Personally, I am disappointed in Pres Bush, but namecalling is really infantile.

• One stubborn King. - sm - Starcat
  • This poll truly makes me ill....sm - LVMT
    • How about this one? Is it any wonder - sm - Starcat
      • Easy to see just from the crashers on this board. - Liberal
        • I assume you are speaking of me. - Lydia
          • You assumed incorrectly. - Liberal
            • I don't see where anyone believes Bush has done no wrong - Hattie
              • Then I'm glad you know Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 - Liberal
                • Not true - Hattie
                  • Well, then, what has Bush done wrong in your opinion? - Liberal
                    • Not standing up to the liberal Democratic party - Hattie
                      • Thanks for responding. - Liberal
                        • And re not standing up to the liberal Democratic party: - Liberal
  • Freedom agenda in the Middle East? - Liberal
    • The Commander in Chimp's base is hopeless...sm - LVMT
      • I saw it on Scarborough. - Liberal
      • Personally, I am disappointed in Pres Bush, but namecalling is really infantile. - Lydia
        • Infantile? High school behavior? - Liberal
          • What are you talking about? - Lydia
            • You know my game? You don't even know your own words. - Liberal
    • Yup, up to the *spinners* now - LOL - sm - Starcat

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu

Good morning. This is Congressman Steny Hoyer of Maryland, the House Majority Leader.

Over the past several months, Democrats and Republicans in Congress have negotiated a bipartisan extension of the highly successful childrens health insurance program known as CHIP - a program enacted by a Republican-controlled Congress in 1997, with strong Democratic support, and signed into law by President Bill Clinton.

CHIP provides health insurance coverage for over six and one-half million American children in families that earn too much to qualify for Medicaid but not enough to afford private insurance.

However, millions of other children who are currently eligible for this health insurance are not enrolled due to the programs limited resources.

To address this, our bipartisan legislation provides funding for approximately four million more children - ensuring that at least 10 million low-income children in our nation receive the health care coverage they need and deserve. Thats good for them and for our country.

This legislation does not change current eligibility guidelines. It simply strengthens CHIPs financing, covers more low-income children, and improves the quality of care they receive.

The President claims - wrongly - that this bill is fiscally irresponsible.

The truth is, this legislation is fully paid for. It does not add one nickel to the deficit or to the debt.

Furthermore, under the Presidents proposal more than 800,000 children who now receive coverage under CHIP would lose that coverage.

The President claims that this legislation would lead to a government takeover of health insurance. He is wrong.

The truth is, Americas largest private insurance lobbying group supports this bill - as do Americas doctors, nurses, childrens advocates, 43 governors, and, most importantly, 72 percent of Americans.

The claims made against this bill are simply wrong.

As Senator Pat Roberts, a senior Republican from Kansas, recently said: I am not for excessive spending and strongly oppose the federalization of health care. And if the Administrations concerns with this bill were accurate, I would support a veto. But, Senator Roberts added: Bluntly put, they are not.

Most puzzling of all, perhaps, is the fact that the Presidents veto violates his own campaign promise.

In 2004, at the Republican National Convention, the President promised (and I quote): In a new term, we will lead an aggressive effort to enroll millions of children who are eligible but not signed up for government health insurance programs. We will not allow, he said, a lack of attention, or information, to stand between these children and the health care they need.

But he has done just that.

But the Congress has done exactly what the President said he was going to do, if re-elected.

Yet today, the only thing standing between millions of American children and the health insurance they need and deserve is one person. The President is saying no to these children he promised to help.

This is a defining moment for this Congress.

In the words of Senator Charles Grassley, a Republican of Iowa, weve got to do what we can to try to override the Presidents veto.

In the days ahead, we will work to persuade many of our Republican colleagues, who insist on standing with the President, to instead join the bipartisan majorities in Congress - and Americas children - in overriding this veto.

I urge all of you: Contact your Member of Congress.

Ask them to support our children.

Ask them to do what the President promised to do when he sought re-election.

Ask them to vote to override the Presidents veto and ensure health care for our kids and for their future.

Thank you for listening. This is House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer.

Gads, I think he's a slow learner.  This sort of stuff doesn't go over well, IMHO.  Might make people think he is a big phony.

Bush Teleconference With Soldiers Staged

AP - 42 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - It was billed as a conversation with U.S. troops, but the questions President Bush asked on a teleconference call Thursday were choreographed to match his goals for the war in Iraq and Saturday's vote on a new Iraqi constitution. This is an important time, Allison Barber, deputy assistant defense secretary, said, coaching the soldiers before Bush arrived. The president is looking forward to having just a conversation with you..

So it's only okay when you do it?

Where did you get your debating skills?  On the south side of Chicago in some street gang?  Because if you did, it shows.

In a REAL debate, there is no room or tolerance for personal attacks.  Yet, that's all you people know how to do.  You can't stay on the issue.  You MUST attack the poster personally, claiming to know not only what they think and feel but also claiming to know what every liberal ever thought or did, what they're thinking and doing right now and what they will be thinking and doing for the next 1,000 years.  In fact, you seem to know everything about anything that ever existed on the planet, exists now or will exist into infinity. 

As I (and others) have said repeatedly and you just can't seem to grasp, if you constantly treat people badly, they're not going to want to associate with you.  Lurker was very gracious in her posts to all of you on your board, but even she, in the end, couldn't tolerate your continued, nonstop, personal attacks any more (as she indicated in her responses to the attackers).  If you ever stop knowing it all and become interested in the proper way of debating someone, you could learn a lot from Lurker.  You see, having *thick skin* is only important if you're a thug in a gang somewhere.  It's irrelevant when it comes to treating humans like humans, and in that area, you have a lot to learn. 

As for me, I like to learn from intelligent, friendly people with different political views, so I visit boards where those kinds of people are found.  Not all conservatives are angry, rude, come out swinging and need to personally attack 1,000% of the time.  Some of them are actually quite nice and informative, and they can be found on other forums.  Too bad they can't be found on MTStars.

Have a pleasant evening.

a day without being talked down to is like....a good day.

I was hoping to see a reply like....oh..for the love of Pete or Michael...whichever brother struck your fancy.  Instead we just get a red angry face. 

We may not agree on political issues, but I'm still sending ya some love. 

Cheers, my friend. 

I tried to have an exchange of ideas with you some time ago.  I had hoped that maybe you were someone who was sincere, reasonable and truly were here to debate.  You indicated you would answer my post *more in depth later.*  That was on May 13 -- a month ago tomorrow.  You have yet to respond, outlining your own views as I had outlined mine in an attempt to have an honest debate.

Instead you have elected to hijack threads to bring conflict to this board.  You pretend to be *respectful* when in fact you are not.  This post was clearly addressed to Liberals, but why should you have to respect that?  You should control everything, shouldn't you?  All the boards on the internet.  Which religion I should believe in.  Who I am allowed to love.  When I'm allowed to die.  Every single thing in my life (and in all Americans' lives) that is simply none of your business should be controlled by YOU and those who share your beliefs.

You have numerous posts repeatedly beating up Democrat because she posted a post with a *bad word* in it, yet the *bad spirit* of the words written by Ann Coulter is far worse than any one curse word. 

And your very own President described the Constitution as a piece of paper, using God's name in vain.  What kind of honest devout Christian President would refer to the Constituation (which he swore to uphold and protect) as *only a G**D***** piece of paper*? 

I admit to being nowhere near as perfect as you are, Lila, but sometimes I get angry and a curse word will escape my lips.  But regardless of how angry I get, I can't ever bring myself to *damn God* in my speech.  It's just something I've never done.

And since I'm not near the perfect Christian that you are, Lila, I won't be going to heaven, as those of certain Christian beliefs keep telling me.  These superhumans hold the *key* to heaven, and if don't believe EXACTLY as they demand I must, then I am doomed to eternal hell and damnation.

The original article posted by Lurker, that has been littered by your posts and those of your gang, is about Ann Coulter's self-professed *superiority* to ALL LIBERALS.  She refers to liberalism as a religion, and by doing so, she is belittling every single religous liberal in America.  It's about her uncontrollable hatred and mean spiritedness, and I must say that you and your friends on this board do an excellent job of mimicking her.  They do say that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.  Ann would be very pleased. 

You're a fraud, Lila.  I had hoped you would be different, had hoped you were a genuine and honest person.  But instead, you're just another Ann Coulter when it comes to the motive behind your presence here.  You're only here to create discomfort for others.  You have nothing positive to offer.  The only difference between you and Ann is that SHE'S the one with the book and book tour, TV appearances and is making millions of dollars off the pain of people.  But if there IS one thing I have faith in, Lila, it's that you're made of the *same stuff* as Ann Coulter, and that should certainly take you somewhere in life.

You pretended to be someone who, a month ago, claimed to want to answer my post *in more depth.*  Why did you lie about doing that, Lila?  And why did you instead choose to just be like all the other snipers who insist in inserting themselves on this board?  You're choosing hollow, meaningless, childish swipes over thoughtful reasoned communication.  I'm very disappointed in you, Lila.  I had hoped your heart was pure and your character authentic.

As far as *bad language* is concerned, I think I'd rather be told the truth by someone who curses like a sailor than to be lied to repeatedly by someone hiding behind a Bible.  The *badness* is in the spirit and the deed, Lila, not in the words.  And to repeatedly attack Democrat for making a human error regarding a word, after she apologized repeatedly to you, isn't a good thing, Lila.  There's no substance or intelligence there.  Just plain old nastiness.

But you and Ann already knew that, didn't you?

"First... I don't claim him. I think he's a tyrant to put it nicely and I think he is a warmonging hillbilly (and that's sad for the hillbillies because they are decent folk he gives a bad name). I told everyone not to vote for him last time... I tried to warn them. I didn't want him and he hasn't done anything to help me our my friends and family in the slightest, except make us look ridiculous on the international stage (which I can say because I live in Europe at the moment and I know how foolish they think us right now). Second, good for you. Maybe you should vote for McCain so that the pain (errr I mean pleasure) never ends. I bet the people that he's been against and not fought for (i.e., Katrina victims, Iowa flood victims, homosexuals, people with diseases that stem cell reasearch could help, innocent people in far off lands that lost family members and friends who were innocent victims) I bet they all share your same sentiments.. right? You can have him.. I bet right about now he's half price on the discount rack anyways! Third... you should be grateful she put "creatrue." Its probably how Bush spells and says it, so its a true representation. Fourth... I think the last time I checked it was a free country with free speech and allowed for people to have their own opinions. I have better names to call him than childish ones... but I won't use them since your so easily offended... are you his personal emotional filter? I doubt he cares what the American people call him... he's certainly proven he doesn't care what they think or how they feel... so why should we care about him? Thanks back atcha. I can have whatever opinion I want of the president and I can tell you, I am more the majority than you are."

Moving over here per Mod request.......

Of course you can have your opinion about President Bush.  I was just saying that the names are uncalled for.  Are you staying in Europe forever or are you planning on coming back to the U.S.?  Just curious. 

President Bush isn't perfect and there have been many mistakes, I do agree.  I did vote for him and agree with the vast majority of his conservative views.  I do plan on voting for John McCain in November.  But, if Obama is our next president, as much as I disagree with his views, I wouldn't call him names; but that's just me I guess. 

I do not envy anyone who is willing to take on the gigantic role of running the country.  I would not want the job in a million years.  I have respect for ANYONE, republican or democrat, who is ready and willing to take on this great responsibility. 

I still would like to know what a creatrue is and President Bush is NOT retarded.

In every place I go where the pledge is recited ballgames mostly when we got to the words under God it's amplified UNDER GOD!!!  That's what I intend on doing even if it becomes illegal.  I don't care if they outlaw the word God period I'll shout it from the mountaintops.  First of all to glorify my God, and second of all to irritate those who think it's a curse word.

Go ahead sue me...hang me...chop my head off.  The best is yet to come for me anyway. 

the McCain campaing has set Palin up to be the attacker of Obama's character and let McCain talk about what they will do if they are elected. 

As for Palin lying, I do believe that Obama has not been 100% truthful with things brought out about him.  He has changed his story several times on different associations and issues and that makes me not trust him. 

I do find it interesting that a lot of times what an Obama supporter can say about Palin....a McCain supporter can say about Obama.  LOL!  Kind of makes you wonder what the heck all of us are thinking really. 

One thing that holds true for me in the case of Sarah Palin is that she cut spending in her state.  I truly do believe that for the sake our country....we need to cut back on the government pending and this just reinforces my trust in McCain and Palin to do just that.  Obama...on the other hand....I believe will not cut back on spending as he has endorsed more pork in his short term in senate than McCain has his entire career.....and that to me says a lot.  And that has nothing to do with him being a POW and having the scars to prove it.  LOL!

I could  not care less so long as they don't mess around with the constitution.  I do think, however, that there is much ado about nothing.  As for the alleged tax breaks...when my husband and I married we asked my CPA about tax ramifications.  He said we would be better off to marry.  When we filed our first joint return, the same CPA said he didn't realize how much our income was and that in fact, marrying was the worst thing we could do tax-wise.  So if gays/lesbians want to marry for tax purposes, they had better take a good hard look at where the marriage will put them.

I don't know that there's anything legal/illegal about it but I expect that in the case of serious illness or injury a significant other would not be kept from the bedside. 

My husband and I used an attorney to draw up papers (forget what they are called) that directs everything that could possibly be foreseen and the cost was something like $350.  That would work just as well for gays/lesbians I would think.

We  have a gay couple in our community, also biracial.  They moved here from another state.  Both wear wedding rings, I have no idea what it symbolizes, haven't asked.  One is rather elderly and has relatives here but they accept the significant other and everyone just goes about their business.

Gay/lesbian relations are not new, it goes all the way back to biblical times.  I don't lean in that direction myself so I do not know anything about it, whether it is a choice or people are born with that bend.  I just have a hard time with God saying that it is an abomination for a man to lie with a man as with a woman and then that He would turn around and cause people to be born with this kind of sexual orientation.  That being said, let them do what they will, it is between them and God.  Like religion and politics, they don't need to try to shove it down the throats of the majority who are heterosexual.