, too. Now this concept is considered rather quaint and old-fashioned. Pity.
October 3rd, 2007 at 2:39 pm"You work three jobs? … Uniquely American, isn't it? I mean, that is fantastic that you're doing that."
—President George W. Bush, to a divorced mother of three, Omaha, Nebraska, Feb. 4, 2005
October 3rd, 2007 at 2:39 pmMiss Molly,- this administration, Michael , Maverick only believe in handouts to the airlines, Enron (which still owes back taxes) Savings and Loans (thanks Neil Bush) Halliburton tripling the cost of transporting gas to our troops, the Halliburton co that provided meals for our troops (NOT) Or the charge for the water purification that didn't happen. On and on.... BUT OH MY GOD PROTECT US FROM HEALTHCARE someone undeserving might just get treatment.
October 3rd, 2007 at 2:45 pmSorry, it doesn’t work that way. Onward with the war!
Comment by Michael — October 3, 2007 @ 2:04 pm
In a democracy, it works the way the majority says it works. Get used to, coward.
October 3rd, 2007 at 2:45 pmI want the trolls and water-carriers to say that if the sides were switched that they would never characterize Bush as "hating" the children. Are you REALLY going to sit here and tell us that Republicans would never stoop so low as to use that characterization?
HINT: This is a test of your mental health, so please, answer honestly.
October 3rd, 2007 at 2:46 pmlefty, come on, get real, you KNOW that the neocons just love and support the children, the troops, the U.S. Constitution, personal responsibility, truth, justice, and the American way. You KNOW that they love these with equal fervor and dedication.
Disclaimer (in very tiny print): The above statement is true providing such love and support do not interfere with accumulation of wealth and/or power.
October 3rd, 2007 at 2:52 pmHeartbreaking. When a government places greater stock in needless death over life, it truly has outlived its usefulness.
October 3rd, 2007 at 2:53 pmIt is difficult for me to understand the “my party right or wrong†idea. Of course I was taught to be an independent thinker, to research and come to my own conclusion even listening to the other side’s opinion. Oh my, what a novel idea !
Comment by texaslady
There are two sets of ideals on the political landscape. Conservative and Liberal. This country is currently in a "fight" over which course and which ideals this country should call it's own.
You'll find by today's definitions, this Country has been built on Conservative principles. If you compare Liberal ideals and Conservative ideals to the writings of our Founding Fathers, you'll find that they resemble Conservative beliefs.
At one time, the Democrat Party was a considerably more Conservative Party than what it is today. Today they have found themselves being pulled more and more to the Left. This is because of factions within the Democrat Party (namely the likes of MoveOn.org and Media Matters, etc.).
Republicans squandered there chance when they had total control of Congress and the White House. Instead of sticking to their Conservative principles, they spent money like "drunken sailors".
Today, we have two choices on which direction this country will head. Either to the Left or Right.
Check out the facts yourself before you make a decision. SEE WHICH GROUPS ARE ASSOCIATED WITH WHICH PARTY That is probably the most important advice you can get. This the "birds of a feather....." test.
Maybe you didn't need this explanation, and you think Independent thinking is the way to go, but in the end it will be Left of Right. I used to think the same way you did, but when you look at the end result, it's still as I just said.
Liberal or Conservative, Democrat or Republican. Until we get a third party that puts forth a candidate that can capture enough of the electorate to win!
October 3rd, 2007 at 3:00 pmMolly - Michael is a waste of our words, he can't or won't avail himself to history and learning from the mistakes that were made. But he is a product of our today's society the motto being "it is all about me to hell with you" the drivers on the road show it, the lack of accountability everywhere. When is the last time you heard thank you from anywhere?
October 3rd, 2007 at 3:02 pmYou’ll find by today’s definitions, this Country has been built on Conservative principles. If you compare Liberal ideals and Conservative ideals to the writings of our Founding Fathers, you’ll find that they resemble Conservative beliefs.
OK, I'll bite. Give me just one example of this profound thesis.
October 3rd, 2007 at 3:04 pmWell, blow me away Maverick we actually found grounds for agreement. I am totally for throwing all the bums out except maybe for Jim Webb. We need to show this group we see through their self serving greed. And how about containing the lobbyists too, although they will just invent a new name and slime back up.
October 3rd, 2007 at 3:07 pm1. Insuring kids does not create more War Profits.
2. Insuring kids does not benefit repukes.
3. Insuring kids does not benefit the Haves and Have Mores.
4. Insuring kids does not stop the Anti-christ from bring on the "End Times"
They aren't gonna need health insurance cause GW666 is out to destroy the world, and when that happens, who needs insurance.
Buck Fush
October 3rd, 2007 at 3:08 pmThe part where you assert that it’s possible to “get rid of†God, and that this is the goal of the Liberals.
Comment by TripMaster Monkey
Let's see. The ACLU ( a group who finds its support from Liberal groups) has done all it can to take any reference to God away from the Government institutions.
They have attacked the Boy Scouts because of their references to God.
They continually continue to misrepresent the phrase "separation of church and state" which doesn't exist. The examples go on and on....
I've never seen the Democrat Party stand up for God EXCEPT when it's politically convenient and advantageous.
October 3rd, 2007 at 3:11 pmWell, blow me away Maverick we actually found grounds for agreement. I am totally for throwing all the bums out except maybe for Jim Webb. We need to show this group we see through their self serving greed. And how about containing the lobbyists too, although they will just invent a new name and slime back up.
Comment by texaslady
Now see, us Republicans aren't all bad.
I say throw out career politicians, require anonymity when people or groups contribute to candidates , and revisit the McCain/Feingold bill, just for starters.
Politicians have lost focus on what their duty is and what they are SUPPOSED to be doing. They spend 99% of the time attacking those who don't agree with them rather than trying to come up with solutions to the problems before us.
Requiring anonymity when people or groups contribute to candidates, is probably the single most important change that we could make to the political arena.
October 3rd, 2007 at 3:18 pmNow Maverick ACLU gets their support from those wanting the illegals here. Like the meat factories from here to Iowa, and those complaining they can't get their crops in. However, that is not quite the truth, the crops have been being picked. I agree it seems mighty strange that the Democrats won't get off their duffs to push to strengthen the border, but ACLU is getting funding from both sides.
Perhaps the Democrats believe in separation of church and state, now where did I hear that before.
Oh and lets not get started on the Republicans that manage to cry when caught with their pants down and scream that they have God's forgiveness. Gee would that be before or after adultery, molestation, fraud.
God is a separate personal issue and should not be in government. Think of all the wars started with God's intentions, and we don't have to go back very far in history for that. Or how about Bush taking his advice not from the Generals or experienced people but a higher authority.
October 3rd, 2007 at 3:21 pmAfter all God is what you make of it, an interruptation of words which can be turned anyway one wants. So, do you really want someone's interruptation to define your laws? Maybe the bible is just an outline for a society. The Ten Commandments seem pretty good way to live a life. My interruptation is to do no harm to others as much as possible.
October 3rd, 2007 at 3:27 pmTreat others as I want to be treated. Pretty basic.
If you compare Liberal ideals and Conservative ideals to the writings of our Founding Fathers, you’ll find that they resemble Conservative beliefs.
OK, I’ll bite. Give me just one example of this profound thesis.
Comment by PatrioticLiberalChristian
Liberals believing that the government should PROVIDE programs to the people.
While some programs are necessary and worthwhile, the government shall "promote" not provide the general welfare...... (as Conservatives believe) IE. We can't and should not provide for those without providing a way for them to get back on their own. A lot of programs don't do that. I like the saying "Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime! That's what Conservatives believe.
Our Founding Fathers envisioned a government that was non, if not less intrusive in our lives. One can hardly argue that today's government is not overly intrusive.
The constitution was quite clear that the Federal Government had very limited powers and that the States were to control themselves except in limited circumstances. As we can see today, the Feds have over reached their authority as expressed by the Constitution.
Just a few examples.
Just a question PatrioticLiberalChristian, and I mean no disrespect by this. How can you be a Liberal AND a Christian?
I am a Christian and I see groups who want to attack God because he has no place in government!!! These groups are Liberal and find their home ON THE LEFT, in the Democrat Party.
The Right does have compassion contrary to the propaganda from the Left but their belief is this: Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime!
Isn't that what we want or do? Promote a people who will be a part of what made America great....INDEPENDENCE! You can't have independence if you're dependent upon the Government!
Granted some people need a helping hand at times, but not forever.
That is where Conservatism and Liberalism part ways.
October 3rd, 2007 at 3:42 pmThe Constitution protects ALL religions, not just yours.
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion ... .â€
October 3rd, 2007 at 3:42 pmThis is the best chance the Democrats in Congress have to look like leaders. They are completely failing in their "attempts" to end the war. The Bush Gang have handed them a golden opportunity to make some real political progress.
Just so Harry Reid and Nancy can understand, I will give them the steps:
1. Loudly and aggressively attack Bush for his veto. Use kids on TV, print ads, whatever.
2. Start publicly making a list of those in Congress either supporting this veto or unwilling to override the veto. Identify the individual members of Congress and force them to make statements to either support Bush on this issue or support an override. (This can be done at the same time as step 1).
3. Do a photo-op or petition or something of each Democrat that is prepared to override the Veto. Show a united Democratic front.
4. Spend the money to run local ads in the districts of those in Congress that are wavering on overriding the veto. Don't bother with the hard-core Bush supporters.
5. Try to form an anti-Bush group of Democrats and Republicans willing to override the veto and start pushing this group into supporting overriding the Senate filibusters.
This is not rocket science. All it takes is some will and leadership in the Democratic party. If they can't take advantage of this situation then they will never get anything done and more people will die in Iraq.
At least do the right thing this time....
October 3rd, 2007 at 3:47 pmWell Sluggo, there is the problem there is no will or leadership in either party.
October 3rd, 2007 at 3:51 pmLiberal or Conservative, Democrat or Republican.
Comment by MaverickCoast — October 3, 2007 @ 3:00 pm
Got it all labeled, don't you? Well, troll, you are posting on ThinkProgress, which is a blog for progressives. As a progressive, I am TEN TIMES more "conseravative" than you. We just want to "conserve" different things.
The "conservatives" I know in my State still was to "conserve" segregation (despite the fact that all our segregation laws are off the books). I don't.
I want to "conserve" the progress we've made in living up to being a government "of the people, by the people, and for the people..."
I believe a Republican set forth that goal some time ago. It is a goal worth being "conservative" about.
Messes up your neat little closed-minded boxes doesn't it?
A government that assures access to health care to children through the SCHIP program seems to be another step toward a government "of the people, by the people, and for the people..." As a progressive, I'm willing to "conserve" that!
October 3rd, 2007 at 3:53 pmMaverick you said it teach a man to fish but you have to give him a hook, a line and a branch to start with. You know boots to pull himself up with.
Also, the Republicans I see, Cronyn,Baily-Hutchinson only use the guise of being religious along with the ones I mentioned in an earlier post. So, at least the Dems don't pretend to be religious only when they need to. Wouldn't you rather have an honest person to say what they believe than a pretender?
October 3rd, 2007 at 3:54 pmThe founding fathers wrote about it on many occasions and stated that they did NOT want church and state to be mixed together.
Comment by RemoveBush
No, the phrase was written in a paper by Thomas Jefferson.
Actually the mis-reference in the Constitution states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"
Now where did you say it is written in the Constitution? Don't you think that since the Founding Fathers found it important to put that in there they would have gone further and wrote what YOU want to believe is in there???
The only thing that violates the Constitution is if Congress passes a law which states a certain religion is THE religion of the land. It's that simple. THEY CANNOT PREVENT PEOPLE FROM PRACTICING THEIR RELIGION.
October 3rd, 2007 at 3:54 pmMaverickCoast
The conservatives of today are NOT limiting, but expanding, the powers of the government, often to advance their particular religious dogma. Where is the secular reason for denying homosexuals the right to marriage, for example? If any government entity can dictate any person's behavior solely on the basis of any particular religious viewpoint, then all governments can come to control all behavior of all religious nature. My Christian faith says that God wants individuals to follow His teachings, freely and passionately, not out of fear of government but for love of God. My Christian belief is that God is of the heart, where government has no knowledge or power. Liberals, for the most part, are content to let Christianity and are not out to attack God per se, as long as His followers are not trying to use government power to force them to be followers as well. That's why I am liberal and Christian.
The Right, at least the current one, shows no effort to teach a man to fish. I see the Right, instead, as saying "Go get your own fish, all of these fish in this lake are mine because I bought the lake".
October 3rd, 2007 at 3:58 pmYeah, deficit spend to the tune of more red-ink than ALL the Presidents from George Washington through Ronald Reagan COMBINED, and then hypocritically criticize a few million for the health care of American kids ... his #1 argument and concern is preservation of even a handful of kids that might be able to jump off of one of BushCo's corporate executive's private health plans ... a fistful less captive customers and his rich executive cronies might be able to afford next year's model of $6,000 shower curtain or platinum commode! Bush and all his cronies are a lower life form. Vote towards a goal of a Super-Majority in Congress, along with a Democratic President next election cycle. Let's marginalize the GOP for the next 100+ years! Rat-bastards!
October 3rd, 2007 at 4:02 pmMaverick it seems you would like religion intwined with government. Well is that any religion or did you have one in mind? What about Muslim, Hebrew , Buddists or people who worship trees, or Satanic? So, keeps it a little less confusing keeping church and state apart don't you think?
October 3rd, 2007 at 4:02 pm#
Maverick you said it teach a man to fish but you have to give him a hook, a line and a branch to start with. You know boots to pull himself up with.
Also, the Republicans I see, Cronyn,Baily-Hutchinson only use the guise of being religious along with the ones I mentioned in an earlier post. So, at least the Dems don’t pretend to be religious only when they need to. Wouldn’t you rather have an honest person to say what they believe than a pretender?
Comment by texaslady
You can twist words all you want but the principle is still there. Do I have to seriously spell this out for you?
Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime!
If it takes a rod and reel fine, BUT YOU STILL DON'T SOLVE THE PROBLEM OR DO HIM ANY FAVORS BY KEEPING HIM RELIANT ON THE SOURCE VIA A HANDOUT!
Concerning the politicians.......none of them are perfect, but I see a friendly side on the right for religion than the Left, without question.
October 3rd, 2007 at 4:03 pmThe only thing that violates the Constitution is if Congress passes a law which states a certain religion is THE religion of the land. It’s that simple. THEY CANNOT PREVENT PEOPLE FROM PRACTICING THEIR RELIGION.
Comment by MaverickCoast — October 3, 2007 @ 3:54 pm
So, if we get Congress to pass a law that says you have to be 18 years of age to consent to baptism, that's OK because it does not "establish" a religion. Or, is it not OK because it "respects" a particular religious establishment?
October 3rd, 2007 at 4:03 pmOctober 3rd, 2007 at 4:08 pm
Maverick it seems you would like religion intwined with government. Well is that any religion or did you have one in mind? What about Muslim, Hebrew , Buddists or people who worship trees, or Satanic? So, keeps it a little less confusing keeping church and state apart don’t you think?
Comment by texaslady
Why is it that this was not a problem for the last 200 plus years BUT NOW is all of a sudden a problem?
October 3rd, 2007 at 4:10 pmOctober 3rd, 2007 at 4:11 pm
October 3rd, 2007 at 4:12 pm
I am a Christian and I see groups who want to attack God because he has no place in government!!! These groups are Liberal and find their home ON THE LEFT, in the Democrat Party.
Comment by MaverickCoast — October 3, 2007 @ 3:42 pm
I am a Christian and I see groups who want to USE God as an excuse to Lord their prejudices over other people. Jesus' command to love our enemies never makes it into their hearts.
Because I disagree with you, since you call yourself a "Christian," in your book, I am not a Christian. God doesn't live in your "boxes!" And for that, I am very thankful to Him!
This topic, however, is not about Christianity, or any other faith.
It is about the SCHIP program, and its usefulness to our Nation. I wouldn't have to be a Christian to be in favor of the program. However, I am a Christian, and I do favor the program.
The president's veto should be overridden, and I think it will be. He will then probably issue some stupid "signing statement" to nullify the action by Congress. He surely needs to be impeached and removed from office, as soon as the vice-president has been impeached and removed for War Crimes.
October 3rd, 2007 at 4:13 pmThe only thing that violates the Constitution is if Congress passes a law which states a certain religion is THE religion of the land. It’s that simple. THEY CANNOT PREVENT PEOPLE FROM PRACTICING THEIR RELIGION.
Comment by MaverickCoast — October 3, 2007 @ 3:54 pm
So, if we get Congress to pass a law that says you have to be 18 years of age to consent to baptism, that’s OK because it does not “establish†a religion. Or, is it not OK because it “respects†a particular religious establishment?
Comment by PatrioticLiberalChristian
I like the Constitution the way it is. Unfortunately there are people that want to misread what it says. Separation of church and state for example
October 3rd, 2007 at 4:13 pm“The modern conservative is engaged in one of man’s oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.â€â€“John Kenneth Galbraith
Comment by BloggerRadio.com
You can find anyone saying anything, but the meaning still stands. YOU DO NOT do anyone any favor by keeping them reliant when they can do for themselves and be proud that they did it themselves through self reliance.
This is not to say that there are people that will need assistance there entire life. That is NOT what my "fish" saying means.
October 3rd, 2007 at 4:19 pmWhy is it that this was not a problem for the last 200 plus years BUT NOW is all of a sudden a problem?
Comment by MaverickCoast — October 3, 2007 @ 4:10 pm
Probably has something to do with "Bring me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses, yearning to breathe free.â€
If you or one of your children were at school and the school principle being Buddhist wanted to say a Buddhist prayer, would you have a problem with it?
October 3rd, 2007 at 4:20 pmWhy, all of a sudden, was it so important to add "In God We Trust" to money and "under God" to the pledge of allegiance?
Why, if mixing religion and government was so benign, did the early American settlers leave England with its "divine right" king and state religion to come to this land?
Why, if mixing religion and government is such a great idea, didn't Jesus go along with the Zealots and become a secular king?
Was the religious hold on government which allowed the persecution of Galileo not a problem that continues in less serious but nonetheless liberty denying fashion?
October 3rd, 2007 at 4:21 pmWell that is very understanding of you Maverick that if a candidate says he is a Satanic follower it won't be a problem. To me it would be, I don't want someone else's religious beliefs to decide the way I live. Religion is just that a belief, however, it should not determine a law. Your book says homosexuality is bad, my book doesn't so who is right? My book states what I do to my OWN body is my business, you say your book says no. Again, a personal belief only. If there is a God I will answer to him for what I do to my own body. What I do to others tho should be in law, in other words if I hurt someone with my actions.
October 3rd, 2007 at 4:23 pmBecause I disagree with you, since you call yourself a “Christian,†in your book, I am not a Christian. God doesn’t live in your “boxes!â€
I'm saying that the groups that attack God support the Left. That's all.
I do not question your religion or your commitment to that religion. I do not call you an enemy.
You must have not gotten the intent of my question. How can you support an entity (The Left) who harbors groups that are intent on getting God out of everything?
October 3rd, 2007 at 4:25 pmSo, if we get Congress to pass a law that says you have to be 18 years of age to consent to baptism, that’s OK because it does not “establish†a religion. Or, is it not OK because it “respects†a particular religious establishment?
Comment by PatrioticLiberalChristian
I like the Constitution the way it is. Unfortunately there are people that want to misread what it says. Separation of church and state for example
Comment by MaverickCoast — October 3, 2007 @ 4:13 pm
Not an answer to my question. Are you afraid to give a "liberal" interpretation and application to the First Amendment?
October 3rd, 2007 at 4:25 pm“They have attacked the Boy Scouts because of their references to God.
They continually continue to misrepresent the phrase “separation of church and state†which doesn’t exist. The examples go on and on….
I’ve never seen the Democrat Party stand up for God EXCEPT when it’s politically convenient and advantageous.
Comment by MaverickCoast — October 3, 2007 @ 3:11 pmâ€
Actually IT DOES…….
What the HELL was that????
Not even close to what I talked about…..
Did your meds kick in?
What I said was that “church and state†was talked about by the founders who said that they did NOT intend the two to be mingled.
I know what the Constitution says, I served to Protect and Defend it. Which is why I am very close to suggesting we have a Revolution to take back our country.
Comment by RemoveBush
I apologize. You're "actually it does" comment I took to mean it does appear in the Constitution.
October 3rd, 2007 at 4:28 pmif we get Congress to pass a law that says you have to be 18 years of age to consent to baptism, that’s OK because it does not “establish†a religion. Or, is it not OK because it “respects†a particular religious establishment?
Comment by PatrioticLiberalChristian
That would be unconstitutional.
October 3rd, 2007 at 4:31 pmMaverickCoast
How can you support an entity (The Right) who harbors groups that are intent on using God to accumulate everything?
hterrya has it right. If you can't support or object to a secular law with secular reasoning and resort to religious dogma as your only basis, then you are violating the spirit, if not the letter, of the First Amendment. I support the S-CHIP program because it is good for American children who are dependent on us adults. How we operate the program and how we choose who and when they are included can be intelligently debated. Let's keep our children alive and healthy, so they can learn to fish.
October 3rd, 2007 at 4:33 pmif we get Congress to pass a law that says you have to be 18 years of age to consent to baptism, that’s OK because it does not “establish†a religion. Or, is it not OK because it “respects†a particular religious establishment?
Comment by PatrioticLiberalChristian
That would be unconstitutional.
Comment by MaverickCoast — October 3, 2007 @ 4:31 pm
Then, apply that same standard to "defense of marriage". That's being "liberal", in my dictionary.
October 3rd, 2007 at 4:36 pm...who harbors groups that are intent on getting God out of everything?
Comment by MaverickCoast — October 3, 2007 @ 4:25 pm
And YOUR god is so small that he is gonna LET them get him OUT by not spouting "under God" in a pledge of allegience to a piece of CLOTH, claiming that it STANDS for our Nation? Our Nation doesn't need a flag for us to stand for ourselves, and God doesn't need YOU to stand up for Him.
Back to the topic?
The SCHIP program is supported by people of many faiths, as it should be. It is sad that your small god prevents you from joining the many self-labeled "conservatives" who voted FOR the program in numbers LARGE enough to override a veto.
October 3rd, 2007 at 4:37 pmWell that is very understanding of you Maverick that if a candidate says he is a Satanic follower it won’t be a problem. To me it would be, I don’t want someone else’s religious beliefs to decide the way I live. Religion is just that a belief, however, it should not determine a law. Your book says homosexuality is bad, my book doesn’t so who is right? My book states what I do to my OWN body is my business, you say your book says no. Again, a personal belief only. If there is a God I will answer to him for what I do to my own body. What I do to others tho should be in law, in other words if I hurt someone with my actions.
Comment by texaslady
If a candidate believes in Satan I will not vote for him. To the rest of your posting...We have to have rules/morals/standards. If we don't, anything goes. No country can survive without some sort of firm foundation.
If you take away morals and established, time tested beliefs, we will have no foundation.
October 3rd, 2007 at 4:38 pmGotta go. Thanks, MaverickCoast, for the civil discussion.
October 3rd, 2007 at 4:40 pmMaverick, can you answer my post @ 319?
October 3rd, 2007 at 4:44 pm“That would be unconstitutional.
Comment by MaverickCoast — October 3, 2007 @ 4:31 pmâ€
So is warrantless wiretapping, but that is still happening……
Comment by RemoveBush
The primary job of the government is to protect the people from enemies both domestic and abroad. If a bomb goes off here in the U.S. you would be the first to criticize Bush for not doing enough if he didn't do whatever he could to protect us!
The only ones that are being tapped are ones that are believed to have terrorist connections.
October 3rd, 2007 at 4:45 pmWhy is it that this was not a problem for the last 200 plus years BUT NOW is all of a sudden a problem?
Comment by MaverickCoast — October 3, 2007 @ 4:10 pm
Probably has something to do with “Bring me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses, yearning to breathe free.â€
If you or one of your children were at school and the school principle being Buddhist wanted to say a Buddhist prayer, would you have a problem with it?
Comment by wijg — October 3, 2007 @ 4:20 pm
I don't believe it is the business of the school to say a prayer over the intercom before school, but I do find it ok for a football team, for example, to say a prayer before the game.
October 3rd, 2007 at 4:51 pmC'mon you Progressives.
Progressive = Liberal.
When the likes of Hilliary Clinton talks about being "progressive", thats says it all.
October 3rd, 2007 at 4:53 pmI don’t believe it is the business of the school to say a prayer over the intercom before school, but I do find it ok for a football team, for example, to say a prayer before the game.
Comment by MaverickCoast — October 3, 2007 @ 4:51 pm
So it would be ok that the prayer be a Buddhist prayer?
October 3rd, 2007 at 4:54 pm“The modern conservative is engaged in one of man’s oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.â€â€“John Kenneth Galbraith
Comment by BloggerRadio.com
I'd like to hear his definition of self-reliance and responsibility and when those should be a part of ours lives.
If I have to here any more propaganda that says Conservatives are not compassionate........
October 3rd, 2007 at 4:55 pmComment by MaverickCoast — October 3, 2007 @ 4:51 pm
Look, it is way past time to talk about the topic: the veto of the SCHIP program.
I am so glad that enough Senators voted for the program to allow for an override of the veto. I hope that the veto can be overturned in the House as well. The bill that passed in Congress deserves support.
October 3rd, 2007 at 4:57 pmMaverick - Laws are needed but NOT someone else setting my morals/standards. There are many lifestyles that aren't for me, but I have NO right to impose my belief on someone else, nor do you, just because your book says it doesn't agree.
So, this we will not agree on ever....and let the first without sin throw the first stone...I cannot ever throw the first stone, can you?
October 3rd, 2007 at 5:00 pmThe add is just a bit too subtle for the American people half of whom will hear the words but not grasp the irony. I would have prferred somehing along the lines of I'm sure President Bush is a nice amn but why doesn't he care if my brother dies.
October 3rd, 2007 at 5:00 pmOne post you are declaring word for word what the Cosntitution states, in another you are basically stating that it is only useful in certain circumstances……. Who determines what circumstances that is?
Comment by RemoveBush
You're right. I'm getting tired (& sloppy).
I think life and death falls into the catagory of giving the President a little more latitude as to how he sees fit to protect this country. The war against terror coupled with the possibility of a dirty bomb changes the equation.
Your right as to ask 'how much' latitude. I don't think I have an answer to that question other than do what is necessary.
October 3rd, 2007 at 5:01 pmMaverick your comment that no country can survive, well many have, Sweden, Norway, England Germany, France to name a few that have much more broader understanding of different lifestyles.
Now if someone taps your foot under the stall do whatever works for you.
October 3rd, 2007 at 5:03 pmOh Maverick, how can you believe this man anymore ? What has he done for the good of America, just name one thing? Hasn't all the illegal, dismembering of laws, incompetent handling killing our young woke you up? Perhaps you find it too hard to realize you placed your belief in a false god. But better to wake up then refuse to see.
October 3rd, 2007 at 5:08 pmLaws are needed but NOT someone else setting my morals/standards. There are many lifestyles that aren’t for me, but I have NO right to impose my belief on someone else, nor do you, just because your book says it doesn’t agree.
Comment by texaslady
We can surely say that murder is wrong. That rape is wrong. That other things are not right, so how can you say that we can't define morals or set standards.
If we do that, ANYTHING GOES!
October 3rd, 2007 at 5:10 pmSo why keep the Constitution if the President does not need to follow it???
Then that makes him a KING!
Comment by RemoveBush
No. It makes him Commander-In-Chief
October 3rd, 2007 at 5:13 pmReading the Righties posts does make me wonder just what kind of Sick F@cks these morons are. If they really believe what they post then they are the lowest sickest form of subhumans to walk the earth. You guys really are sick and twisted individuals, no wonder your sick repukian party is becoming less and less.
You Righties Are Sick in the Head.
Buck Fush
October 3rd, 2007 at 5:18 pmMaverick your comment that no country can survive, well many have, Sweden, Norway, England Germany, France to name a few that have much more broader understanding of different lifestyles.
Now if someone taps your foot under the stall do whatever works for you.
Comment by texaslady
I don't wanna this country to be like some other country. We became great because we did things OUR way. Not someone else's. This country may not be perfect, but it seems likea lot of people around the world sure would like to come here.
October 3rd, 2007 at 5:19 pmNo child left behind ..... No child insurance for those who are behind.
Wonderful! Who lobbied the pres on that one and is Bush that stupid???
October 3rd, 2007 at 5:24 pmLet’s put it another way….
If someone kills because GOD told them to, would that be OK??
Since GOD has said that killing is a sin, that would mean that there is no way that if someone kills the person that this can be accepted.
I know your gonna say, but if it is to protect themselves then it is allowed…… And I agree, because it is actually writen in the Bible.
However, the Constitution does not give that OPTION.
So, either you follow it or as the President has said “It’s just a god damn piece of paperâ€.
Comment by RemoveBush
I pray that common sense will prevail when our leaders make decisions.
Here's one for you: If a terrorist knows where a bomb is that is going to totally take out a city, but there are rules against torcher, do you torcher him anyway to save countless lives?
October 3rd, 2007 at 5:27 pmIn case you have not noticed…… People are starting to avoid the US and look to go elsewhere now…….
People see what is going on, and consider places like the Ukraine, Russia, Australia, etc.
Comment by RemoveBush
No doubt because of the politics here and all of the propaganda about the "evil" Bush.
October 3rd, 2007 at 5:28 pmMaverick you made the comment that countries can't survive but I am pointing out that many are with much more liberal attitudes than we have. Perhaps you forgot about those countries.
Now laws are one thing morals'standards are another. What hurts others should be law...what is personal is just that personal.
People come here, however, many simply to make money to send home and then they return to their homeland. We have more people requesting citizenship to Canada then ever before. Many Americans have established communities in Mexico, giving up their Medicare because healthcare is just as good and much cheaper than here. Check your AARP magazine for that info.
We were once great but we are not anymore...our pride..our wealth..our young..our jobs are being depleted by a greedy, corrupt administration.
I wonder if you remember as I do the way America used to be? A given word mean't something....you didn't need a contract to back your word or product because you made it right. People didn't jump on the lawsuit bandwagon when it was their mistake but accepted their fault. My husband in four years has never had to invoice for his work nor not gotten paid. So there are still some honorable people around but we are dying out so it is scarey.
October 3rd, 2007 at 5:31 pmBecause what the RIGHT wants to do and is trying to do is what you claim the Left wants to do….. Enter my life and tell me how to live….
When they tell me who I can marry, or whether or not I can use a condom or teach my child about them, then that is injecting YOUR morals on me.
Basic HUMAN rules are always needed, but beyond that no one should be told how they need to live. This is what the RIGHT is trying to do with “GODâ€!
Why should I have to pause for anytime in school, or my children if I don’t believe in “GOD� Or if I believe in a different religion????
Your simplistic view is what is making this whole thing the Republicans are chasing DANGEROUS!!!!
At least the Dems are trying to help the Majority, where the Republicans are PANDERING to a MINORITY.
Comment by RemoveBush
You can live with who you want to, but in the case of homosexuals, for example, don't put the union between two of the same sex on the same pedestal as that of a marriage between a man and a woman.
What's to say you can't marry your dog someday?
October 3rd, 2007 at 5:32 pmWe were once great but we are not anymore…our pride..our wealth..our young..our jobs are being depleted by a greedy, corrupt administration.
I wonder if you remember as I do the way America used to be? A given word mean’t something….you didn’t need a contract to back your word or product because you made it right. People didn’t jump on the lawsuit bandwagon when it was their mistake but accepted their fault. My husband in four years has never had to invoice for his work nor not gotten paid. So there are still some honorable people around but we are dying out so it is scarey.
Comment by texaslady
Amen. I agree. Do you think the negative light shed on this nation might be of OUR own doing. People have there hands out and we vote in a bunch of people that can't be responsible and say 'no'.
Litigation is totally out of control. That is the Left's fault. Too many unfair tax breaks, that would be the Right's fault. Point is, there is enough blame to go around.
Bush is not the bad person some make him out to be. I wonder how he has been able to do anything. DEMOCRATS HAVE BEEN IN ATTACK MODE HIS ENTIRE PRESIDENCY! No one can deny that! Can you imagine being the boss of company with countless employees taking shots at you day after day. I didn't agree with him on immigration. Democrats did!
I wouldn't give a rat's *ss for either Party right now. To me though, the Left's agenda is much more dangerous than the Right.
October 3rd, 2007 at 5:44 pmEverything from STEALING, CHEATING, LYINIG, MURDER, WAR CRIMES, attacking his own citizens, to many other crimes are FACT!!!!
You may brush them asside, but the are FACT!
Comment by RemoveBush
October 3rd, 2007 at 5:46 pmThat could be said about Congress
What’s to say you can’t marry your dog someday?
Comment by MaverickCoast — October 3, 2007 @ 5:32 pmâ€
A dog is NOT a HUMAN BEING!!!!
That is a STAWMAN arguement!
Comment by RemoveBush
You changed the definition of marriage. Anything goes. That guy LOVES his dog. The dog loves him. Why not?
October 3rd, 2007 at 5:48 pmJust a sincere "thanks" to all of you that I have been conversing with in a civil manner.
Even though we are on different sides of the isle, I hope that we can keep it civil and find common ground on the issues that are important to this GREAT country!
Adios, chow, aloha (I don't wanna offend any ethic group by leaving them out! Ha!
Adios!
Mav
Ps. C*A*U*T*I*O*N....I will return :>)
October 3rd, 2007 at 5:52 pmMaverick - You loyalty is admirable but you have placed it with someone undeserving. Bush and Bush Senior could care less about America...did selling (or trying) to sell the Ports not give you a thought? How about our 2 Border Agents trying to do their job and imprisoned for 10 years by a Bush buddy D.A. Johnny? They aren't the only agents who have been persecuted while trying to protect you and I. Do some reading and take your loyalty to someone deserving. How about Max Cleland ? I would vote for him in a New York minute. But we really need a totally new party, starting all over and term limits so they don't get too cozy with the lobbyists.
October 3rd, 2007 at 5:57 pmOne more thing, Maverick how much of a man is it when he has bought his way with other people's money and loyalty out of every jam ? Daddy Bush has rescued him over and over when he screwed up. But this time it is your money and my money and children he is spending. At the least he is a spoiled, stubborn, egotistical person, at the worst he is mentally ill.
October 3rd, 2007 at 6:00 pmMaverick if you read this tomorrow...Bush is the one that said "the constitution is only a piece of paper." Pretty sad and scary.
October 3rd, 2007 at 6:16 pmNow that Mav has gone, can we get back to the topic? Remember the topic?
The veto of the SCHIP bill? Remember?
See what trolls do to this thread? 362 posts (as I type this), and how many were about the SCHIP veto? Too few, if you ask me!
October 3rd, 2007 at 6:16 pmSorry, that was 372 posts. My bad. {:-)
October 3rd, 2007 at 6:18 pmWhat’s to say you can’t marry your dog someday?
Comment by MaverickCoast — October 3, 2007 @ 5:32 pm
Ladies and gentlemen, MaverickCoast IS Rick Santorum!!!! Sorry about that last election, Rick. (NOT!)
October 3rd, 2007 at 6:44 pmActually the trolls didn't get off topic we were trying to get Maverick to understand his misplaced illusions. He wants to teach the poor to fish without giving them equiptment, you know the pull yourself up by your boots even without boots.
Can't get his mind around preventative health is less costly than long term illness from neglect. and Michael, blames bad parenting on kids getting sick..yeah that's right not germs bad parenting. Michael says either don't have kids or never lose your job.
Surely he isn't real.
October 3rd, 2007 at 7:16 pmNo health care is BETTER than government run health care!
Comment by MaverickCoast — October 3, 2007 @ 10:36 am
Continue to laugh. You know that I am telling the truth. Socialized medicine is bad for our economy.
Comment by Daryll — October 3, 2007 @ 10:41 am
I have lived in Japan, which has the highest longevity rate in the world for women and second highest for men. While Japan's health care system is not totally socialized and universal, the National Health Care system is available to all citizens and legally resident aliens who want to join it; and it covers 70% of most medical bills. So do you really want to tell me, Maverick Coast and Daryll, that the Japanese people and their economy have suffered because of semi-socialized medicine?
October 4th, 2007 at 1:22 amOkay Maverick.
Take a look at Liberal ran cities.
I don't know about cities, but how about states?
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/211080_sciglianomoney.html
If I was you, I would start saying "Oops" right about now.
October 4th, 2007 at 5:41 amThis message in response to 'Godfather2' --- It may surprise you to know that we are making contributions. . . called taxes. The purpose of which is for the running of this country for the good of its citizens. How is the money spent? For an illegal war based on fabrications. To pay 1 billion dollars to Blackwater in Iraq(so far) for their mercenaries to commit random murders and suffer no consenquences. To pay Halliburton in Iraq Billions! of dollars in no bid contracts for which there is little if any account. I could go on but those are the most blatant examples of the misuse of OUR tax money. Everyone who uses their common sense do agree that paying for healthcare for some of the 9 million uninsured children in this country would be more than appropriate.
October 4th, 2007 at 11:29 amWell, I am not surprised and in fact partially pleased that the Republicans have taken such a harsh stance against SCHIP, because it will galvanize people to really take an active stance against something so universally desired like good health care.
I think a lot of this was brought to light by Katrina- pointing out how horribly the government handles poor minorities in this country, and we can't forget the ramifications of Katrina (which continue especially with respect to healthcare!) in the coming elections...
There's a documentary coming out called Desert Bayou which addresses how the government has mishandled the crises and relations with the impoverished and minorities in general.
http://www.desertbayoumovie.com/
I'm hoping this and other documentaries will get enough attention to help get the word out about issues of healthcare, poverty, and government mismanagement of poor minorities.
October 4th, 2007 at 2:00 pmOh that Bushie is such a meanie! He wants to force my 25 year old bum of a son to work to get his health care, boo-hoo-hoo, whaaaaa! So what if I make $75,000 a year? My kids are still entitled to free health care, specially junior there who's 25 years old and just wants to play X-Box all day. What's the use of voting democrat if you can't get other people to pay for your own education, health care, food, retirement, ...
October 4th, 2007 at 11:10 pmIt is unfortunate that those who have spew the most negatiivity and hate are usually are uninformed of the facts of the program or are purposely ignoring them. The comment above is a prime example. If the author was truly familiar with the facts, none of the above suppositions about the programe would have been made. The only truthful item in the above comment speaks to the parenting of the author.
October 16th, 2007 at 5:39 pm