I never ever judge people by their families. sm

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

with the same problems as well. Bush's family seems to take the lead as far as number of people who are drunks or drug addicts.

Now, if you don't mind, I think I will stop responding to your posts. It's much more entertaining watching you talking to yourself on this board.

I hope you find the attention you so desperately seek, but you're not getting any more of it from me.

Bush was lying about that, as the $83,000 income level limit was not a part of the bill that he vetoed. Also, Democrats already worked with Republicans and compromised quite a bit to come up with a bill that many in both parties agreed upon - too bad only one guy matters, huh? It's a sad day for many struggling middle-class families, but at least the issue has had a big spot light shined upon it - hopefully we can make some much-needed changes to make healthcare more affordable now. All kids deserve healthcare, regardless of how much money their parents make or don't make!!!

Here's a section of a New York Times Article that states that the $83,000 guideline was not a part of the bill that was just vetoed:

"This program expands coverage, federal coverage, up to families earning $83,000 a year. That doesn't sound poor to me," the president told the Lancaster audience.
Dorn says that's not exactly right, either. "This bill would actually put new limits in place to keep states from going to very high-income levels. SCHIP money would no longer be available over 300 percent of the federal poverty level, which is about $60,000 for a family of four."

The president gets to make the $83,000 claim because New York had wanted to allow children in families with incomes up to four times the poverty level onto the program. That is, indeed, $82,600. The Department of Health and Human Services rejected New York's plan last month, and under the bill, that denial would stand. White House officials warn, however, that the bill would allow a future administration to grant New York's request.

link to the entire article: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=14962685

going to be on Fox news "later today." Just heard this. Supposedly they were at the White House in a meeting and after they left the meeting, they were not allowed back on the White House grounds. So, they're all going to Fox News to be interviewed.

Have you even bothered to take the time to notice that EVERY SINGLE POST ON THIS BOARD about Judge Roberts is a POSITIVE POST???

What planet are you from, anyway? Is your life so pathetic that the only pleasure you get is from stalking people on this board in the bizarre way you do and constantly put them down personally? Dang. You need a Happy Meal, dude.

Secondly, to my democratic friends, have any of you watched the John Roberts' confirmation hearings? I have been watching for two days now..In fact, right now they are in recess, so I thought..let me check out the MTStars political board..MSN news video site on the computer has live hearings and they are fascinating..I have to tell you, so far I kind of like Judge Roberts..My only hesitation is Bush recommended him..

out the tests for those firerighters who studied hard and earned those promotions and didn't get them merely because they were all white with one hispanic man. To me...that is racism right there. They didn't get the promotions because of their skin color. Had they been a more motley crew of races, they would have gotten those promotions. It is truly a sad day when hard work and studying doesn't benefit you because your skin color isn't that of a minority.

I'm all for equal rights between the races and all of these firefighters were given the same studying materials and the same amount of time to study. How can you take away those promotions from the people who studied hard and scored the highest merely because most of them are white?

This doesn't present a very good opinion of this judge so far to me. She also made a comment about how with her experience and her being a latino women, she could make better decisions than a white male. Racism? Hello? If a white man had said that he could make better decisions than a black man, woman, or latino.....OMG.....the race card would have been thrown out and that would have been the end of his career. Why is it that minorities are allowed to say racist things and be racist and that is okay, but the moment a white person says something remotely racist.......that is the end of that person's career. More double standards.

Can't see how this has anything to do with how I feel about Obama. He has done and said quite enough for me to base an opinion on my knowledge of his actions. Find another word to sling around. Prejudice won't work. Neither will racism.

behavior by voting for/against him is officially over. Break on through to the new millenium.

I don't find anything you write to be stimulating, intelligent, educational or worthy of debate. And as far as patting people on the back, that's what you do on the Conservative board. You bash liberals, ALL liberals, EVERY LIBERAL IN THE WORLD, and then the people with the crudest, rudest insults against liberals are patted on the back and high-fived by the rest of you.

Liberals don't discuss things like Repuglicants do. We would rather be civil with people and find you incredibly distasteful human beings. They obviously call you neoCONS for a reason. Your posts are nothing but litter...trash...garbage, and I for one, can't relate to and don't want to communicate with people who do nothing but prove how ignorant, childish, hateful, nasty, untruthful and uncouth they are. Is this really the image you want to portray of your party? Because that's what you're doing.

Why can't you just be happy on your own board and stay away from people who have asked you repeatedly to stay away because we're not interested in your rhetoric and your attacks? Or, like your president, aren't you happy unless you're destroying things?

A brief respite to people who respect the law and want to see warrants utilized. Of course, All the President's Men in the Supreme Court will probably strike this down, so enjoy lawfulness while it lasts, no matter how brief it may be.

To everyone who claims liberals are on the side of the terrorists: Note the word warrantless. Liberals aren't against the use of wiretaps. They're just against any President ignoring the law and having no oversight regarding his actions. It doesn't take much time to fill out a boilerplate warrant. If Bush doesn't want to employ an American to do this, maybe he can outsource this job to another country at a cheaper rate (please note sarcasm here), as is done with the confidential medical reports of Americans.

By SARAH KARUSH, Associated Press Writer 9 minutes ago

A federal judge ruled Thursday that the government's warrantless wiretapping program is unconstitutional and ordered an immediate halt to it.

U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor in Detroit became the first judge to strike down the National Security Agency's program, which she says violates the rights to free speech and privacy.

The American Civil Liberties Union filed the lawsuit on behalf of journalists, scholars and lawyers who say the program has made it difficult for them to do their jobs. They believe many of their overseas contacts are likely targets of the program, which involves secretly taping conversations between people in the U.S. and people in other countries.

The government argued that the program is well within the president's authority, but said proving that would require revealing state secrets.

The ACLU said the state-secrets argument was irrelevant because the Bush administration already had publicly revealed enough information about the program for Taylor to rule.