I will do so when you do so. You pointed a barb at me....
Posted By: sam on 2008-10-01
In Reply to: you called me indoctrinated and - MissiLink
"sometimes I think..." and when I fed it back to you, you complain. YOU stick to the issues and keep the barbs out, and I will do the same. If you dish it out, be prepared to take it.
Have a nice day, now. :)
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
you pointed something out...
We *MUST* have auto insurance or we are prohibited from driving our cars.
We *MUST* have homeowners insurance on our homes or we are disallowed having a mortgage.
*BUT* it's fine for an American citizen to go without insurance, even forced to go without when it's impossible to afford, yet we are still "citizens" of America and are forced to pay taxes...
...hmmmmmm....
They were also pointed out....(sm)
by other citizens as the US was offering rewards for ANYONE. Think about what kind of incentive that is to someone in that region with no money who's trying to feed their family.
As has been pointed out before,
having a 135 IQ, and obviously thinks it's pretty special. The rest of us realize that it is no more worthy of praise than the eye color or height we happen to have inherited. Much better to take credit for something we have actually accomplished, rather than what's in our DNA.
Most of us were IQ tested somewhere back in our school years, and yet do not have the score printed on our business cards. How many actually feel it necessary to share that number at the drop of a hat? Me neither.
there should be FINGERS POINTED
x
Like Kendra pointed out............sm
it is foolish to enlist in the military and think you won't be sent into war. They are full aware of this when they enlist. That is like taking a job as a baker and thinking that, at some point, you won't burn your hand on the hot stove.
Yes and it must be pointed out that McCain
McCain's speech, while gracious, was given to a smallish "invite only" crowd, made of up largely white people, mostly white males. Obama had half a million people from all walks of life. That speaks volumes.
I did not see the *real* America represented in the crowd of McCain's supporters... that is NOT the same thing as saying those people are not real Americans - only that HIS crowd did not reflect the truth about our diverse American citizenry.
Because, as has been pointed out, several times here....
he is still in charge. Obama isn't even in the White House yet, but you seem to think it's fine and dandy to talk about him. I can see Russia from my house, also.
Sarah was pointed out....(sm)
because a) it was funny; b) she is a female; and c) she herself just got a raise (by a committee she formed for just that purpose) just since the election while Alaska is taking a big hit financially because the price of oil went down.
Because I pointed out the TRUTH, that...
...the majority of African-Americans voted for Obama? That "majority" was actually 97%. http://www.findingdulcinea.com/news/politics/2008/November/Obama-Victory-Sealed-by-Minorities--Women.html
Because I pointed out that the largely hyped "tea parties," estimated to bring in millions of people, only actually brought in a couple hundred thousand? Because I pointed out that these tea parties don't have much to offer Democrats (including African-Americans, other than the resurgence of hate groups like the KKK, skinheads, etc.)? Or because I pointed out that Michael Steele was rejected by his OWN PARTY to speak at the Chicago tea party?
I did provide corroborative links for each statement I made, unlike some on this board who just throw out names, invent fiction and pretend it's true.
I wasn't being racist. If anything, I was being "classist" because I was referring to an entire class of people, including white people, as well, that has been hurt over the last eight years by corporate welfare. In case nobody has noticed, under the Bush administration, the middle class almost became extinct, so our society now mostly consists of rich and poor, regardless of race.
Please tell me SPECIFICALLY what was racist in my post, and then we can have a discussion. Of course, if a discussion really isn't within your realm of interest, then, please, by all means, just continue the juvenile name calling.
As I pointed out before...that fellow is not entirely honest either...
and Bush did not lie. While the bill does not explicitly state it will cover families to $83,000, it opens a loophole that will allow New York to again ask for the $82,600 raise and under the new bill would probably get it, because the stipulation preventing it was being removed. So basically what Bush said is true...he should have worded it differently.
Here are some things that were not brought forward that are also bad things about the bill:
Bush had good reason to veto SCHIP
By Grace-Marie Turner
Article Launched: 10/14/2007 01:33:38 AM PDT
Is President Bush a liar who hates children? That's what many of his critics now are asking in the opinion pages of major newspapers across the country. Why else, they say, would he refuse to sign a bill providing health insurance to poor kids?
Specifically, the president has vetoed a bill expanding the State Children's Health Insurance Program designed to provide health coverage to lower-income children. One nationally syndicated columnist went so far as to call Bush's rationale in vetoing the bill a "pack of flat-out lies."
This kind of rhetoric is wrong and misleads readers about the facts of this important issue.
There is no debate over whether to reauthorize the SCHIP program so it can continue to provide insurance to needy children. That's a given. The debate is about whether children in middle-income families should be added.
The president is absolutely right in insisting that SCHIP focus on its core mission of needy children. When SCHIP was created in 1997, the target population was children whose parents earned too much for them to qualify for Medicaid but not enough to afford private insurance. The president wants the program to focus on children whose families earn less than 200 percent of the federal poverty level. In today's dollars, that's $41,300 a year.
About two-thirds of the nation's uninsured children already are eligible for either Medicaid or SCHIP, but aren't enrolled. Raising the income threshold won't solve this core problem. Congress should require states to focus on the 689,000 children whom the Urban Institute says are uninsured and would be eligible for SCHIP if eligibility were limited to the $41,300 income level.
The other big problem is that, across the country, states are using SCHIP dollars to insure adults.
Fourteen states cover adults through SCHIP, and at least six of them are spending more of their SCHIP dollars on adults than on children. For example, 78 percent of SCHIP enrollees in Minnesota are adults, 79 percent in New Mexico, and 72 percent in Michigan.
With these statistics in mind, the Bush administration issued a ruling in August requiring states to demonstrate that they had enrolled 95 percent of eligible needy children before expanding the program.
Yet the bill that Congress passed, and which the president vetoed, nullifies that ruling and effectively refuses to agree that needy kids should get first preference. Instead, the congressional measure would give $60 billion to the states over five years to enroll millions more "children" - although many of them will, in fact, be adults. Others will be from higher-income families.
New York, for instance, could submit a plan that would add children in families earning up to $83,000 a year to SCHIP. New Jersey could continue to cover kids whose parents make up to $72,000. All the other states would be allowed to cover kids in families with incomes up to $61,000.
Most children in these higher income families are already covered by private insurance. According to the Congressional Budget Office, 77 percent of children in families earning more than twice the poverty line have private health insurance now.
No one doubts that SCHIP is a vitally important program for needy children, and that our nation needs to do a better job of helping working families afford health insurance. But giving the states incentives to add middle-income kids to their SCHIP rolls will prompt families to replace private insurance with taxpayer-provided coverage.
This is completely backward. The goal of SCHIP should be to provide private coverage to uninsured children. If Congress would send the president a bill that does that, he says he would sign it in a minute.
And when things are pointed out, people are bashed.
What's the use? Anyone who doesn't believe the O will do what he states is bashed. It was a joke (maybe), but jeez. Get a life.
|
