NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/09/22/radio.addressses.ap/index.html

You can read it for yourself. Can this President sink any lower??? Really??? I'm an American and I wish I could impeach him myself

Having read that: Damn bastard's as despicable as always.

Wow. I had almost forgotten Big Tobacco's strings were still tied to Bush's extremities. They haven't tugged on em in a number of years. :p

I was going to make this topic yesterday but I couldn't think of a subject line that wouldn't have to be changed for excessive cursing.
Something like
"Bush vows to continue being an asshole"
"Bush promises to be a stupid son of a bitch."


I hope when he vetoes it the Congress tells him to blow it out his ass and overrides it.
Also, the Democrats should stop trying to guilt Bush or Bush supporters into supporting it - the neocons don't give two shits, the yoppose anything that is even remotely socialistic and will blame the Democrats using their own guilt trip and the rest of the neocons will believe them because they are fucking dunces. The Democrats need to say something like "we have the power to override any veto attempt" or "we will tack it on to every single military funding bill until it is passed." That would make him sweat.

Members of Congress are risking health coverage for poor children purely to make a political point.

:rolleyes: We can't have that now can we?

Billions spend on warfare and yet he cannot spend to care for his own kid"s ??????? I hope you get rid of him (through impeachment) before his term is over.

Wow...thats pretty low...even for Shrub...15 States will run out of funding by the end of the month....

In the Democrats' response, also broadcast Saturday, Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell turned the tables on the president, saying that if Bush doesn't sign the bill, 15 states will have no funding left for the program by the end of the month.

Good for W. Takes balls to put a stop to government waste.

The fact is - the majority of people who would receive the so called 'aid' do not need it; eligibility would go up to $80,000 - and that would be MAGI - not net.

Bush rightfully believes that government assistance should be reserved for people who actually need it. Lower the eligibility and he'll approve.

Veto-ing this is just as prudent as vetoing food stamps for people earning $80,000 - but it certainly makes for catchy headlines which the gullible gladly lap up like thirsty hounds.

So, the same man that's against stem cell research, thus killing people, because of "erring on the side of life" has also declared a war that killed people, sent mentally handicapped people to their deaths through death penalty, thus killing people, and isn't allowing health care to save people, thus killing people.

ERRING ON THE SIDE OF LIFE, RIGHT?

Good for W. Takes balls to put a stop to government waste.

The fact is - the majority of people who would receive the so called 'aid' do not need it; eligibility would go up to $80,000 - and that would be MAGI - not net.

Bush rightfully believes that government assistance should be reserved for people who actually need it. Lower the eligibility and he'll approve.

Veto-ing this is just as prudent as vetoing food stamps for people earning $80,000 - but it certainly makes for catchy headlines which the gullible gladly lap up like thirsty hounds.

people making $80K are still paying Medicare tax and unable to afford health insurance for their children, should get some sort of help, shouldn't they?

I have no issue with insuring children, yes, even when their parents are too irresponsible to budget for it.

ERRING ON THE SIDE OF LIFE, RIGHT?
Yup
Bush has always been for erring on the side of:
Letting
Impoverished
Fucking
Expire

people making $80K are still paying Medicare tax and unable to afford health insurance for their children, should get some sort of help, shouldn't they?
Bearing in mind also that a couple earning $80k are in fact making less than average (which is $43k p/person).
Take away taxes, cost of raising a family, mortgage etc and said couple wouldn't be left with a helluva lot.

Better than some, obviously, but still not a great amount. A very sick child could well wipe them out financially.
For ppl like that, getting kid's insurance would be a huge positive and great help.

So, the same man that's against stem cell research, thus killing people, because of "erring on the side of life" has also declared a war that killed people, sent mentally handicapped people to their deaths through death penalty, thus killing people, and isn't allowing health care to save people, thus killing people.
ERRING ON THE SIDE OF LIFE, RIGHT?



"Once you leave the womb, conservatives don’t care about you until you reach military age. Then you’re just what they’re looking for. Conservatives want live babies so they can raise them to be dead soldiers." -George Carlin

"Democrats in Congress have decided to pass a bill they know will be vetoed," Bush said of the measure that draws significant bipartisan support, repeating in his weekly radio address an accusation he made earlier in the week. "Members of Congress are risking health coverage for poor children purely to make a political point."

Wouldn't it be so much easier if the USA ressurected the constitution of the USSR, and that way Congress would just rubber stamp the decisions of the Dear Leader without democracy getting in the way?

Yeah, how dare congress be an independent entity that disagrees with the Enemy of the World?

"Democrats in Congress have decided to pass a bill they know will be vetoed," Bush said of the measure that draws significant bipartisan support, repeating in his weekly radio address an accusation he made earlier in the week. "Members of Congress are risking health coverage for poor children purely to make a political point."
Wouldn't it be so much easier if the USA ressurected the constitution of the USSR, and that way Congress would just rubber stamp the decisions of the Dear Leader without democracy getting in the way?

Takes balls to put a stop to government waste.


With a statement like that, I bloody well hope you opposed the invasion of Iraq.

I also hope you never rely on any kind of government-funded public services. You wouldn't want to be a hypocrite now, would you?


Bush rightfully believes that government assistance should be reserved for people who actually need it. Lower the eligibility and he'll approve.


Have you even read the article?


Once you leave the womb, conservatives don’t care about you until you reach military age.

Ridiculous, isn't it? When you're a cluster of cells, you're sacred. Once you become a baby, you can just be left to die or suffer.

people making $80K are still paying Medicare tax and unable to afford health insurance for their children, should get some sort of help, shouldn't they?

No, they shouldn't - because they CAN afford health insurance. Everyone pays Medicare taxes - that is irrelevant.

If a person is irresponsible I have no responsibility to do anything.

With a statement like that, I bloody well hope you opposed the invasion of Iraq.

I also hope you never rely on any kind of government-funded public services. You wouldn't want to be a hypocrite now, would you?


Ooooo - nice red herring. Can I get it on my pizza?



Have you even read the article?


Yes - it was very poorly written as it makes no mention of this very important fact. You should not depend on only one source - ever. Here is another;
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/09/20070921-6.html


Ridiculous, isn't it? When you're a cluster of cells, you're sacred. Once you become a baby, you can just be left to die or suffer.
LOL You are full of red herrings!

Of course - parents are never as responsible as the allmighty government!

You would have a point if the PERSON was paying for their irresponsibility. As it is, the CHILD is.

No, I wouldn't.

If a person is irresponsible I have no responsibility to do anything.

You would have a point if the PERSON was paying for their irresponsibility. As it is, the CHILD is.

You would have a point if the PERSON was paying for their irresponsibility. As it is, the CHILD is.

No, they are not.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/09/22/radio.addressses.ap/index.html

You can read it for yourself. Can this President sink any lower??? Really??? I'm an American and I wish I could impeach him myself

I think EL Cowboy knows his power's slipping, so he's just vetoing mindlessly. But that takes unmitigated gall.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/09/22/radio.addressses.ap/index.html

You can read it for yourself. Can this President sink any lower??? Really??? I'm an American and I wish I could impeach him myself

Yep, its official, King Bush is an ass! But lets be fair, we Americans elected his dumbass (our bad) not once, but twice! So who's to blame?

But all is not lost, we are only stuck with this dipshit-dumbfuck dickhead for another year.

You can read it for yourself. Can this President sink any lower??? Really??? I'm an American and I wish I could impeach him myself[/QUOTE]

Yep, its official, King Bush is an ass! But lets be fair, we Americans elected his dumbass (our bad) not once, but twice! So who's to blame?

But all is not lost, we are only stuck with this dipshit-dumbfuck dickhead for another year.

No, they are not.

Yes they are. Unless you explain to me how exactly is being left to die due to lack of money not paying for the irresponsibility of one's father, you have nothing.

geeeez he explained it all the other day in his press conference.

what if middle class people stopped getting insurance altogether and just got this coverage for their children??!!!

how would the insurance companies make money then?

i just cant see many families earning that much money dropping their employer sponsored insurance so that they can put their kids on government insurance.

and if they DONT have insurance from their employers and if they dont quite make that much, i think their kids should have the opportunity to be covered. its an investment in the future that is more than worth the cost.

Yes they are. Unless you explain to me how exactly is being left to die due to lack of money not paying for the irresponsibility of one's father, you have nothing.

Simple - they are not left to die.

'cuz I'm sure there weren't any add-ons to the bill...

Simple - they are not left to die.

Do they have health care then?

Ooooo - nice red herring. Can I get it on my pizza?




Yes - it was very poorly written as it makes no mention of this very important fact. You should not depend on only one source - ever. Here is another;
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/09/20070921-6.html


LOL You are full of red herrings!

Of course - parents are never as responsible as the allmighty government!


Know what I noticed yesterday. The term red herring popped up from nowhere and now everyone is using it even when it has nothing to do with what is being said.

Also saying something is a red herring is a red herring.

Do they have health care then?

Silly you - stuck in two dimensional thinking.

Click Stand;13076429']Know what I noticed yesterday. The term red herring popped up from nowhere and now everyone is using it even when it has nothing to do with what is being said.

Also saying something is a red herring is a red herring.

Ya know who likes herring?
http://www.postwritersgroup.com/comics/opus/2col4.jpg

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/09/22/radio.addressses.ap/index.html

You can read it for yourself. Can this President sink any lower??? Really??? I'm an American and I wish I could impeach him myself

God bless President Bush for vetoing another unconstitutional bill!

Don't mind Mystical, he would be the first person to move here:
http://gaygamer.net/images/bioshock-screen1-1-31.JPG

^^^ Rapture might have worked... if it wasn't for the magic slug juice that drove everybody insane.

Silly you - stuck in two dimensional thinking.

How is black/white two dimensional? Shades of grey thinking with one-variable would be one-dimensional wouldn't it? Unless those crazy new-agers have been stealing words and bastardising them because pseudo-science sells slightly better again... I hate it when they do that.

Ya know who likes herring?
http://www.postwritersgroup.com/comics/opus/2col4.jpg

:eek: LOOK!! It's a distraction... over there... look *points*

I was going to make this topic yesterday but I couldn't think of a subject line that wouldn't have to be changed for excessive cursing.
Something like
"Bush vows to continue being an asshole"
"Bush promises to be a stupid son of a bitch."


I hope when he vetoes it the Congress tells him to blow it out his ass and overrides it.
Also, the Democrats should stop trying to guilt Bush or Bush supporters into supporting it - the neocons don't give two shits, the yoppose anything that is even remotely socialistic and will blame the Democrats using their own guilt trip and the rest of the neocons will believe them because they are fucking dunces. The Democrats need to say something like "we have the power to override any veto attempt" or "we will tack it on to every single military funding bill until it is passed." That would make him sweat.

*cough*

Bush said of the measure that draws significant bipartisan support
-
A bipartisan group of lawmakers announced a proposal Friday
-
It has substantial Republican support as well.


Nice try though. ;)

Don't mind Mystical, he would be the first person to move here:
http://gaygamer.net/images/bioshock-screen1-1-31.JPG

If I were to live in a video game it would look more like this one;

http://image.com.com/gamespot/images/2004/screen0/919124_20040803_screen007.jpg

Nice try though. ;)
Thanks genius, that was my point. :rolleyes:

Thanks genius, that was my point. :rolleyes:
Sorry about it then. It's just that sometimes it seems like, with most people at least, neo-cons=all Republicans/right.

Sorry about it then. It's just that sometimes it seems like, with most people at least, neo-cons=all Republicans/right.
I said Bush and Bush supporters and meant the neocon laymen, not the politicians supporting this. They will side with Bush and will blame the Democrats when this fails and costs children their healthcare and will buy Bush's bullshit about how this will take people away from private healthcare who can afford it.

Bush rightfully believes that government assistance should be reserved for people who actually need it.

Like corporations.

Like corporations.

Oh yes, those poor, poor, corporations. When will they ever get the help they need? :D

Oh yes, those poor, poor, corporations. When will they ever get the help they need? :D

LOL - and how do corporations make their money? Selling stuff! Ding ding ding! You're right!

Now try to keep up here - this is complicated stuff - if a corporation is charged more for labor, materials or tax, the cost of goods will....

Increase! Right again! Ding-ding-ding!

You're really good at this!

So tax increases therefore raise ..... Prices! Right again!!!

Now - for the $1 mil question - if taxing corporations raises prices - then who is hurt most by corporate taxes?
a) The eeevil corporations
b) The eeevil corporate shareholders
c) the eeevil corporate directors
d) The poor people who's prices are increased to pay for the higher tax costs.

D - ding-ding-ding-ding-ding!!!!!

You are smarter than a fifth grader! You're check is in the mail!!!!

LOL - and how do corporations make their money? Selling stuff! Ding ding ding! You're right!

Now try to keep up here - this is complicated stuff - if a corporation is charged more for labor, materials or tax, the cost of goods will....

Increase! Right again! Ding-ding-ding!

You're really good at this!

So tax increases therefore raise ..... Prices! Right again!!!

Now - for the $1 mil question - if taxing corporations raises prices - then who is hurt most by corporate taxes?
a) The eeevil corporations
b) The eeevil corporate shareholders
c) the eeevil corporate directors
d) The poor people who's prices are increased to pay for the higher tax costs.

D - ding-ding-ding-ding-ding!!!!!

You are smarter than a fifth grader! You're check is in the mail!!!!


Fail. History has shown that when corporations get tax breaks, they don't pass the savings on, but just keep the money as extra profit.

Silly you - stuck in two dimensional thinking.

So, they'll have health care when they're in Heaven then? That is the 5th dimension, other universes? Not enough.

God bless President Bush for vetoing another unconstitutional bill!

Someone needs to inform Allanea that the "Children of the poor shall be left to die slow and painful deaths" amendment proposed by conservatives from that time was abolished.

Fail. History has shown that when corporations get tax breaks, they don't pass the savings on, but just keep the money as extra profit.

It's that wonderful neo-con fairy tale known as Trickle Down Economics.

"If we give corporations and the rich tax breaks, they'll pass the money on down the chain to help bring everyone up higher!"

"If we give the Sudetenland to Germany, it'll leave the rest of Europe alone!"

It's that wonderful neo-con fairy tale known as Trickle Down Economics.

Well, at least Reagan is long gone.

You would have a point if the PERSON was paying for their irresponsibility. As it is, the CHILD is.
No, I wouldn't.

You're right! Even in that case, you wouldn't have a point.

You're right! Even in that case, you wouldn't have a point.

Nice move.

Yep, its official, King Bush is an ass! But lets be fair, we Americans elected his dumbass (our bad) not once, but twice! So who's to blame?

But all is not lost, we are only stuck with this dipshit-dumbfuck dickhead for another year.

Um, no, we didn't, thank you very much indeed.
See: 2004 election.

It's that wonderful neo-con fairy tale known as Trickle Down Economics.

That's where the rest of us get pissed on and are supposed to think it's raining, right?

Nice move.

*bows*

LOL - and how do corporations make their money? Selling stuff! Ding ding ding! You're right!

Now try to keep up here - this is complicated stuff - if a corporation is charged more for labor, materials or tax, the cost of goods will....

Increase! Right again! Ding-ding-ding!

You're really good at this!

So tax increases therefore raise ..... Prices! Right again!!!

Now - for the $1 mil question - if taxing corporations raises prices - then who is hurt most by corporate taxes?
a) The eeevil corporations
b) The eeevil corporate shareholders
c) the eeevil corporate directors
d) The poor people who's prices are increased to pay for the higher tax costs.

D - ding-ding-ding-ding-ding!!!!!

You are smarter than a fifth grader! You're check is in the mail!!!!

You're flamebaiting. Knock it off.

I was going to make this topic yesterday but I couldn't think of a subject line that wouldn't have to be changed for excessive cursing.
Something like
"Bush vows to continue being an asshole"
"Bush promises to be a stupid son of a bitch."

Here's mine

"George Bush doesn't care about poor children!"

Bearing in mind also that a couple earning $80k are in fact making less than average (which is $43k p/person).
Take away taxes, cost of raising a family, mortgage etc and said couple wouldn't be left with a helluva lot.

People making $80k can well afford health insurance.

The Federal Poverty Level for a family of four is $20,650. Four hundred percent of $20,650 is $82,600. ("The 2007 HHS Poverty Guidelines," Accessed 9/20/07, Available At: http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/07poverty.shtml)

People making $80k can well afford health insurance.

The Federal Poverty Level for a family of four is $20,650. Four hundred percent of $20,650 is $82,600. ("The 2007 HHS Poverty Guidelines," Accessed 9/20/07, Available At: http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/07poverty.shtml)
Rebuttal: http://www.newsday.com/news/opinion/ny-opsch185379647sep18,0,4170119.story

The "poverty level" calculation is bullshit. It isn't separate by state which makes it irrelevant. I don't even want to speculate on the difference in cost of living between Birmingham, AL (biggest city in Alabama) and Seattle, WA (largest city in Washington).

People making $80k can well afford health insurance.

The Federal Poverty Level for a family of four is $20,650. Four hundred percent of $20,650 is $82,600. ("The 2007 HHS Poverty Guidelines," Accessed 9/20/07, Available At: http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/07poverty.shtml)

$20,650? You've got to be kidding me? Poverty level should be at least 3 times that....

This just proves to me how ineffectual the US federal government actually is.

But then again, it seems as if the government is only ineffectual when those who run the government are those who want to limit government. Many of these folks are Republicans.

Um, no, we didn't, thank you very much indeed.
See: 2004 election.Are you denying that Bush was elected for a second term?

Rebuttal: http://www.newsday.com/news/opinion/ny-opsch185379647sep18,0,4170119.story

The "poverty level" calculation is bullshit. It isn't separate by state which makes it irrelevant. I don't even want to speculate on the difference in cost of living between Birmingham, AL (biggest city in Alabama) and Seattle, WA (largest city in Washington).

Per-capita income by state. Families making $80k can afford health insurance. Remember the per-capita is an average and people with an average income can afford health insurance. It is the below average that need the help. :rolleyes:

http://www.unm.edu/~bber/econ/us-pci.htm

Per-capita income by state. Families making $80k can afford health insurance. Remember the per-capita is an average and people with an average income can afford health insurance. It is the below average that need the help. :rolleyes:

http://www.unm.edu/~bber/econ/us-pci.htm
I took that into account. Averaging all the states together is the epitome of stupid. Like I said, compare the cost of living in the biggest city in Alabama with the biggest city in Washington. After you do that, come back and discuss it like an informed human being.

If your cost of living is below the average, you're doing fucking great, but if it isn't, well sucks to be you cause the federal government doesn't give two shits.

You're flamebaiting. Knock it off.

Flamebaiting? Really, How? Is it the fifthgrader thing? Maybe I make a mistake of assuming everyone knows about this gameshow;
http://fox.com/areyousmarter/

If so - then sorry, simply a local thing. The whole post was pretty much a reference to it.

I presume you'll also be warning the people here who have been insulting intentionally...

Fail. History has shown that when corporations get tax breaks, they don't pass the savings on, but just keep the money as extra profit.

Really? And what does history show happens when for-profit institutions have increases in costs of labor, materials or tax?

Per-capita income by state. Families making $80k can afford health insurance. Remember the per-capita is an average and people with an average income can afford health insurance. It is the below average that need the help. :rolleyes:

http://www.unm.edu/~bber/econ/us-pci.htm

Given the economic disparity across the US, and indeed even across states, such a claim is absurd.... "average" only works when the conditions of the area the person live in happen to match the "average"... $80k wouldn't get you far in some areas, and would be well into the cozy range in others.

So, they'll have health care when they're in Heaven then? That is the 5th dimension, other universes? Not enough.

The problem is not one of having healthcare or not having healthcare. If a middle-class family (as in the example in question) makes a foolish financial decision (as in the example in question) then they will be hit with substantial bills - which likely will reduce them to poverty levels. Once they are at poverty levels they become eligible for several forms of government assistance.

That is one option - and also the most likely result.

Another option - the child gets enrolled in one of MANY childrens hospitals - which offer expert care with no cost to the family.

That is option two.

See? Most of life's problems are not true-false problems - they are multiple choice.

No, I wouldn't


You're right!

Oooooh! You're right! Posting partial quotes out of context IS fun!

Oooooh! You're right! Posting partial quotes out of context IS fun!

Partial quotes? Mais pardonnez moi, monsieur, c'est le tout! (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=13076373#post13076373)

Really? And what does history show happens when for-profit institutions have increases in costs of labor, materials or tax?

That's irrelevant. In context, based on the posts that were previously quoted, it should have been clear that we were talking about the tax breaks that GWB and his neo-cons give to corporations. By posting a rebuttal against said posts, you were therefore posting in favor of tax cuts to big businesses. If that was not your intention, then you should have read more carefully.

I also hope you never rely on any kind of government-funded public services. You wouldn't want to be a hypocrite now, would you?

Strange, the one time in my life I *needed* government-funded public services, I was denied because a) I was too white, and b) two children weren't enough to warrant any help. I would have needed 4 or more to qualify.

The government assistance programs in this country aren't designed to help the people who actually need help. They're designed to help a certain subset of people who make a living off of these government programs. And every time someone suggests cutting back on any of these freebies, people scream "But it's for the children!"

I'm not opposed to programs to help people who actually need the help. Unfortunately, with the current standards, there isn't any way of ensuring this.

Another option - the child gets enrolled in one of MANY childrens hospitals - which offer expert care with no cost to the family.

So you favor either pushing the family into enough poverty for them to BE eligible for health care or getting the kids into hospitals that aren't always able to deal with the illness in question.

Nice.

Strange, the one time in my life I *needed* government-funded public services, I was denied because a) I was too white, and b) two children weren't enough to warrant any help. I would have needed 4 or more to qualify.

The government assistance programs in this country aren't designed to help the people who actually need help. They're designed to help a certain subset of people who make a living off of these government programs. And every time someone suggests cutting back on any of these freebies, people scream "But it's for the children!"

I'm not opposed to programs to help people who actually need the help. Unfortunately, with the current standards, there isn't any way of ensuring this.

And expanding these programs could make them help people such as yourself.

I was going to make this topic yesterday but I couldn't think of a subject line that wouldn't have to be changed for excessive cursing.
Something like
"Bush vows to continue being an asshole"
"Bush promises to be a stupid son of a bitch."


I hope when he vetoes it the Congress tells him to blow it out his ass and overrides it.
Also, the Democrats should stop trying to guilt Bush or Bush supporters into supporting it - the neocons don't give two shits, the yoppose anything that is even remotely socialistic and will blame the Democrats using their own guilt trip and the rest of the neocons will believe them because they are fucking dunces. The Democrats need to say something like "we have the power to override any veto attempt" or "we will tack it on to every single military funding bill until it is passed." That would make him sweat.

Just keep proposing bills like this. And then when the elections come just run ads that say things like, "republicans want your kids to get cancer and die. Why else would they vote to take children's healthcare away?

So you favor either pushing the family into enough poverty for them to BE eligible for health care or getting the kids into hospitals that aren't always able to deal with the illness in question.

Nice.

Exactly - the parent was stupid enough not to protect themselves with insurance when they were well able to afford it. Now they are stuck with the consequences of that decision. It would be no different than if they lost everything because they chose not to buy auto insurance or homeowners insurance. People have to take responsibility for their own decisions and live with the results. That is the flip side of freedom.

Your assumption that children's hospitals are not equipped to handle children's illnesses is a fallacious argument - they are able - that's what they do.

edit

No I won't.

Sorry if this has been asked somewhere else, but is there enough support to override the veto?

How is giving health coverage to children risking it?

Really? And what does history show happens when for-profit institutions have increases in costs of labor, materials or tax?Yes. Any combination of things happens, but typically include corporations merging, relocating, investing more heavily in lobbyism, buying a new and friendlier political majority or government, mass-sacking employees, selling bits & pieces of themselves, and hundreds of other things.

But I'm assuming that in your simplistic substitute for reality, the only thing that can and will happen, is increased prices. Which is fine. Because increased prices doesn't hurt consumers, at least not in a capitalist economy, which you seem to imply exists in the US. If that were the case, and I flatly refuse it is so, it would only result in increased competition, which would mean increased pace of innovation, which would cut production costs, which eventually would mean increased revenue for the corporation and, in your magical non-reality, cheaper products for consumers.

It amazes me you talk about logic when your own substitute for reality lacks internal consistency.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/09/22/radio.addressses.ap/index.html

You can read it for yourself. Can this President sink any lower??? Really??? I'm an American and I wish I could impeach him myself

Wonderful. It expires on my birthday.

The more I think about it, the more it seems Bush's policies all revolve around killing those younger than him. Maybe he thinks if he gathers up all the blood afterwards it'll make him immortal or something, I don't know.

I've given up trying to equate this man's actions with logic.

No, they are not.

yes they are - a child cannot force their parent(s) to pay for health insurance.

If they are ill and the parents can't or won't pay their bills the child will suffer.

Just further evidence of how short-sighted Bush is. He should support this bill to ensure that America has lots of healthy cannon fodder, I mean children, for wars to come. I mean years to come.

Just further evidence of how short-sighted Bush is. He should support this bill to ensure that America has lots of healthy cannon fodder, I mean children, for wars to come. I mean years to come.

I thought he was outsourcing the cannon fodder role to Mexico?

I thought he was outsourcing the cannon fodder role to Mexico?
You can't trust them Mezikins with our fine American firearms. Besides, thanks to years of staunch conservative leadership, we will have no shortage of poor people to conscript for the glory of our noble nation.

The more I think about it, the more it seems Bush's policies all revolve around killing those younger than him.

Oddly enough, you have a point. o_O

This topic sounds like a whole lot of crying over a "conservatives" decision not to expand a program targeted at the poor to include families outside that scope (basically creating something that resembles universal healthcare). Why are you all surprised/acting outraged?! Especially when the program costs almost double (from what I recall), did you think a conservative was gonna allow a social program to balloon in this enviornment?

The only way 15 states lose funding is if the bill isn't renewed. Since congress is aware of the presidents intent to veto, I would HOPE they are drafting a backup bill. At the end of the day, this president is'nt going to get relected, so the blood ends up on their hands O.o;

Yes. Any combination of things happens, but typically include corporations merging, relocating, investing more heavily in lobbyism, buying a new and friendlier political majority or government, mass-sacking employees, selling bits & pieces of themselves, and hundreds of other things.

But I'm assuming that in your simplistic substitute for reality, the only thing that can and will happen, is increased prices. Which is fine. Because increased prices doesn't hurt consumers, at least not in a capitalist economy, which you seem to imply exists in the US. If that were the case, and I flatly refuse it is so, it would only result in increased competition, which would mean increased pace of innovation, which would cut production costs, which eventually would mean increased revenue for the corporation and, in your magical non-reality, cheaper products for consumers.

It amazes me you talk about logic when your own substitute for reality lacks internal consistency.

So - according to you when a corporation faces higher costs on all fronts they use their 'negative earnings' to relocate, buy influence, spend on lobbying, and simultaneously buy out competitors and divest. You state inflation is good for consumers. And then you say I'm inconsistent and out of touch?

Hmmm. Nope - considering your illustration of you grasp of the subject; I really don't give a care what you may say about me.

yes they are - a child cannot force their parent(s) to pay for health insurance.

If they are ill and the parents can't or won't pay their bills the child will suffer.

So - your only counterpoint is to describe a negligent parent? A very weak case you have made. Do you really want to stand by it?