NationStates Jolt Archive

AP

Dean Lashes Out at GOP over Puppy Plan

WASHINGTON - Democratic Party Chairman Howard Dean on Saturday criticized Republicans in Congress for not supporting legislation to create a popular children's program.

"The Republican leaders have made their choice. They want to stay in Iraq and deny our kids puppies," Dean said in the party's weekly radio address.

He said Republicans support significant borrowing to continue wars in Iraq and Afghanistan but won't support the legislation to increase spending for the State Children's Puppy Program.

On Oct. 3 Bush vetoed legislation to add $35 billion over five years to the children's puppy program. The House failed last week to override the veto.

The children's puppy program would be a joint state-federal effort that subsidizes puppies for 6.6 million people, mostly children, from families that earn $80,000 per year or less. It would include petfood, vetrinary and obedience training.

"America cannot afford four more years of a president who borrows for the war and denies puppies for our kids," he said.



http://www.clarionledger.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071027/NEWS/71027007
(link provided for the metaphor challenged)

I don't really agree with government subsidies for puppies, but it would be a lot more better than funding the war in Iraq. In fact, I'd rather gather $50 billion and burn it on the streets than see it fund one more second of the war in Iraq.

Ok.... step away from the keyboard. It is time for your medicine now.

i have been an avid bush supporter this past 6 years.

well NO MORE

if he is going to hurt our children and puppies he can just go scratch!

Provide a source.

If only he had vetoed this in 2002 he might not be president right now.

i have been an avid bush supporter this past 6 years.

well NO MORE

if he is going to hurt our children and puppies he can just go scratch!
surely you can't be that serious...

Aye, it'll probably be a mutual hatred after this :p

Provide a source.

yeah I want a source to prove that GWB hates Children and Puppies.......

surely you can't be that serious...

Don't call her Surely.

...

Anywho, everybody knows that Bush hates the troops too, which i'm sure someone'll mention at some point ...

Anywho, everybody knows that Bush hates the troops too, which i'm sure someone'll mention at some point ...
He's denying their kids puppies, which lowers troop morale when they see their kids at home looking sad and puppiless.

There you go.

well, it's discriminatory. what about Kittens! Bunnies! Fishies!

there are other pets besides Puppies you know! :mad: ;) :p

Provide a source.

ummmm - this is sarcasm.

http://www.clarionledger.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071027/NEWS/71027007

He's denying their kids puppies, which lowers troop morale when they see their kids at home looking sad and puppiless.

There you go.

You're right!
A man cannot live with Flush Limblob broadcasts in place of puppies for very long before some very bad things start happening to their psyche.

George bush isn't the only one who hates puppies

up til now i've pretty much hated him but maybe he's not so bad after all

there are other pets besides Puppies you know! :mad: ;) :p

Uhm .... weasels?
http://www.circlecityferretclub.org/graphics/ferrets-sleeping-in-cage-1.jpg

'sides we already have at least one other republican asshole with an offensive discrimination of weasels.
http://www.oliverwillis.com/archives/2007/02/26/audio-rudy-giulianis-ferret-fr/
Yeah, fuck him and his anti-weasel stance. :mad:

surely you can't be that serious...

i certainly am

george bush has been a great president up to now. he is a uniter, a compassionate conservative, a fiscal conservative of the first rank, he has kept the terrorists at bay.

but to do this to our children and our puppies, well its just too much. im done with him. AND his party that blocked the veto override.

from this day forth i support only dennis kucinich. HE would never hurt a puppy!

from this day forth i support only dennis kucinich. HE would never hurt a puppy!

Can we say, "bipolar", much? ;)

i certainly am

george bush has been a great president up to now. he is a uniter, a compassionate conservative, a fiscal conservative of the first rank, he has kept the terrorists at bay.

but to do this to our children and our puppies, well its just too much. im done with him. AND his party that blocked the veto override.

from this day forth i support only dennis kucinich. HE would never hurt a puppy!
Has my sarcasm detector broken down?

Well, it didn't say that Bush would hurt and kill puppies. What it was saying was that the government would not give additional funds for the acquisition and other stuff for puppies owned by low-income people.

And also, Bush only denied adding more funds for the program. If I was reading it correctly, the puppy program is still going...

Has my sarcasm detector broken down?

Well, it didn't say that Bush would hurt and kill puppies. What it was saying was that the government would not give additional funds for the acquisition and other stuff for puppies owned by low-income people.

And also, Bush only denied adding more funds for the program. If I was reading it correctly, the puppy program is still going...

you probably should re-read the OP and go to the link provided.

If I was reading it correctly, the puppy program is still going...
Gotta include the underground movements as well. Not robust, but moderately healthy.
Black market weasels, on the other hand, having to be shipped in stock .... not so much.
http://pictures.directnews.co.uk/liveimages/Ferrets_892_18076062_0_0_1873_300.jpg

Has my sarcasm detector broken down?

Well, it didn't say that Bush would hurt and kill puppies. What it was saying was that the government would not give additional funds for the acquisition and other stuff for puppies owned by low-income people.

And also, Bush only denied adding more funds for the program. If I was reading it correctly, the puppy program is still going...


$80,000 is certainly NOT low income. Anyone at that level can afford petfood, vetrinary and obedience schools. If Congress REALLY wanted to help them then they would reduce their tax burden - since individuals between $31,000-$77,000 pay federal tax at 25% (and $80,000 at 28% - the third highest bracket!)

I don't think many would object helping the poor - but there is not much sense in charging people the third highest tax bracket then turning around and offering them 'assistance' because their income is so low!

you probably should re-read the OP and go to the link provided.

so far - Kylesburgh seem to be the only poster who 'got it' and did so before I could post the link. (for some reason the post I put in with the link on it earlier disappeared)

so far - Kylesburgh seem to be the only poster who 'got it' and did so before I could post the link. (for some reason the post I put in with the link on it earlier disappeared)

you a writer for the onion?

so far - Kylesburgh seem to be the only poster who 'got it'
While the rest of us are buffoons, of course.

While the rest of us are buffoons, of course.

Just random idiots. ;)

Buffoons only if you hate puppies!

ummmm - this is sarcasm.

http://www.clarionledger.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071027/NEWS/71027007

So you're making an invalid comparison in an attempt to make a point, and failing miserably. Gotcha.

Just random idiots. ;)

Argh! I've been pegged! D'oh!

Buffoons only if you hate puppies!

Oh ... oh.
*nods solemnly*

So you're making an invalid comparison in an attempt to make a point, and failing miserably. Gotcha.

Is that the best you can do? How utterly disappointing. Your attempt to hide your embarrassment that I got you is transparent. Go back to the sandbox.

well, it's discriminatory. what about Kittens! Bunnies! Fishies!

there are other pets besides Puppies you know! :mad: ;) :p

Puppies > Bunnies > Kittens > Fishies.

End.
Of.
Story.

It takes a truly perverse mind to consider protecting children's health to be as frivolous as handing out puppies. Seriously, what kind of person could compare the two and think it's in any way a valid analogy?

Just in case anyone here doesn't loath Bush's tantrums yet, guess what he's hinting he'll veto this time: the Employment Non-Discrimination Act which would add sexuality to the list of things which employers can't discriminate against.

so far - Kylesburgh seem to be the only poster who 'got it' and did so before I could post the link. (for some reason the post I put in with the link on it earlier disappeared)

you mean you think i didnt get it from my first post?

gah Bush is so thick .... he should treat the puppy program like the guide dogs program .... lets the kids/seeing people keep the puppies while there cute ... then when they get bored and the puppy is a dog train it as an attack dog and send it to iraq :D

It takes a truly perverse mind to consider protecting children's health to be as frivolous as handing out puppies. Seriously, what kind of person could compare the two and think it's in any way a valid analogy?

Just in case anyone here doesn't loath Bush's tantrums yet, guess what he's hinting he'll veto this time: the Employment Non-Discrimination Act which would add sexuality to the list of things which employers can't discriminate against.

bush seems to be working very hard to make sure that people hate him and the party he represents.

hmmmm.... maybe he has a little crush on hillary clinton and is trying to help her win....HMMMMmmMMmmm

Can we say, "bipolar", much? ;)

Care to explain what you mean?

Is that the best you can do? How utterly disappointing. Your attempt to hide your embarrassment that I got you is transparent. Go back to the sandbox.

Que?

Care to explain what you mean?

Mmm, not really. Just hint instead.
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13168999&postcount=19

Was this supposed to be a spoof of the SCHIP program? Because if so, it not only fails miserably, it casts a bad light on both the writer and the poster. (Not that we needed it to prove Mystic Skeptic doesn't understand the health system at all.)

Mmm, not really. Just hint instead.
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13168999&postcount=19

it made sense to ME.

it was pretty much the effect i was going for.

that i would adore george bush but because of this one irrelevant bit of vetoing i would go for as much a polar opposite as i could think of at the moment.

politically bipolar.

not that it wasnt all going along with the stupid parody that was the OP rather than a reflection of any true opinion of my own.

it made sense to ME.

it was pretty much the effect i was going for.

that i would adore george bush but because of this one irrelevant bit of vetoing i would go for as much a polar opposite as i could think of at the moment.

politically bipolar.

not that it wasnt all going along with the stupid parody that was the OP rather than a reflection of any true opinion of my own.Thank you. *bows*
I was hoping that i got the cut of your jib. :)

gah Bush is so thick .... he should treat the puppy program like the guide dogs program .... lets the kids/seeing people keep the puppies while there cute ... then when they get bored and the puppy is a dog train it as an attack dog and send it to iraq :D

Guard and attack dogs must be trained as puppies, and must be trained by the people that will be their handlers. My uncle was in the Air Force (an SP, with a dog), and he told me that it takes a lot of intense training, and that the dog will only listen to the trainer/handler (that's why the dog would be destroyed when the trainer/handler would leave the military). I don't know if it's the same with police dogs though (I'd assume the training is at least a little different).

Isn't dennis kucinich a puppy? Or does he just have one in his pocket?

Hooray! A puppy in every pot!
Wait, he vetoed it! Bastard!

Argh! I've been pegged! D'oh!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pegging_%28sexual_practice%29

;)

Hooray! A puppy in every pot!
Wait, he vetoed it! Bastard!



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pegging_%28sexual_practice%29

;)

You know what the funny part is? I was actually thinking of the pic where a salamander has, for a short time, it's tail nailed down .. until it drops it and later grows a new one.
Alas, i got here too late to post it. :p

Isn't dennis kucinich a puppy? Or does he just have one in his pocket?

dennis would NEVER keep a puppy in his pocket, that would be animal cruelty. he just keeps a puppy training manual reminder card in his pocket.

Hooray! A puppy in every pot!
Wait, he vetoed it! Bastard!



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pegging_%28sexual_practice%29

;)

Lol, Brevious got pegged! < points and laughs >


:D

You're right!
A man cannot live with Flush Limblob broadcasts in place of puppies for very long before some very bad things start happening to their psyche.

Like hearing damage, Oxycontin dependence and anal warts?

Lol, Brevious got pegged! < points and laughs >


:D
And obviously, it was with your help, holding me all the way. :p

At least it was with friends and respect, non?

Like hearing damage, Oxycontin dependence and anal warts?
I thought those were prerequisites of being a fan of his ... helps with the blame mentality ...
but yeah, good example!

It takes a truly perverse mind to consider protecting children's health to be as frivolous as handing out puppies. Seriously, what kind of person could compare the two and think it's in any way a valid analogy?

Just in case anyone here doesn't loath Bush's tantrums yet, guess what he's hinting he'll veto this time: the Employment Non-Discrimination Act which would add sexuality to the list of things which employers can't discriminate against.

It takes an immature mind to not realize that caring for children is the juristiction of parents - not big government. Big government has no more business providing health insurance to middle class children than they do providing puppies to them. Thats a metaphor you could grasp even with a public school education...

you mean you think i didnt get it from my first post?

Based on your content it seems to me you caught the sarcasm, but not the metaphor. I admit it was not so obvious as I thought it may have been.

Was this supposed to be a spoof of the SCHIP program? Because if so, it not only fails miserably, it casts a bad light on both the writer and the poster. (Not that we needed it to prove Mystic Skeptic doesn't understand the health system at all.)

LOL. Yes - disagreeing with someone so brilliant as you clearly demonstrates a complete lack of understanding whatsoever. No reason to even bother to debate with someone so articulate and with such clearly reasoned arguments as you. All you have to do is use the word "miserably" and people cower under their monitors...

First muppets, now PUPIES?!

It takes an immature mind to not realize that caring for children is the juristiction of parents - not big government.

Wrong. Child abuse is a crime, parents are obliged to educate their children (the government funds schools for this purpose) and parents deemed unfit or incapable of caring for children have their children taken into care where *drumroll* the government looks after them until a foster family can be found for them. All of these actions presuppose that ensuring children are well cared for is within the mandate of government. Try again.

Big government has no more business providing health insurance to middle class children than they do providing puppies to them. Thats a metaphor you could grasp even with a public school education...

Here's a tip: if you're going to play the intellectual snob, try not to do so just after making a incredibly silly analogy, k?

ummmm - this is sarcasm.

http://www.clarionledger.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071027/NEWS/71027007
Actually, I think it's satire...Just bad and unimaginative satire. That's probably why the Onion didn't do it.

I'm just glad Bush isn't wasting American money on helping people get frikkin dogs...

Seriously how about we just start a bill helping people buy video games... Or how about pet goldfish?

EDIT: Read the article... Not puppies... Eh, feels stupid now...

Wrong. Child abuse is a crime, parents are obliged to educate their children (the government funds schools for this purpose) and parents deemed unfit or incapable of caring for children have their children taken into care where *drumroll* the government looks after them until a foster family can be found for them. All of these actions presuppose that ensuring children are well cared for is within the mandate of government. Try again.

Ah - so according to your limited perception - not acquiring health insurance = child abuse.


Here's a tip: if you're going to play the intellectual snob, try not to do so just after making a incredibly silly analogy, k? And here's one right back atcha - get over yourself.

Actually, I think it's satire...Just bad and unimaginative satire. That's probably why the Onion didn't do it.

LOL. You are only bitter because you didn't think of it first and because it points a painful reality at a stupid idea which you likely support.

LOL. You are only bitter because you didn't think of it first and because it points a painful reality at a stupid idea which you likely support.
If you're accusing me of supporting S-CHIP, I must not be posting enuff. My biggest complaint about the satire is that it was predictable and very unoriginal.

LOL. Yes - disagreeing with someone so brilliant as you clearly demonstrates a complete lack of understanding whatsoever. No reason to even bother to debate with someone so articulate and with such clearly reasoned arguments as you. All you have to do is use the word "miserably" and people cower under their monitors...

Clearly, since I did claim, after all, to understand every facet of the health system in and out and am a true expert.

Oh wait, what's that? I didn't claim that? I instead merely pointed out the obvious? Good heavens. What the hell was I thinking?

This really crosses the line for the looney left wing politicans :p

This really crosses the line for the looney left wing politicans :p

the?

Clearly, since I did claim, after all, to understand every facet of the health system in and out and am a true expert.

Oh wait, what's that? I didn't claim that? I instead merely pointed out the obvious? Good heavens. What the hell was I thinking?

Wow - you really can grasp sarcasm. You even admit you don't know shit about what you are talking about.

If you want to have a real discussion you'll have to actually contribute something of merit to this discussion. Simply saying that I'm wrong only demonstrates you incompetence at having a rational debate. Or should I say - your miserable lack of competence...

Wow - you really can grasp sarcasm. You even admit you don't know shit about what you are talking about.

If you want to have a real discussion you'll have to actually contribute something of merit to this discussion. Simply saying that I'm wrong only demonstrates you incompetence at having a rational debate. Or should I say - your miserable lack of competence...

Or perhaps I simply wanted to share an opinion as well as the fact--as demonstrated in several previous threads, including your own thread on health insurance--that you do not know what you are talking about when it comes to the health system.

Now, we can continue to exchange insults or I can just leave you to yourself. I think I'd prefer the latter.

the?


yep, unless you have a better word for it

yep, unless you have a better word for it

How many better words are there than "the", for "the"? El? :D

Besides, rightwingers coin whatever bullshit term they want for anything anyway. Worse than "political correctness". :)

Or perhaps I simply wanted to share an opinion as well as the fact--as demonstrated in several previous threads, including your own thread on health insurance--that you do not know what you are talking about when it comes to the health system.

Now, we can continue to exchange insults or I can just leave you to yourself. I think I'd prefer the latter.

So far the only thing you've shared is the FACT that you are incapable of rationalizing you opinions in any meaningful sense. you have never once provided any sort of evidence or justification for your silly claim that I am so woefully ignorant.

In the world of constructive debate simply saying "you're wrong because you do not know what you are talking about" without providing any example or evidence illustrates only your own cowardice and ignorance - it says nothing at all about me nor the validity of my argument.

I frankly don't blame you for being afraid to engage me - because I can say with confidence and certaity that I have knowledge that exceeds a professonal capacity on the subject. Meanwhile - you could not even describe the difference between an insurance underwriter and an insurance adjuster without assistance from Google. You don't know the differece between an RN, LPN or CNA wihtout the help of Wikipedia - and likely not even what the innitals stand for. I doubt you even know the difference between medicaid and medi-care.

So, the next time you want to call someone 'ignorant' I strongly encourage you to make sure you give a specific example (and - "oh that other thread where I also called you ignorant" is NOT specific) and you should also make sure that you know at least as much as them before you pretend to know more.

Otherwise they will call you on it and you will be exposed as worse than ignorant - but as a fool in every sense of the word -down to the curly-toed boots.

I've given you many opportunities to spare yourself this embarrassment, but you've insisted on ignoring them. So I'm sorry if it hurts - but you brought it upon yourself. Now take your jingle-ly boots and your pointy hat and go entertain the king's jester.