Strongly agree.....I also am very skeptical of the bill, want it slowed down.....sm
Posted By: Cyndiee on 2009-02-08
In Reply to: I would say MAINTAINING support. - nm
This is huge and there are no do-overs if we do not get this bill right, because it is so huge. We need to act, and I understand why the president is so eager to get things going after the past 8 or 9 years, but we must examine everything, and taken everything out that is not truly essential, necessary, and a proven stimulus....take a deep breath, study hard for another week, and GET IT AS RIGHT AS POSSIBLE! The American people need action, but not rash, irresponsible spending, we have had enough of that. I truly believe in the President, his idealism, his altruism, humanitarianism, and intelligence, but HASTE MAKES WASTE, we all have to hang in there a bit longer and really examine the bill under a microscope. Funny, I watched Meet The Press as usual this morning, and don't think I ever agreed more with the Republican side on some things...whaddya know????
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
I am always skeptical of a post that says...
"A McCain adviser said..." He named everyone else in this article. Puhleeze. Rove and McCain have no use for each other. Have you paid any attention to the last 2 years or so? Sure he gave to McCain's campaign....he is a Republican. He probably did it holding his nose. He doesn't want Obama to win. go figure. lol. As far as those who advised Bush...they are RNC people. When Hillary went out of it, some of her staffers went over to Obama. That's politics.
I am not skeptical of the 'black man.'
I don't care what color he is. Color has nothing to do with readiness for the job or the history of his associations, how he rose through the Chicago political machine so fast...there is a lot I distrust about Obama, but none of it has to do with his color. You don't know Obama either, ignore all the red flags and defend him also...I find that kind of weird as well.
Obama is far left socialist, way too far left for me. I don't think that is the change this country needs. I think McCain and Palin are the change it needs. Until someone stops the stalemate in Washington and tries to get the two sides working together...nothing is going to fix the problems which re-surface under EVERY administration.
That being said, you should vote for who you feel is best suited for the job. That is what we all should do.
I agree with you. Bill and Hill think that
if they break it, they can fix it. They're up to something. Cannot trust either of them, and even though I am a staunch Democrat, I will not vote for her/him. My opinion is that the country's only hope is in Obama, whether you like him or not. He impressed me because he spoke out against the war when it was not politically correct, when people were said to be "unpatriotic" if they disagreed with the shrub. Have been paying very close attention to the primaries, caucuses, etc. since before Christmas. Please, no more Clintons, no more Bushes. Maybe Hillary will crash and burn.
I agree with Bill Maher ...
He stated the American people have complained for 8 years how they hate the garbage we have been forced to eat. It is highly unlikely that in November we would say, "Please, serve us more!"
I agree. It doesn't have anything to do with whether I think McCain or Obama either one can actually do the job. Their word and position choices are made right now based on whether it will help them in the election, not truly whether they feel passionate about the causes they are hailing. In fact, their pasts demonstrate differently.
Their parties' actions are what I have to look at. I am tired of the Republicans running us into the ground to make their millions at the expense of the very working class who put and keep them in business.
I'm tired of what the Republican party has put on the plate to feed us for 8 years straight. Let's get a new chef!
Right on, Sam! I actually agree with Bill Clinton in
nm
Obama admin. skeptical of Iran's election results.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/06/13/official-obama-administration-skeptical-irans-election-results/
U.S. officials are casting doubt over the results of Iran's election, in which the government declared President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad the winner Saturday.
U.S. analysts find it "not credible" that challenger Mir Hossein Mousavi would have lost the balloting in his hometown or that a third candidate, Mehdi Karoubi, would have received less than 1 percent of the total vote, a senior U.S. officials told FOX News.
Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khameini apparently has released a statement calling the results "final" and hailing the election as a legitimization of the regime and its elections.
Turnout appears to have reached 82 percent, an all-time high. But when asked if the turnout figures should be considered suspect, given the "not credible" counts for Mousavi and Karoubi, the official said: "Oh, it has to be [considered suspect]."
There are already reports of violence outside Mousavi's campaign headquarters, and of huge demonstrations for both sides in central Tehran, with Mousavi trying to make his way to the one in his behalf. Even if widespread violence occurs, analysts see no prospect that this event would lead to a full-scale attempt at revolution or the toppling of the regime.
The dominant view among Obama administration officials, though not uncontested, is that the regime will look so bad as a result of whipping up Iranian hopes for democracy and then squelching them that the regime may feel compelled to show some conciliatory response to President Obama's gestures of engagement.
If you feel so strongly about this...sm
What should we do then? Keep policing Iraq. It's not even a war. Do you honestly believe this is the cure to all?
I do feel strongly about this....
a premature pullout would be promoted as a great victory by the jihadists and I believe would be disastrous. I still believe stabilization in Iraq will occur and we will be able to start downsizing our presence there to bare minimum. No, I do not believe it is the cure all. As long as there are Islamic jihadists out there, and there always will be danger, until their own who say they love peace rise up and police their own ranks. That is why I feel strongly that we should present a strong and united front, that we will not tolerate terrorism against us. I do honestly believe that Al Qaeda's fear that Bush would retaliate with more boots on the ground in terrorism-supporting countries...is why we have not been attacked on our own shores since we went into Iraq. The idea that Saddam had nothing to do with terrorism or Al Qaeda is ludicrous, but the media abd the left have convinced many that that is the case. A federal judge found in a civil case brought by a 9-11 family member that Saddam did provide material support and was involved in 9-11. A Clinton-appointed judge. There are reams of proof of how many terrorists he supported who lived freely in Iraq...Abu Nidal, Abu Abbas, of Achille Lauro fame, Abdul Rahman Yasin, first WTC bombing, his old buddy Al Zarqawi, and on and on and on...but I digress. That is why I am concerned that if we get an administration who shows weakness and appeasement it could and probably would result in another significant attack. Because I honestly believe that the majority of the Democrat/liberal/left or whatever the proper name is do not have a good grasp of the threat, and they are more interested in getting and retaining power than taking care of this country...again, an observation, my observation, based on actions and words out of their own mouths. And this is supported by continuing to say Saddam had nothing to do with terrorism...again demonstrating no concept of the threat. Yes, I do feel strongly, because I love this country and I fear what will happen to her, and all of us, when people in control have no concept of the threat we face. God bless!
Yes, I am strongly pro-life...
and I have said in numerous posts that I am not against insuring children. And I am NOT. What I am against is taxing all Americans to death to pay for all kinds of programs where the waste is unimaginable. There are thousands if not millions of women who made a living having babies...under Aid for Dependent Children. If you don't believe that, talk to some people in Human Services. They sign up 2nd and 3rd generations on AFDC or whatever they call it now. Those ladies will never work and they tell you they will never work, and I can promise you they are not bettering themselves so that they can keep health care for their children. And if you look at those children, I am thinking not a lot of that check every month goes to taking good care of the kids. My point is, trim the fat on existing programs that obviously are not working...don't make NEW taxes to pay for MORE programs that no one is going monitor either. There is plenty of money floating around out there in wasteful programs that could fund insurance for children without making even MORE taxes. And what I am saying to you is that at some point, the more people who get on programs and out of the work force, the less tax money there is going to be to take care of all the programs. That is all I am saying.
And another thing, you need to read the bill. It does give a lot of leeway for folks who could pay for private insurance for their children if they made it a priority. But why should they, if you and I are going to pay for it for them. Yes, I believe there are some people out there who would like to better themselves but will not so they can keep health care for their children. I can also tell you that there are as many out there who could provide health care for their children but will not because they think it is too high and they choose to spend the money elsewhere. Ugly, but true. So why didn't Congress send the bill to Bush that did not have that loophole provision in it? There is a really good question.
Sorry, strongly disgree.
Do not even get me started. I blame Clinton for the mess we are in for these banks and mortgage companies. Should say he started the ball rolling. I have info on that. Oh man, time for me to get off the board. I think he is a liar right through his teeth. He was caught and yet, everybody was in a trance and denial, but yes, that had to do with his morals and not with him running in office. Yet your character and moral values seem to go together. Later all.
Oh but I strongly disagree with you
Homosexual acts are harmful to your health, regardless of the age of the participant. Killing an animal for food isn't harmful? Wow, I bet the animal thinks it hurts quite a bit. ;-) Homosexual acts, if promoted, are harmful to our children, both, mentally and physically. To continue to say they harm no one is a misconception. Homosexuality and race are 2 different issues entirely. There is no comparison.
I don't usually post here but feel strongly about this one sm
I'm a progressive Dem but I think Hillary is the only way Democrats can lose this election. I don't know a single Dem who likes her, at least in my area (WA state). She is such a divisive character (due to the Bill haters) that "central America" doesn't want her in any way, shape or form. At least that's what I see.
Yet you are strongly pro-life - don't you care
I'm not trying to attack you, but I think that is a good point. I care about children in the USA. I think we need to take better care of them. I couldn't go to sleep at night with a clear conscience if I didn't want healthcare for all American children. I think the pro-life cause is a moral issue, and I think the healthcare cause is a moral issue, and I'm surprised that more right wingers don't show more concern for the children that they so wanted to be born.
This bill is for middle-income people - not the poor. Did you ever think that many poor people stay that way because if they rise up to a higher income bracket they lose their healthcare? Maybe being able to make $50,000 (or whatever amount it is) and still being able to provide health insurance to their kids will inspire people to get that better job with the better pay.
Regardless of party, they need to be reminded strongly
XX
I'm glad you feel strongly about him - see message
That is what America is about. Believing in a candidate and being allowed to express those opinions, and being allowed to express your opinion of why you dislike the other candidate. But we should not be tearing each other down because of who we believe is right or wrong for our next President. The bashing has gotten so nasty and for what purpose? Do people feel better if they call you ignor@ant and other nasty names, and then when you defend yourself they tell you your bashing them? There's just something not right about that. I too watched all the debates and that's is when I realized how many lies and twists is Obama going to tell. He'll say doesn't do negative campaigning but the commercials here are way way negative AND their on every hour or so. I'm getting bombarded all day and night (and yes it's both sides, but my point is Obama says he doesn't negative campaign and then I watch his negative campaign on TV. I'll tell you something...I don't believe either candidate. Otherwise my ballot would have been filled out and sent in. Obama has no integrity. He lost it all when he failed and continues to fail to produce documentation to show he is legitimate. He lost all integrity with me and others I know when he professed that those mean nasty republicans are picking on me. He plays the race card when it suits him. When he is losing on an issues he yanks out the race card. He is not truthful about his past acquantances, and he is not truthful about his plans. The reason I don't believe him on his tax thing (no new taxes) is for two reasons. One - Bill Clinton. He also said he will not raise taxes on middle class and literally within days of getting sworn in he passes the largest tax increase on middle income people. My tax rate when from 23% to 42%. Second - his voting record. He has voted to raise taxes on middle income in the past. What makes me believe he isn't saying this as a campaign strategy. So that is a few reasons why he lost credibility. He demands that McCains health records should be disclosed yet he won't disclose his (sorry a 1 page letter saying "he's healthy" doesn't cut it). He spends his time wildly running around suppressing information that as Americans we should see. Plenty of posters on this board earlier in the election were stating vehemently it's America's "right" to know about McCain's this or that, where he was born, health, etc, yet Obama has not proved this and everyone is giving him a pass on it. I don't get it. I'll admit. I voted for Obama over Hillary. I'd do anything to keep her out of the WH, but now I believe I made a serious mistake and misjudged her. Obama may be a fine speaker, good looking, dresses nice, beautiful family, but I do not know where his allegiences stand and I do not trust one minute that he will have our best interests at heart. I've read his past voting records, associations, etc. and I don't agree or trust him. So we'll just have to agree to disagree.
When Bill Clinton was in office, OHHH you better believe Bill and Carter have had..sm
their day of mudslinging matches, at the pleasure of a many conservatives. So, no there's not a double standard here.
Bill Maher Takes On Bill O'Reilly
BILL O'REILLY, HOST: In the "Personal Story" segment tonight, political humorist Bill Maher (search), he has a new book out called "New Rules: Polite Musings from a Timid Observer." Of course, Mr. Maher is about as polite as I am and as timid as Dracula. He joins us now from Los Angeles.
You know, you've had some celebrities on your HBO show, "Real Time," which begins again on Friday, talking about policy and war on terror and stuff like that. I get the feeling they don't know very much, but you do. So I'd like to make Bill Maher, right now, the terror czar. Bill Maher, the terror czar. Could be a series.
How would you fight this War on Terror? How would you fight it?
BILL MAHER, HOST, HBO'S "REAL TIME": I think the first and most important thing is to get the politics out of the War on Terror. You know, maybe I'm a cockeyed optimist, Bill, maybe I'm naive, but I thought that 9/11 was such a jarring event that nobody would dare return to business as usual on that one subject after that.
But of course, we found out that nothing could be further from the truth. And your president, my president too, but the one you voted for...
O'REILLY: You don't know that. Were you looking over my shoulder there? I could have voted for Nader. I could have voted for Kerry, but Kerry wouldn't come on the program, so I wouldn't vote. But I could have gone for Ralph. Ralph's a friend of mine.
MAHER: Yes. Anyway, I said the guy you voted for, President Bush, you know, how come this guy, who was supposed to be such a kick-and-take- names kind of guy, how come he has not been able to get the politics out of this?
You know, as a guy who's been accused of treason, I'll tell you what real treason is: Treason is when legislators vote against homeland security measures because it goes against the wishes of their political or financial backers. Treason is the fact that, as a terrorist, you could still buy a gun in this country because the NRA (search) lobby is so strong.
O'REILLY: OK. But you're getting into the political, and I agree with you. I think that the country should be united in trying to seek out and kill terrorists, who would kill us.
But I'd like to have some concrete things that you, Bill Maher, the terror czar — and take this seriously, this could be a series — what would you do?
All right, so you've got bin Laden. You've got Al Qaeda (search). You've got a bunch of other lower-level terrorist groups. What do you do to neutralize them?
MAHER: OK. Well, first of all, you discounted my answer, which is get the politics out, but OK.
O'REILLY: Well, assume you can do that. They're gone.
MAHER: We'll let that go. Keep going. I wouldn't worry that much about bin Laden. I mean, capturing bin Laden at this point, it doesn't really matter whether he's dead or alive. He's already Tupac to the people who care about him and work for him. Capturing bin Laden, killing him would be like when Ray Kroc died, how much that affected McDonald's.
O'REILLY: It would be a morale booster. But I understand. You're not going to send...
MAHER: A morale booster, right. Well, we've had plenty of morale boosting. We've had plenty of window dressing. What we need is concrete action.
In the book I wrote before this one about terrorism, I suggested that we have a Secret Service for the people. I said whenever the president goes anywhere, he has very high-level, intelligent detectives who look around at a crowd. They know what they're looking for. They're highly paid. They're highly trained.
We don't have that in this country. We should have that. We should have a cadre of 10,000 highly trained people who would guard all public events, bus stations, train stations, airports — and stop with this nonsense that this robotic sort of window dressing...
O'REILLY: OK, so you would create a homeland security office that was basically a security firm for major targets and things like that. It's not a bad idea. Costs a lot of money. Costs a lot of money. It's not a bad idea.
MAHER: Costs a lot of money compared to what? If you paid 10,000 people a salary of $100,000 a year, that would, I think, cost $10 billion or something. That's nothing. There's that much pork in the transportation bill before you get...
O'REILLY: Yes, 10,000 wouldn't do it, but I get your drift.
MAHER: Whatever it costs.
O’REILLY: You would create a super-security apparatus. OK, that's not bad. That's not bad. How about overseas now?
MAHER: What we need to do is what I call get Israeli about this. Because the Israelis are not afraid of profiling. The Israelis are not afraid to bury politics in the greater cause of protecting their nation. We don't act that way. You know, I'm afraid 9/11 really changed nothing.
O'REILLY: Boy, your ACLU (search) pals aren't going to like that. You're going to lose your membership card there.
MAHER: I'm not a member of the ACLU.
O'REILLY: Oh, sure you are, just like I voted for Bush. You're a member of the ACLU. I can see the card right in your pocket there.
MAHER: Bill, I'm not a joiner. I'm not a joiner. I don't like organizations.
O'REILLY: They won't have you, Maher, let's be honest about that. All right, now, in your book, which is very amusing, by the way — if you want a few laughs buy Maher's book.
MAHER: Thank you.
O'REILLY: You take some shots at FOX News, which is your wont, and I just want to know why you think we're so fabulously successful here.
MAHER: Well, I think that question has been answered many times. It's because the conservative viewer in this country, or on radio the conservative listener, is very predictable. They like to hear what they like to hear. They like to hear it over and over again.
O'REILLY: All the surveys show that the viewers are all over the map. They're not conservative in a big bloc. Some of them are moderate. Some of them are Democrats. Some of them are Moroccans. I mean, they're everywhere. That's your analysis? That just the conservatives watch us?
MAHER: Well, I think mostly the conservatives do watch you. That's not to take anything away from what you guys have achieved over there. It's a very well-produced broadcast, and they have excellent personalities like yourself, Bill. Who could resist watching you when you get home from work at night?
O'REILLY: Whoopi Goldberg, maybe? I don't know.
MAHER: Yes.
O'REILLY: Anyone who doesn't watch here is misguided. We identify them as such.
But look, I think there's more to it than — you're in TV. You know the ratings game. I mean, if you don't provide a product that is satisfying people, no matter what your ideology, they tell you to take a hike.
There's a guy over at MSNBC. He's a very conservative guy. He was hired and nobody's watching him. They hire liberals. Nobody watches them. Air America (search). Nobody's listening to it.
I mean, there's got to be a reason why we're No. 1, a punch line for you, and No. 2, you know, becoming the most powerful news network in the world.
MAHER: Well, I think, as I say, it's a well-produced product. You know, your program moves along, always at a clip that never seems to bore. You know, you move along to the next topic, the next guest. It never sort of drags. I don't think a lot of people know how to produce that stuff that way.
O'REILLY: All right. It's bells and whistles and my charming personality. That's what I thought it was.
Last thing: You know, one thing I like about Maher is he's not a hypocrite. He drives a little hybrid vehicle. Right? You putter around there. Does it have training wheels? What's it like?
MAHER: Actually, I had the Prius hybrid for three years. I was one of the first ones to get it right after 9/11. And I traded it in a few months ago for the Lexus hybrid.
O'REILLY: I think we should all cut back on our energy consumption, and I think we should all get these hybrids as fast as we can.
Hey, Bill, always nice to see you. Thanks very much. Good luck with the season on the TV show.
MAHER: Continued success there, Mr. No. 1.
O'REILLY: All right. Thank you.
Watch "The O'Reilly Factor" weeknights at 8 p.m. and 11 p.m. ET and listen to the "Radio Factor!"
Content and Programming Copyright 2005 Fox News Network, L.L.C. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Transcription Copyright 2005 eMediaMillWorks, Inc. (f/k/a Federal Document Clearing House, Inc.), which takes sole responsibility for the accuracy of the transcription. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. No license is granted to the user of this material except for the user's personal or internal use and, in such case, only one copy may be printed, nor shall user use any material for commercial purposes or in any fashion that may infringe upon Fox News Network, L.L.C.'s and eMediaMillWorks, Inc.'s copyrights or other proprietary rights or interests in the material. This is not a legal transcript for purposes of litigation.
Bill Clinton and his ties to India (yes, Bill),...
and China (yes, Bill) sent a lot of our jobs their way. Google it some time. Even I was amazed.
Look, it is simple economics. The big bad corporations everyone hates...first of all, it is not 5 or 6 rich guys and that's it. They employee thousands of people just like us...and when the government puts those huge taxes on them, if they want to stay in business, they are forced to move offshore. Higher taxes are responsible for more jobs going overseas than "greed." The DNC has told its members for years that "corporations" and "the rich" are the cause of all their problems and they have bought that Marxist rhetoric hook, line, and sinker. Corporations are not the cause of ill in this country. They are the backbone of the economy in this country. That is simple economics 101. And I am certainly not rich...and I certainly am not on the upper echelon of a corporation, but I do understand reality and I understand how the economy works. Yes, there is wrongdoing by some upper level folks in corporations. There is wrongdoing in the government. Where there is power, there will be wrongdoing. But for every Enron there are thousands of other good, solid companies that employ thousands of Americans, but the DNC does not share the success stories, because it does not promote their agenda. In order to control people they want them beholden to government and hating free enterprise. They want big government, total power, and control. And following Alinksy's program...you have to instill class warfare. You have to make corporations the enemy. You have to make classes envy the next rung up. Classic Marxist socialism. It is being played out in this country every day.
It is just that some of us have not bought the myth and jumped on the socialism train.
Did you read the bill? It was a regulatory reform bill...
asking them to regulate, not de-regulate. But Democrats blocked it...no wonder. Fannie was greasing a lot of Democratic palms...and Frederick Raines, the Dem CEO at the time...was in the Clinton administration. They were taking care of their own...and we are paying for it.
if abe is on the $5 bill & george is on the $1 bill, what is Obama on?
****censored****
oh no Mr Bill
The communists are coming!!!!!!
Can you say BILL C-L-I-N-T-O-N???? He
xx
I will try this once more....this is a bill
put forth by a VERY unpopular REPUBLICAN president. All we hear ad nauseam from the Obama campaign is McCain is another Bush, we can't afford more Bush, heck, Pelosi said the same darned thing in her little speech before the vote blew up. The Democrats do NOT want to be identified as voting in the majority, against the Republicans, WITH Bush, to pass the bill because if they did, and it does not work, they will be forever identified with voting WITH Bush. Political suicide. Surely you can see that.
What I am saying is, Obama is a far left socialist and the party has become the majority far left socialist. So they will SUPPORT his agenda, and they have the majority in congress to back it up. Surely you can see that they will vote FOR Obama's agenda. You cannot honestly sit there and tell me that you think enough Democrats would vote against him to stop something he wants? You really think that??
I second that bill!
 
There was a bill that they both
worked on together. John McCain's people called Obama's people. It was not the other way around.
But you know something, Bill still came out
smelling like a rose, after all that, didn’t he? A much admired man, makes $$$$ for speeches, welcomed here at home and around the world. Oh, the 2nd Mr. Bush could only wish for so much.
This bill
is a slippery slope and doesn't deserve the slightest considersation. All people should be protected from criminal or harmful behavior. If a homosexual or pedophile deserves protection from someone, doesn't the child or even an adult who may be raped because of a deviants "sexual orientation" deserve the same protection? Having a so-called "sexual orientation" does not give you the right to act on that "orientation" simply because you can't control your "urges." This bill gives deviants free range to imbibe in their "deviant urges" without consequences. Why any president would consider such an atrocity is beyond me. If Obama signs this bill, the damage done will be on his loony head.
bill maher.com
Hey, if any of you want to post on another board, I mean when this one gets overloaded with conservative attacks, Bill Maher.com. It is pretty cool and you can post away however you want, whatever you want. In order to post, you must pick a handle and password and register and log in each time..Check it out.
WHATever and thank you, Bill Clinton
with a thriving economy, an honest attempt at protecting our environment, and peace.
*The bill is about when and not now, meaning NOW* HUH??
Then let's get out of there and let them control their government. Let's take off the *training wheels* (like Murtha has been saying) and let them learn to ride their *bike* while we observe from the periphery, there if they need us to *catch* them. As long as we are there doing it for them, they will never do it on their own. And by agreeing to amnesty, we're publicly telling the world that the lives of our soldiers aren't important, regardless of how you try to spin it.
And, yes, the media is eerily silent about this. The last article I read last week indicated that the Iraqi Prime Minister was AGAINST amnesty for anyone who kills an IRAQI but was in FAVOR of amnesty for anyone who kills AMERICANS. What a wonderful plan. 
I'm a friend of Bill!
from the uber-liberal state of Massachusetts. I was just responding to previous post of why Observer posts on this forum.
Did Bush actually say he was against this bill
Do you have a link to an article or anything where he states that? I agree with you to some extent on that point. My only issue is that within the 6 months it takes to get a different bill ready to go kids in middle-income and lower-middle-income families with be spending another 1/2 year without health insurance, and what if the new bill gets held up for some reason - then it's just more waiting for something I think we should have had long ago - access to affordable heath insurance for America's kids. Poor people are already receiving free healthcare on Medicaid, obviously, but many middle-class children are slipping through the cracks. I just didn't see any articles where Bush said the illegal immigrants were part of the reason he was vetoing the bill. He always seems to be saying positive things about the hispanic community in generaly because he seems to want the hispanic vote (for his party).
I think all presidents are given too much power. Hundreds of representatives that we took the time and effort to vote for can have their bill vetoed by 1 guy with entirely too much power. A decent number of Republicans voted for the expansion to the SCHIP bill as well, and I definitely applaud their courage to go against their leader. If the plan is so seriously flawed, then why did those Republicans feel so passionate about voting for it and trying to talk the President into signing it? If the bill is allowing tons of immigrants onto it, then that is an issue, but aren't illegals getting hoards of free healthcare already just because they are poor? I don't want them to get free healthcare, but it seems like they are already, so is this issue really the best battleground to fight the illegals, or is this just a symptom of a far greater problem that needs to be dealt with on a greater scale? I just don't want the fact that illegals are sneaking onto the SCHIP program to be the only reason we don't pass the bill. If illegals receive a free hospital stay should we close down the whole hospital? Of course not. Maybe not the greatest analogy, but I think you get what I'm saying. If you do have a link to an article I would be happy to read it, as I want to know as much about this issue as possible.
They need to write a better bill
This is a mute point now, because the bill was vetoed by the Pres.and for good reason. Why do we have to accept bad bills? This was a poorly written bill, and that's the reason it was vetoed. Why all the vagueness? $83,000 per year is hardly poverty level. If this bill was truly going to help poor kids then write it that way. I don't understand why it has to be so vague. To me it reeks of dishonesty and pork.
Write a good understandable bill...what's the problem with that?
Bill Maher
Great show last night! Loved David Frost. Couldn't get over West Clark saying that Middle Eastern women are content being forced to cover themselves from head to toe!
Live in San Francisco area so really want to get to LA for the taping of his show.
Does that mean you believe that Bill and Hillary were....
sincere?
Bill Clinton
Any party that could celebrate the presence of Bill Clinton at their convention like he was the second coming has their priorities wrong as far as I am concerned...bizarre!
Brother Bill
Apparently people have forgotten their outrage over Clinton's zipper problem in the White House and now he's revered regardless of the fact that he made us the laughing stock of the world. So why the outrage about Edwards? I'm outraged that he would do this to his gravely ill wife. As for Clinton, I lost all respect for Hillary for "standing by her man."
BILL - I LOVE YOU SO
fire in the hole!!!
Here's another one: Bill Clinton....sm
I don't know how valid this story is, as I have read it too, and don't know the details.
I do know, and you probably do too, that Bill Clinton did this, and I'm sure countless others. But we didn't and don't hear about it because they weren't/aren't SP.
Seems kind of hypocritical to condemn Gov. Palin for this practice, when it's been going on for decades in the good ol' boy system, don't you agree?
Bill Clinton
let this Country down with his behavior. That doesn't mean I don't think he did good things for this Country. Certainly, he did not harm the Country like the present administration has. There are many reasons I don't think John McCain should be the next president. I believe that anyone who is going to cast their vote in November should find out the facts about both candidates and make an educated decision, taking everything into consideration. This is an important election. We are facing many serious problems and we need the best person in there to do the best he can.
senate bill
this is all way over my head... anyone make any sense of it who is willing to share?
I hate the bill as it is, just s you do....
but I think it is too late not to do something to stabilize things. If we don't, and just let nature take its course, I am afraid we will go from recession to depression and nobody wants that. In defense of both Obama and McCain (can't believe I am saying that), they are just 2 votes and they could not make that much difference. It would have passed the senate without either of them, no matter which way they voted. I wish that Congress had stepped up, though, and kept the bill to stabilization ONLY and it should have been a lot less than 700 billion. sigh.
Yes, he did. And it was in the original bill as well...
don't know if it is still in the 850 billion one. I would imagine it is. Because the Dems want to hold onto their voting base.
So we do have a bill to try to prevent
passed and these dates are September 6 and 19, 2008. Scary, very scary. From what I have been reviewing such things as Freedom of Speech and civil defense this morning, and he can be racist himself, Obama's videos seem to target a war with whites, almost like a civil war. I must admit I am tired this morning from working all night, but EVERYDAY more and more things about our economy, Obama, and future seem more and more scary, not peaceful change.
Oh no, Mr. Bill. Another BC die-hard?
No wonder you are so nauseated by the countdown. Suddenly your posts make perfect sense, even though there is no logical connection between the BC blowhards and reality. So much for the open-minded thingy.
The precise reference I was making was "methinks thou doest protest too much," or in some transliterations, "The lady doth protest too much, methinks." I was using the phrase rather loosely in an attempt to avoid the pounding libs often take for being all elite if they quote Shakespeare or try to use his Bardisms. It's from Hamlet. Doth and doest have been used interchangeably in literature, as have you and thou. Like any quotation, it takes on its fullest meaning when it appears within its context.
They are still debating the bill - but it looks like a GO
How can anyone worry about tax cuts when they aren't even working?
Bill Clinton, for one, did not come from........... sm
a wealthy background. His father died when Bill was a baby and his mother, in order to be able to support her children and herself, went away to nursing school, leaving Bill and sibs with their grandparents to raise. They ran a grocery store in Hope, AR, and couldn't have been what you would call well off.
LBJ was born in a farmhouse in a poor area near the Pendernales River and grew up rather poor. He worked his way through college and earned a teaching certificate, teaching mainly Mexican children in Cotulla.
Ronald Reagan grew up without wealth or privilege. He dealt with alcoholic parents for most of his growing up years.
These are a few of our modern day presidents who came from poor backgrounds. I'm sure some of the earlier presidents came from less than wealthy circumstances.
I don't believe I said that Bill was to blame
for everything. I think many many people are partly to blame for this whole mess including Bush and now I'm watching to see what Obama does and whether or not it helps us or screws us over. From where I'm sitting, I'm seeing more screwing over than help but I guess I just have to grin and bear it because this package will pass and there isn't a d@mn thing I can do about it.
who writes the bill?
The furor over this confuses me, since writing bills is the job of the legislature, not the executive. It's obviously not Obama being talked about. The idea of a monkey running things got pretty played out in Bush's day, so it's not like this is funny enough to deserve much defense, but it does deserve a little, I guess.
Ah, just as Bill Clinton
'did not have sexual intercourse with that woman....Ms. Lewinski" ? Still, it was some kind of sex, wasn't it?
And frankly, if you think sex can be done only the way the 'parts fit' um........ zzzzzzzzzzz
Bill Clinton was able to do it
Everyone knows B.C.'s "backyard" needed serious attention that it wasn't getting. If anyone had a messed up personal life it was him, yet you were okay with him as the Prez. This is very hypocritical.
Do I think Gov. Palin would be a good President. No way! There is a lot she needs to learn and be involved in before attempting something like that again, but it has nothing to do with her personal life. It has everything to do with her political life/career.
You cannot compare the two and say she wouldn't be a good President or VP because of her family life, because you don't hold the democrats up to the same standards. You give them a free pass. As we saw with B.C. - what a disaster/disgrace that administration was.
|
