Discussion:
##GOP tries to damage Hillary Clinton ahead of 2016 election
(too old to reply)
Kurt Nicklas
2013-08-06 11:22:58 UTC
Permalink
<"What does it really matter??">

GOP tries to damage Hillary Clinton ahead of 2016 election
By Alexander Bolton - 08/06/13 05:00 AM ET

http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/315651-gop-tries-to-damage-hillary-
clinton-in-advance-of-2016

Republicans have begun trying to damage Hillary Clinton?s political
image ahead of her expected 2016 White House bid.

The GOP calculates that it needs to make an early start in ramping up
public scrutiny of Clinton ? and that it will be too late if it waits
much longer.

The party assumes Clinton will announce a presidential campaign in early
2015 but sees that preparations are well underway and fears that the
media have already begun to rally to the Democratic banner.
Its efforts are intended to make sure Clinton does not have the same big
head start in 2016 that President Obama enjoyed in 2012. And it is
focused on the media, which Republicans fear will rally to Clinton?s
cause in the same way it embraced Obama in 2008.

As an initial step, Republican National Committee Chairman Reince
Priebus on Monday pushed back against what he worries is the positive
narrative beginning to take shape around Clinton.

He sent letters to the heads of NBC and CNN calling on them to cancel
their plans to air a miniseries and a documentary, respectively, that
one GOP official called ?infomercials? for Clinton.

Priebus warned that if the networks do not cancel the programming by
Aug. 14, he will seek a vote of the RNC to end its partnership with them
for the 2016 Republican primary debates.

?Their actions to promote Secretary Clinton are disturbing and
disappointing,? Priebus said in a statement. ?I hope Americans will
question the credibility of these networks and that NBC and CNN will
reconsider their partisan actions and cancel these political ads masked
as unbiased entertainment.?

Conservatives were dismayed by the media?s coverage of the 2012
presidential cycle, which focused on the squabbling of the Republican
primaries, and treated Obama, in their view, sympathetically. Republican
delegates who attended the 2012 convention in Tampa, Florida, were
greeted by a billboard sponsored by the conservative Media Research
Center, urging them: ?Don?t believe the liberal media!?

?Your company has expressly stated that your choice to air the
miniseries in the near future would avoid concerns of running afoul of
equal time election laws,? Priebus wrote to Robert Greenblatt, the
chairman of NBC Entertainment. ?This suggests a deliberate attempt at
influencing American political opinion in favor of a preferred
candidate, not to mention a guilty conscience.?

Priebus told Jeff Zucker, the president of CNN Worldwide: ?Your
credibility as a supposedly unbiased news network will most certainly be
jeopardized by the decision to show political favoritism and produce an
extended commercial for Secretary Clinton?s nascent campaign.?

The networks seemed caught off guard by the sharp criticism.

CNN said the RNC should reserve judgment until it knows more about the
Clinton documentary. ?Should they decide not to participate in debates
on CNN, we would find it curious, as limiting their debate participation
seems to be the ultimate disservice to voters,? CNN said in a statement.

NBC News distanced itself from the Clinton miniseries, which is to star
Diane Lane.

?NBC News is completely independent of NBC Entertainment and has no
involvement in this project,? NBC said in a statement.

A Republican official said Priebus?s letter highlights GOP concerns the
media will give Clinton an edge. ?Our job is to ensure that the best
playing field created for our candidates to compete,? said the official.

The Republican official said the letters to CNN and NBC were not
intended as an effort to tear down Clinton but acknowledged the party
needs to begin chipping away at her popularity.

A spokesman for Clinton did not respond to a request for comment.

A Quinnipiac University poll released Monday showed Clinton and Chris
Christie, the Republican governor of New Jersey, the two ?hottest?
politicians in the country right now.

Republicans have tried to dim Clinton?s star by linking her to scandal-
marred New York mayoral candidate Anthony Weiner. GOP strategists have
highlighted ties between Clinton and Weiner, who is married to Huma
Abedin?s, one of Clinton?s top aides.

In a memo to reporters Friday, a group of GOP communications strategists
faulted Clinton for not disavowing Weiner.

?Hillary Clinton, has stayed mum about all of it. For someone who has
not-so-veiled aspirations to lead her party, she?s failed to show any
leadership in publicly denouncing Weiner?s habits or his candidacy,?
they wrote.

Republicans say they want to ratchet up the scrutiny on Clinton to
create fatigue among voters by the time she launches her bid in 2015.

?The GOP worries that they won?t have the opportunity to get a fair
shake with a large majority of the voters to make their case by the time
they actually have a Republican presidential nominee,? said Ford
O?Connell, a GOP strategist who worked on Sen. John McCain?s (R-Ariz.)
2008 presidential campaign.

?The whole case that Hillary?s trying to make that there?s something
distinct and historic about her candidacy,? he added. ?She wants to make
Hillary 2.0 become History 2.0, meaning the first black president
followed by the first woman president.? The GOP wants to say, ?Not so
fast,? he added.

Republicans have sought to keep the attack on the U.S. mission in
Benghazi, Libya, in the news in an effort to maintain scrutiny on
Clinton.

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said the attack, which happened while
Clinton was serving as secretary of State, has emboldened al Qaeda.

?They attacked our consulate, they killed an ambassador, a year has
passed, and nobody has paid a price,? he told CNN Sunday. ?After
Benghazi, these al Qaeda types are really on steroids thinking we?re
weaker and they?re stronger.?

Graham predicted earlier this year that Clinton will held partly
responsible for the breakdown in security, which resulted in the death
of ambassador Chris Stevens.

?Benghazi is right at the list of challenges that Secretary Clinton will
face. It happened on her watch and there are a great many remaining
unanswered questions,? said Whit Ayres, a Republican strategist and
pollster.

Chris Lehane, a Democratic strategist who worked on Al Gore?s 2000
presidential campaign, said Republicans are going negative because their
party brand is too tarnished to run a positive message.

?It reflects the lack of a coherent strategy or an overarching brand for
the Republican Party,? he said. ?They don?t have a lot that they
themselves can talk about that is affirmative or that voters are looking
for. So they default to what is a line of attack that presumably works
with their own base voters.?

He said the lines of attack would have limited traction beyond the GOP?s
base.
MarkA
2013-08-06 12:15:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kurt Nicklas
<"What does it really matter??">
GOP tries to damage Hillary Clinton ahead of 2016 election By Alexander
Bolton - 08/06/13 05:00 AM ET
Heh. If the GOP wants to oppose Hillary in 2016, the FIRST thing they
will need to do is come up with a candidate who is not an over-the-top
idiot, who says things like "half the country are moochers, trying to get
OUR money!" The NEXT problem for them will be getting a sane, moderate
candidate through the primary, where the over-the-top idiots will insist
on voting for one of their own.

Neither of those seems likely at this point, but who knows?

After the GOP passes hurdles 1 and 2, the Dems can start to worry.
--
MarkA
Keeper of Things Put There Only Just The Night Before
About eight o'clock
FirstPost
2013-08-06 23:42:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by MarkA
Post by Kurt Nicklas
<"What does it really matter??">
GOP tries to damage Hillary Clinton ahead of 2016 election By Alexander
Bolton - 08/06/13 05:00 AM ET
Heh. If the GOP wants to oppose Hillary in 2016, the FIRST thing they
will need to do is come up with a candidate who is not an over-the-top
idiot, who says things like "half the country are moochers, trying to get
OUR money!" The NEXT problem for them will be getting a sane, moderate
candidate through the primary, where the over-the-top idiots will insist
on voting for one of their own.
Neither of those seems likely at this point, but who knows?
After the GOP passes hurdles 1 and 2, the Dems can start to worry.
Americans as a whole have decided that they want and deserve
everything for free. They have proven it in the last two presidential
elections.
So the candidate that promises free healthcare, free food stamps, free
welfare and basically total government control over their lives, will
be the one they vote for.
Whoever it was (since there is a lot of discussion as to who actually
said it) that stated that a free nation will only last around a couple
hundred years because the people will fuck it up when they realize
they can vote themselves entitlements was 100% correct.
That is exactly what we are facing today. Everyone expects to live
high on the hog on someone elses dime and government control and they
are damned determined to get what they want.
Free Lunch
2013-08-07 00:38:20 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 06 Aug 2013 18:42:01 -0500, FirstPost
Post by FirstPost
Post by MarkA
Post by Kurt Nicklas
<"What does it really matter??">
GOP tries to damage Hillary Clinton ahead of 2016 election By Alexander
Bolton - 08/06/13 05:00 AM ET
Heh. If the GOP wants to oppose Hillary in 2016, the FIRST thing they
will need to do is come up with a candidate who is not an over-the-top
idiot, who says things like "half the country are moochers, trying to get
OUR money!" The NEXT problem for them will be getting a sane, moderate
candidate through the primary, where the over-the-top idiots will insist
on voting for one of their own.
Neither of those seems likely at this point, but who knows?
After the GOP passes hurdles 1 and 2, the Dems can start to worry.
Americans as a whole have decided that they want and deserve
everything for free. They have proven it in the last two presidential
elections.
Who cut taxes beyond reason? Who started wars without paying for them?
Post by FirstPost
So the candidate that promises free healthcare, free food stamps, free
welfare and basically total government control over their lives, will
be the one they vote for.
You must hate Bush for his promises of free government. Obama promised
to roll back some of the Bush tax cuts.
Post by FirstPost
Whoever it was (since there is a lot of discussion as to who actually
said it) that stated that a free nation will only last around a couple
hundred years because the people will fuck it up when they realize
they can vote themselves entitlements was 100% correct.
The reactionaries keep making silly claims like that as they demand free
government. The Republicans adopt the Ryan Budget and refuse to vote on
any of the spending cuts that they demanded of themselves.
Post by FirstPost
That is exactly what we are facing today. Everyone expects to live
high on the hog on someone elses dime and government control and they
are damned determined to get what they want.
Right-winger don't understand government.
Y***@Jurgis.net
2013-08-07 03:00:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Free Lunch
Post by FirstPost
Americans as a whole have decided that they want and deserve
everything for free. They have proven it in the last two presidential
elections.
Who cut taxes beyond reason? Who started wars without paying for them?
Obama? Theory is that the minute a president takes the oath---he's
the one who did.
Post by Free Lunch
Post by FirstPost
So the candidate that promises free healthcare, free food stamps, free
welfare and basically total government control over their lives, will
be the one they vote for.
You must hate Bush for his promises of free government. Obama promised
to roll back some of the Bush tax cuts.
Bush and the GOP control of congress gave us "Free" (from) regulations
of wall street, businesses, and immediately the demise of the middle
class began in earnest.
Post by Free Lunch
Post by FirstPost
Whoever it was (since there is a lot of discussion as to who actually
said it) that stated that a free nation will only last around a couple
hundred years because the people will fuck it up when they realize
they can vote themselves entitlements was 100% correct.
The reactionaries keep making silly claims like that as they demand free
government. The Republicans adopt the Ryan Budget and refuse to vote on
any of the spending cuts that they demanded of themselves.
Post by FirstPost
That is exactly what we are facing today. Everyone expects to live
high on the hog on someone elses dime and government control and they
are damned determined to get what they want.
Right-winger don't understand government.
====================================================================
"The first thing
we've got to do is we all got to use the same language. We've got to
start talking about"_ and Newt said this hundreds of times_ "start
talking about a conservative opportunity society replacing the liberal
Welfare state." And he'd say, "Bang that language into your head. Use
it every night. Use the same words and pretty soon it will permeate to
the American people." And that was the right strategy.
"The great masses' receptive ability is only very limited, their understanding
is small, but their forgetfullness is great. As a consequence
of these facts, all effective propagana has to limit itself only to a
very few points and use them like slogans until even the very last man
is able to imagine what is intended by such a word.
Adolph Hitler
Mein Kampf
Don Kresch
2013-08-07 12:26:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
Bush and the GOP control of congress gave us "Free" (from) regulations
of wall street, businesses
Except there were regulations. Why did you lie?

Don
aa#51, Knight of BAAWA, Jedi Slackmaster
Praise "Bob" or burn in Slacklessness trying not to.
Y***@Jurgis.net
2013-08-07 16:52:21 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 07 Aug 2013 07:26:25 -0500, Don Kresch
Post by Don Kresch
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
Bush and the GOP control of congress gave us "Free" (from) regulations
of wall street, businesses
Except there were regulations. Why did you lie?
Your wingers deregulated, deregulated, and deregulated more after
1995, made worse starting in 2001, and we saw massive jobs losses,
Housing bubbles, investor speculation unrestrained, mis-use of public
funds, migration of businesses (deregulation, remember), massive
revenue losses, huge unfunded mandate increases (Bush regime), and (of
Course) the lied into (unfunded) wars.

All during which the GOP revised banking, wall street oversight,
ignored warnings about impending disasters, and the regulators and GOP
led oversight committees merely Shut down when 1/2 day testimony
started telling them that ALREADY their policies had created a massive
national economic disaster.
Dänk 42Ø
2013-08-07 17:21:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Don Kresch
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
Bush and the GOP control of congress gave us "Free" (from) regulations
of wall street, businesses
Except there were regulations. Why did you lie?
Your wingers deregulated, deregulated, and deregulated more after 1995,
made worse starting in 2001, and we saw massive jobs losses, Housing
bubbles, investor speculation unrestrained, mis-use of public funds,
migration of businesses (deregulation, remember), massive revenue
losses, huge unfunded mandate increases (Bush regime), and (of Course)
the lied into (unfunded) wars.
The lied into war that Democraps refused to impeach him for, and also
continued to fund even after the lie was revealed because they wanted to
"support the troops."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/onpolitics/transcripts/
senaterollcall_iraq101002.htm

"Following is an alphabetical listing by state of how each senator voted
on President Bush's Iraq resolution."

Hillary Clinton (D-NY): Yes
Jeanne Douglas
2013-08-08 01:24:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dänk 42Ø
Post by Don Kresch
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
Bush and the GOP control of congress gave us "Free" (from) regulations
of wall street, businesses
Except there were regulations. Why did you lie?
Your wingers deregulated, deregulated, and deregulated more after 1995,
made worse starting in 2001, and we saw massive jobs losses, Housing
bubbles, investor speculation unrestrained, mis-use of public funds,
migration of businesses (deregulation, remember), massive revenue
losses, huge unfunded mandate increases (Bush regime), and (of Course)
the lied into (unfunded) wars.
The lied into war that Democraps refused to impeach him for, and also
continued to fund even after the lie was revealed because they wanted to
"support the troops."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/onpolitics/transcripts/
senaterollcall_iraq101002.htm
"Following is an alphabetical listing by state of how each senator voted
on President Bush's Iraq resolution."
Hillary Clinton (D-NY): Yes
Yes, we all know that. That's why she lost the nomination to Obama.
--
JD

"Osama Bin Laden is dead and GM is alive."--VP Joseph Biden
Kurt Nicklas
2013-08-08 01:30:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Dänk 42Ø
Post by Don Kresch
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
Bush and the GOP control of congress gave us "Free" (from) regulations
of wall street, businesses
Except there were regulations. Why did you lie?
Your wingers deregulated, deregulated, and deregulated more after 1995,
made worse starting in 2001, and we saw massive jobs losses, Housing
bubbles, investor speculation unrestrained, mis-use of public funds,
migration of businesses (deregulation, remember), massive revenue
losses, huge unfunded mandate increases (Bush regime), and (of Course)
the lied into (unfunded) wars.
The lied into war that Democraps refused to impeach him for, and also
continued to fund even after the lie was revealed because they wanted to
"support the troops."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/onpolitics/transcripts/
senaterollcall_iraq101002.htm
"Following is an alphabetical listing by state of how each senator voted
on President Bush's Iraq resolution."
Hillary Clinton (D-NY): Yes
Yes, we all know that. That's why she lost the nomination to Obama.
Hardly. She lost it because too many Dems were afraid of being called racist for voting against a black man.
Dänk 42Ø
2013-08-08 05:10:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Dänk 42Ø
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
On Wed, 07 Aug 2013 07:26:25 -0500, Don Kresch
Post by Don Kresch
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
Bush and the GOP control of congress gave us "Free" (from)
regulations of wall street, businesses
Except there were regulations. Why did you lie?
Your wingers deregulated, deregulated, and deregulated more after
1995, made worse starting in 2001, and we saw massive jobs losses,
Housing bubbles, investor speculation unrestrained, mis-use of public
funds, migration of businesses (deregulation, remember), massive
revenue losses, huge unfunded mandate increases (Bush regime), and
(of Course) the lied into (unfunded) wars.
The lied into war that Democraps refused to impeach him for, and also
continued to fund even after the lie was revealed because they wanted
to "support the troops."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/onpolitics/transcripts/
senaterollcall_iraq101002.htm
"Following is an alphabetical listing by state of how each senator
voted on President Bush's Iraq resolution."
Hillary Clinton (D-NY): Yes
Yes, we all know that. That's why she lost the nomination to Obama.
No, she lost the nomination to a kharismatic Kool-Aid Kult leader. Barack
Hussein Obama had the advantage of joining the Senate just after the Iraq
war vote, but it was his cultish personality that persuaded even the most
devoted Hillaristas to throw her under the bus for his promise of free
Kool-Aid.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Quack Quack for Obama Crack!
http://obamacrack.gofreeserve.com
Jeanne Douglas
2013-08-08 05:16:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dänk 42Ø
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Dänk 42Ø
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
On Wed, 07 Aug 2013 07:26:25 -0500, Don Kresch
Post by Don Kresch
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
Bush and the GOP control of congress gave us "Free" (from)
regulations of wall street, businesses
Except there were regulations. Why did you lie?
Your wingers deregulated, deregulated, and deregulated more after
1995, made worse starting in 2001, and we saw massive jobs losses,
Housing bubbles, investor speculation unrestrained, mis-use of public
funds, migration of businesses (deregulation, remember), massive
revenue losses, huge unfunded mandate increases (Bush regime), and
(of Course) the lied into (unfunded) wars.
The lied into war that Democraps refused to impeach him for, and also
continued to fund even after the lie was revealed because they wanted
to "support the troops."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/onpolitics/transcripts/
senaterollcall_iraq101002.htm
"Following is an alphabetical listing by state of how each senator
voted on President Bush's Iraq resolution."
Hillary Clinton (D-NY): Yes
Yes, we all know that. That's why she lost the nomination to Obama.
No, she lost the nomination to a kharismatic Kool-Aid Kult leader. Barack
Hussein Obama had the advantage of joining the Senate just after the Iraq
war vote, but it was his cultish personality that persuaded even the most
devoted Hillaristas to throw her under the bus for his promise of free
Kool-Aid.
What "cultish personality" are you talking about?

The one where he treats the American people as intelligent adults (and
just that fantasy is proof he doesn't have a "cultish personality").
--
JD

"Osama Bin Laden is dead and GM is alive."--VP Joseph Biden
Jeanne Douglas
2013-08-08 05:16:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dänk 42Ø
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Dänk 42Ø
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
On Wed, 07 Aug 2013 07:26:25 -0500, Don Kresch
Post by Don Kresch
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
Bush and the GOP control of congress gave us "Free" (from)
regulations of wall street, businesses
Except there were regulations. Why did you lie?
Your wingers deregulated, deregulated, and deregulated more after
1995, made worse starting in 2001, and we saw massive jobs losses,
Housing bubbles, investor speculation unrestrained, mis-use of public
funds, migration of businesses (deregulation, remember), massive
revenue losses, huge unfunded mandate increases (Bush regime), and
(of Course) the lied into (unfunded) wars.
The lied into war that Democraps refused to impeach him for, and also
continued to fund even after the lie was revealed because they wanted
to "support the troops."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/onpolitics/transcripts/
senaterollcall_iraq101002.htm
"Following is an alphabetical listing by state of how each senator
voted on President Bush's Iraq resolution."
Hillary Clinton (D-NY): Yes
Yes, we all know that. That's why she lost the nomination to Obama.
No, she lost the nomination to a kharismatic Kool-Aid Kult leader. Barack
Hussein Obama had the advantage of joining the Senate just after the Iraq
war vote, but it was his cultish personality that persuaded even the most
devoted Hillaristas to throw her under the bus for his promise of free
Kool-Aid.
What "cultish personality" are you talking about?

The one where he treats the American people as intelligent adults (and
just that fantasy is proof he doesn't have a "cultish personality").
--
JD

"Osama Bin Laden is dead and GM is alive."--VP Joseph Biden
Dänk 42Ø
2013-08-08 05:10:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Dänk 42Ø
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
On Wed, 07 Aug 2013 07:26:25 -0500, Don Kresch
Post by Don Kresch
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
Bush and the GOP control of congress gave us "Free" (from)
regulations of wall street, businesses
Except there were regulations. Why did you lie?
Your wingers deregulated, deregulated, and deregulated more after
1995, made worse starting in 2001, and we saw massive jobs losses,
Housing bubbles, investor speculation unrestrained, mis-use of public
funds, migration of businesses (deregulation, remember), massive
revenue losses, huge unfunded mandate increases (Bush regime), and
(of Course) the lied into (unfunded) wars.
The lied into war that Democraps refused to impeach him for, and also
continued to fund even after the lie was revealed because they wanted
to "support the troops."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/onpolitics/transcripts/
senaterollcall_iraq101002.htm
"Following is an alphabetical listing by state of how each senator
voted on President Bush's Iraq resolution."
Hillary Clinton (D-NY): Yes
Yes, we all know that. That's why she lost the nomination to Obama.
No, she lost the nomination to a kharismatic Kool-Aid Kult leader. Barack
Hussein Obama had the advantage of joining the Senate just after the Iraq
war vote, but it was his cultish personality that persuaded even the most
devoted Hillaristas to throw her under the bus for his promise of free
Kool-Aid.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Quack Quack for Obama Crack!
http://obamacrack.gofreeserve.com
Jeanne Douglas
2013-08-08 01:24:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dänk 42Ø
Post by Don Kresch
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
Bush and the GOP control of congress gave us "Free" (from) regulations
of wall street, businesses
Except there were regulations. Why did you lie?
Your wingers deregulated, deregulated, and deregulated more after 1995,
made worse starting in 2001, and we saw massive jobs losses, Housing
bubbles, investor speculation unrestrained, mis-use of public funds,
migration of businesses (deregulation, remember), massive revenue
losses, huge unfunded mandate increases (Bush regime), and (of Course)
the lied into (unfunded) wars.
The lied into war that Democraps refused to impeach him for, and also
continued to fund even after the lie was revealed because they wanted to
"support the troops."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/onpolitics/transcripts/
senaterollcall_iraq101002.htm
"Following is an alphabetical listing by state of how each senator voted
on President Bush's Iraq resolution."
Hillary Clinton (D-NY): Yes
Yes, we all know that. That's why she lost the nomination to Obama.
--
JD

"Osama Bin Laden is dead and GM is alive."--VP Joseph Biden
Dänk 42Ø
2013-08-07 17:21:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Don Kresch
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
Bush and the GOP control of congress gave us "Free" (from) regulations
of wall street, businesses
Except there were regulations. Why did you lie?
Your wingers deregulated, deregulated, and deregulated more after 1995,
made worse starting in 2001, and we saw massive jobs losses, Housing
bubbles, investor speculation unrestrained, mis-use of public funds,
migration of businesses (deregulation, remember), massive revenue
losses, huge unfunded mandate increases (Bush regime), and (of Course)
the lied into (unfunded) wars.
The lied into war that Democraps refused to impeach him for, and also
continued to fund even after the lie was revealed because they wanted to
"support the troops."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/onpolitics/transcripts/
senaterollcall_iraq101002.htm

"Following is an alphabetical listing by state of how each senator voted
on President Bush's Iraq resolution."

Hillary Clinton (D-NY): Yes
Don Kresch
2013-08-07 22:36:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
On Wed, 07 Aug 2013 07:26:25 -0500, Don Kresch
Post by Don Kresch
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
Bush and the GOP control of congress gave us "Free" (from) regulations
of wall street, businesses
Except there were regulations. Why did you lie?
Your
No. There were regulations. Why did you lie?


Don
aa#51, Knight of BAAWA, Jedi Slackmaster
Praise "Bob" or burn in Slacklessness trying not to.
Don Kresch
2013-08-07 22:36:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
On Wed, 07 Aug 2013 07:26:25 -0500, Don Kresch
Post by Don Kresch
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
Bush and the GOP control of congress gave us "Free" (from) regulations
of wall street, businesses
Except there were regulations. Why did you lie?
Your
No. There were regulations. Why did you lie?


Don
aa#51, Knight of BAAWA, Jedi Slackmaster
Praise "Bob" or burn in Slacklessness trying not to.
Y***@Jurgis.net
2013-08-07 16:52:21 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 07 Aug 2013 07:26:25 -0500, Don Kresch
Post by Don Kresch
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
Bush and the GOP control of congress gave us "Free" (from) regulations
of wall street, businesses
Except there were regulations. Why did you lie?
Your wingers deregulated, deregulated, and deregulated more after
1995, made worse starting in 2001, and we saw massive jobs losses,
Housing bubbles, investor speculation unrestrained, mis-use of public
funds, migration of businesses (deregulation, remember), massive
revenue losses, huge unfunded mandate increases (Bush regime), and (of
Course) the lied into (unfunded) wars.

All during which the GOP revised banking, wall street oversight,
ignored warnings about impending disasters, and the regulators and GOP
led oversight committees merely Shut down when 1/2 day testimony
started telling them that ALREADY their policies had created a massive
national economic disaster.
unknown
2013-08-07 20:13:37 UTC
Permalink
==========================================================

KEEP IT OUT OF CANADIAN NEWSGROUPS, THANKS

==========================================================
Post by Don Kresch
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
Bush and the GOP control of congress gave us "Free" (from) regulations
of wall street, businesses
Except there were regulations. Why did you lie?
Don
aa#51, Knight of BAAWA, Jedi Slackmaster
Praise "Bob" or burn in Slacklessness trying not to.
unknown
2013-08-07 20:13:37 UTC
Permalink
==========================================================

KEEP IT OUT OF CANADIAN NEWSGROUPS, THANKS

==========================================================
Post by Don Kresch
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
Bush and the GOP control of congress gave us "Free" (from) regulations
of wall street, businesses
Except there were regulations. Why did you lie?
Don
aa#51, Knight of BAAWA, Jedi Slackmaster
Praise "Bob" or burn in Slacklessness trying not to.
Don Kresch
2013-08-07 12:26:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
Bush and the GOP control of congress gave us "Free" (from) regulations
of wall street, businesses
Except there were regulations. Why did you lie?

Don
aa#51, Knight of BAAWA, Jedi Slackmaster
Praise "Bob" or burn in Slacklessness trying not to.
Free Lunch
2013-08-08 13:02:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
Post by Free Lunch
Post by FirstPost
Americans as a whole have decided that they want and deserve
everything for free. They have proven it in the last two presidential
elections.
Who cut taxes beyond reason? Who started wars without paying for them?
Obama? Theory is that the minute a president takes the oath---he's
the one who did.
No doubt such people are easily fooled.
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
Post by Free Lunch
Post by FirstPost
So the candidate that promises free healthcare, free food stamps, free
welfare and basically total government control over their lives, will
be the one they vote for.
You must hate Bush for his promises of free government. Obama promised
to roll back some of the Bush tax cuts.
Bush and the GOP control of congress gave us "Free" (from) regulations
of wall street, businesses, and immediately the demise of the middle
class began in earnest.
Post by Free Lunch
Post by FirstPost
Whoever it was (since there is a lot of discussion as to who actually
said it) that stated that a free nation will only last around a couple
hundred years because the people will fuck it up when they realize
they can vote themselves entitlements was 100% correct.
The reactionaries keep making silly claims like that as they demand free
government. The Republicans adopt the Ryan Budget and refuse to vote on
any of the spending cuts that they demanded of themselves.
Post by FirstPost
That is exactly what we are facing today. Everyone expects to live
high on the hog on someone elses dime and government control and they
are damned determined to get what they want.
Right-winger don't understand government.
====================================================================
"The first thing
we've got to do is we all got to use the same language. We've got to
start talking about"_ and Newt said this hundreds of times_ "start
talking about a conservative opportunity society replacing the liberal
Welfare state." And he'd say, "Bang that language into your head. Use
it every night. Use the same words and pretty soon it will permeate to
the American people." And that was the right strategy.
"The great masses' receptive ability is only very limited, their understanding
is small, but their forgetfullness is great. As a consequence
of these facts, all effective propagana has to limit itself only to a
very few points and use them like slogans until even the very last man
is able to imagine what is intended by such a word.
Adolph Hitler
Mein Kampf
Free Lunch
2013-08-08 13:02:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
Post by Free Lunch
Post by FirstPost
Americans as a whole have decided that they want and deserve
everything for free. They have proven it in the last two presidential
elections.
Who cut taxes beyond reason? Who started wars without paying for them?
Obama? Theory is that the minute a president takes the oath---he's
the one who did.
No doubt such people are easily fooled.
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
Post by Free Lunch
Post by FirstPost
So the candidate that promises free healthcare, free food stamps, free
welfare and basically total government control over their lives, will
be the one they vote for.
You must hate Bush for his promises of free government. Obama promised
to roll back some of the Bush tax cuts.
Bush and the GOP control of congress gave us "Free" (from) regulations
of wall street, businesses, and immediately the demise of the middle
class began in earnest.
Post by Free Lunch
Post by FirstPost
Whoever it was (since there is a lot of discussion as to who actually
said it) that stated that a free nation will only last around a couple
hundred years because the people will fuck it up when they realize
they can vote themselves entitlements was 100% correct.
The reactionaries keep making silly claims like that as they demand free
government. The Republicans adopt the Ryan Budget and refuse to vote on
any of the spending cuts that they demanded of themselves.
Post by FirstPost
That is exactly what we are facing today. Everyone expects to live
high on the hog on someone elses dime and government control and they
are damned determined to get what they want.
Right-winger don't understand government.
====================================================================
"The first thing
we've got to do is we all got to use the same language. We've got to
start talking about"_ and Newt said this hundreds of times_ "start
talking about a conservative opportunity society replacing the liberal
Welfare state." And he'd say, "Bang that language into your head. Use
it every night. Use the same words and pretty soon it will permeate to
the American people." And that was the right strategy.
"The great masses' receptive ability is only very limited, their understanding
is small, but their forgetfullness is great. As a consequence
of these facts, all effective propagana has to limit itself only to a
very few points and use them like slogans until even the very last man
is able to imagine what is intended by such a word.
Adolph Hitler
Mein Kampf
Y***@Jurgis.net
2013-08-07 03:00:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Free Lunch
Post by FirstPost
Americans as a whole have decided that they want and deserve
everything for free. They have proven it in the last two presidential
elections.
Who cut taxes beyond reason? Who started wars without paying for them?
Obama? Theory is that the minute a president takes the oath---he's
the one who did.
Post by Free Lunch
Post by FirstPost
So the candidate that promises free healthcare, free food stamps, free
welfare and basically total government control over their lives, will
be the one they vote for.
You must hate Bush for his promises of free government. Obama promised
to roll back some of the Bush tax cuts.
Bush and the GOP control of congress gave us "Free" (from) regulations
of wall street, businesses, and immediately the demise of the middle
class began in earnest.
Post by Free Lunch
Post by FirstPost
Whoever it was (since there is a lot of discussion as to who actually
said it) that stated that a free nation will only last around a couple
hundred years because the people will fuck it up when they realize
they can vote themselves entitlements was 100% correct.
The reactionaries keep making silly claims like that as they demand free
government. The Republicans adopt the Ryan Budget and refuse to vote on
any of the spending cuts that they demanded of themselves.
Post by FirstPost
That is exactly what we are facing today. Everyone expects to live
high on the hog on someone elses dime and government control and they
are damned determined to get what they want.
Right-winger don't understand government.
====================================================================
"The first thing
we've got to do is we all got to use the same language. We've got to
start talking about"_ and Newt said this hundreds of times_ "start
talking about a conservative opportunity society replacing the liberal
Welfare state." And he'd say, "Bang that language into your head. Use
it every night. Use the same words and pretty soon it will permeate to
the American people." And that was the right strategy.
"The great masses' receptive ability is only very limited, their understanding
is small, but their forgetfullness is great. As a consequence
of these facts, all effective propagana has to limit itself only to a
very few points and use them like slogans until even the very last man
is able to imagine what is intended by such a word.
Adolph Hitler
Mein Kampf
Too_Many_Tools
2013-08-07 03:20:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Free Lunch
On Tue, 06 Aug 2013 18:42:01 -0500, FirstPost
Post by FirstPost
Post by MarkA
Post by Kurt Nicklas
<"What does it really matter??">
GOP tries to damage Hillary Clinton ahead of 2016 election By
Alexander Bolton - 08/06/13 05:00 AM ET
Heh. If the GOP wants to oppose Hillary in 2016, the FIRST thing
they will need to do is come up with a candidate who is not an
over-the-top idiot, who says things like "half the country are
moochers, trying to get OUR money!" The NEXT problem for them will
be getting a sane, moderate candidate through the primary, where the
over-the-top idiots will insist on voting for one of their own.
Neither of those seems likely at this point, but who knows?
After the GOP passes hurdles 1 and 2, the Dems can start to worry.
Americans as a whole have decided that they want and deserve
everything for free. They have proven it in the last two presidential
elections.
Who cut taxes beyond reason? Who started wars without paying for them?
A better question would be why the unnecessary taxes left over from
Vietnam were cut. Because greedy Democrat pigs kept extending them for no
real actual needed purpose is the right answer.

The second answer is that Democrats again started the wars and left the
next guy holding the bag.

Vietnam - Started by JFK

Iraq - Started by Clinton
Post by Free Lunch
Post by FirstPost
So the candidate that promises free healthcare, free food stamps, free
welfare and basically total government control over their lives, will
be the one they vote for.
You must hate Bush for his promises of free government. Obama promised
to roll back some of the Bush tax cuts.
You've been sucking too much of Obama's cock. Bush hasn't been president
for 5 years.

Bush tried to stop the financial meltdown set in place by Clinton, but
Democrats voted against it.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/11/business/new-agency-proposed-to-oversee-
freddie-mac-and-fannie-mae.html

By STEPHEN LABATON
Published: September 11, 2003
SIGN IN TO E-MAIL
PRINT
SINGLE-PAGE

The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory
overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis
a decade ago.

Under the plan, disclosed at a Congressional hearing today, a new agency
would be created within the Treasury Department to assume supervision of
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored companies that are
the two largest players in the mortgage lending industry.

The new agency would have the authority, which now rests with Congress, to
set one of the two capital-reserve requirements for the companies. It
would exercise authority over any new lines of business. And it would
determine whether the two are adequately managing the risks of their
ballooning portfolios.

The plan is an acknowledgment by the administration that oversight of
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- which together have issued more than $1.5
trillion in outstanding debt -- is broken. A report by outside
investigators in July concluded that Freddie Mac manipulated its
accounting to mislead investors, and critics have said Fannie Mae does not
adequately hedge against rising interest rates.

''These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any
kind of financial crisis,'' said Representative Barney Frank of
Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee.
''The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on
these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.''

Representative Melvin L. Watt, Democrat of North Carolina, agreed.

''I don't see much other than a shell game going on here, moving something
from one agency to another and in the process weakening the bargaining
power of poorer families and their ability to get affordable housing,''
Mr. Watt said.
Post by Free Lunch
Post by FirstPost
Whoever it was (since there is a lot of discussion as to who actually
said it) that stated that a free nation will only last around a couple
hundred years because the people will fuck it up when they realize
they can vote themselves entitlements was 100% correct.
The reactionaries keep making silly claims like that as they demand
free government. The Republicans adopt the Ryan Budget and refuse to
vote on any of the spending cuts that they demanded of themselves.
Let's consider who fucked the country up in the first place.

Bill Clinton.

http://www.nytimes.com/1999/09/30/business/fannie-mae-eases-credit-to-aid-
mortgage-lending.html

Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending
By STEVEN A. HOLMES
Published: September 30, 1999
SIGN IN TO E-MAIL
PRINT
SINGLE-PAGE

In a move that could help increase home ownership rates among minorities
and low-income consumers, the Fannie Mae Corporation is easing the credit
requirements on loans that it will purchase from banks and other lenders.

The action, which will begin as a pilot program involving 24 banks in 15
markets -- including the New York metropolitan region -- will encourage
those banks to extend home mortgages to individuals whose credit is
generally not good enough to qualify for conventional loans. Fannie Mae
officials say they hope to make it a nationwide program by next spring.

Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been
under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand
mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from
stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits.

In addition, banks, thrift institutions and mortgage companies have been
pressing Fannie Mae to help them make more loans to so-called subprime
borrowers. These borrowers whose incomes, credit ratings and savings are
not good enough to qualify for conventional loans, can only get loans from
finance companies that charge much higher interest rates -- anywhere from
three to four percentage points higher than conventional loans.
Post by Free Lunch
Post by FirstPost
That is exactly what we are facing today. Everyone expects to live
high on the hog on someone elses dime and government control and they
are damned determined to get what they want.
Right-winger don't understand government.
Your own liberal media just boned you up your ignorant butt.

Twice.

Left-wingers don't understand fiscal responsibility, and they really
really REALLY suck at basic research and history.




--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ***@netfront.net ---
Free Lunch
2013-08-08 13:08:51 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 7 Aug 2013 03:20:25 +0000 (UTC), "Too_Many_Tools"
Post by Too_Many_Tools
Post by Free Lunch
On Tue, 06 Aug 2013 18:42:01 -0500, FirstPost
Post by FirstPost
Post by MarkA
Post by Kurt Nicklas
<"What does it really matter??">
GOP tries to damage Hillary Clinton ahead of 2016 election By
Alexander Bolton - 08/06/13 05:00 AM ET
Heh. If the GOP wants to oppose Hillary in 2016, the FIRST thing
they will need to do is come up with a candidate who is not an
over-the-top idiot, who says things like "half the country are
moochers, trying to get OUR money!" The NEXT problem for them will
be getting a sane, moderate candidate through the primary, where the
over-the-top idiots will insist on voting for one of their own.
Neither of those seems likely at this point, but who knows?
After the GOP passes hurdles 1 and 2, the Dems can start to worry.
Americans as a whole have decided that they want and deserve
everything for free. They have proven it in the last two presidential
elections.
Who cut taxes beyond reason? Who started wars without paying for them?
A better question would be why the unnecessary taxes left over from
Vietnam were cut. Because greedy Democrat pigs kept extending them for no
real actual needed purpose is the right answer.
Government spending and revenue isn't inherently any better or worse
than private.
Post by Too_Many_Tools
The second answer is that Democrats again started the wars and left the
next guy holding the bag.
Vietnam - Started by JFK
Eisenhower?
Post by Too_Many_Tools
Iraq - Started by Clinton
GHWB?

...


[Fannie Freddie articles 2003 and 1999]

Fannie and Freddie never caused the problems. They were always more
cautious lenders than Countrywide, WaMu and the Wall St.
Free Lunch
2013-08-08 13:08:51 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 7 Aug 2013 03:20:25 +0000 (UTC), "Too_Many_Tools"
Post by Too_Many_Tools
Post by Free Lunch
On Tue, 06 Aug 2013 18:42:01 -0500, FirstPost
Post by FirstPost
Post by MarkA
Post by Kurt Nicklas
<"What does it really matter??">
GOP tries to damage Hillary Clinton ahead of 2016 election By
Alexander Bolton - 08/06/13 05:00 AM ET
Heh. If the GOP wants to oppose Hillary in 2016, the FIRST thing
they will need to do is come up with a candidate who is not an
over-the-top idiot, who says things like "half the country are
moochers, trying to get OUR money!" The NEXT problem for them will
be getting a sane, moderate candidate through the primary, where the
over-the-top idiots will insist on voting for one of their own.
Neither of those seems likely at this point, but who knows?
After the GOP passes hurdles 1 and 2, the Dems can start to worry.
Americans as a whole have decided that they want and deserve
everything for free. They have proven it in the last two presidential
elections.
Who cut taxes beyond reason? Who started wars without paying for them?
A better question would be why the unnecessary taxes left over from
Vietnam were cut. Because greedy Democrat pigs kept extending them for no
real actual needed purpose is the right answer.
Government spending and revenue isn't inherently any better or worse
than private.
Post by Too_Many_Tools
The second answer is that Democrats again started the wars and left the
next guy holding the bag.
Vietnam - Started by JFK
Eisenhower?
Post by Too_Many_Tools
Iraq - Started by Clinton
GHWB?

...


[Fannie Freddie articles 2003 and 1999]

Fannie and Freddie never caused the problems. They were always more
cautious lenders than Countrywide, WaMu and the Wall St.

Too_Many_Tools
2013-08-07 03:20:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Free Lunch
On Tue, 06 Aug 2013 18:42:01 -0500, FirstPost
Post by FirstPost
Post by MarkA
Post by Kurt Nicklas
<"What does it really matter??">
GOP tries to damage Hillary Clinton ahead of 2016 election By
Alexander Bolton - 08/06/13 05:00 AM ET
Heh. If the GOP wants to oppose Hillary in 2016, the FIRST thing
they will need to do is come up with a candidate who is not an
over-the-top idiot, who says things like "half the country are
moochers, trying to get OUR money!" The NEXT problem for them will
be getting a sane, moderate candidate through the primary, where the
over-the-top idiots will insist on voting for one of their own.
Neither of those seems likely at this point, but who knows?
After the GOP passes hurdles 1 and 2, the Dems can start to worry.
Americans as a whole have decided that they want and deserve
everything for free. They have proven it in the last two presidential
elections.
Who cut taxes beyond reason? Who started wars without paying for them?
A better question would be why the unnecessary taxes left over from
Vietnam were cut. Because greedy Democrat pigs kept extending them for no
real actual needed purpose is the right answer.

The second answer is that Democrats again started the wars and left the
next guy holding the bag.

Vietnam - Started by JFK

Iraq - Started by Clinton
Post by Free Lunch
Post by FirstPost
So the candidate that promises free healthcare, free food stamps, free
welfare and basically total government control over their lives, will
be the one they vote for.
You must hate Bush for his promises of free government. Obama promised
to roll back some of the Bush tax cuts.
You've been sucking too much of Obama's cock. Bush hasn't been president
for 5 years.

Bush tried to stop the financial meltdown set in place by Clinton, but
Democrats voted against it.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/11/business/new-agency-proposed-to-oversee-
freddie-mac-and-fannie-mae.html

By STEPHEN LABATON
Published: September 11, 2003
SIGN IN TO E-MAIL
PRINT
SINGLE-PAGE

The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory
overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis
a decade ago.

Under the plan, disclosed at a Congressional hearing today, a new agency
would be created within the Treasury Department to assume supervision of
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored companies that are
the two largest players in the mortgage lending industry.

The new agency would have the authority, which now rests with Congress, to
set one of the two capital-reserve requirements for the companies. It
would exercise authority over any new lines of business. And it would
determine whether the two are adequately managing the risks of their
ballooning portfolios.

The plan is an acknowledgment by the administration that oversight of
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- which together have issued more than $1.5
trillion in outstanding debt -- is broken. A report by outside
investigators in July concluded that Freddie Mac manipulated its
accounting to mislead investors, and critics have said Fannie Mae does not
adequately hedge against rising interest rates.

''These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any
kind of financial crisis,'' said Representative Barney Frank of
Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee.
''The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on
these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.''

Representative Melvin L. Watt, Democrat of North Carolina, agreed.

''I don't see much other than a shell game going on here, moving something
from one agency to another and in the process weakening the bargaining
power of poorer families and their ability to get affordable housing,''
Mr. Watt said.
Post by Free Lunch
Post by FirstPost
Whoever it was (since there is a lot of discussion as to who actually
said it) that stated that a free nation will only last around a couple
hundred years because the people will fuck it up when they realize
they can vote themselves entitlements was 100% correct.
The reactionaries keep making silly claims like that as they demand
free government. The Republicans adopt the Ryan Budget and refuse to
vote on any of the spending cuts that they demanded of themselves.
Let's consider who fucked the country up in the first place.

Bill Clinton.

http://www.nytimes.com/1999/09/30/business/fannie-mae-eases-credit-to-aid-
mortgage-lending.html

Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending
By STEVEN A. HOLMES
Published: September 30, 1999
SIGN IN TO E-MAIL
PRINT
SINGLE-PAGE

In a move that could help increase home ownership rates among minorities
and low-income consumers, the Fannie Mae Corporation is easing the credit
requirements on loans that it will purchase from banks and other lenders.

The action, which will begin as a pilot program involving 24 banks in 15
markets -- including the New York metropolitan region -- will encourage
those banks to extend home mortgages to individuals whose credit is
generally not good enough to qualify for conventional loans. Fannie Mae
officials say they hope to make it a nationwide program by next spring.

Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been
under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand
mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from
stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits.

In addition, banks, thrift institutions and mortgage companies have been
pressing Fannie Mae to help them make more loans to so-called subprime
borrowers. These borrowers whose incomes, credit ratings and savings are
not good enough to qualify for conventional loans, can only get loans from
finance companies that charge much higher interest rates -- anywhere from
three to four percentage points higher than conventional loans.
Post by Free Lunch
Post by FirstPost
That is exactly what we are facing today. Everyone expects to live
high on the hog on someone elses dime and government control and they
are damned determined to get what they want.
Right-winger don't understand government.
Your own liberal media just boned you up your ignorant butt.

Twice.

Left-wingers don't understand fiscal responsibility, and they really
really REALLY suck at basic research and history.




--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ***@netfront.net ---
Free Lunch
2013-08-07 00:38:20 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 06 Aug 2013 18:42:01 -0500, FirstPost
Post by FirstPost
Post by MarkA
Post by Kurt Nicklas
<"What does it really matter??">
GOP tries to damage Hillary Clinton ahead of 2016 election By Alexander
Bolton - 08/06/13 05:00 AM ET
Heh. If the GOP wants to oppose Hillary in 2016, the FIRST thing they
will need to do is come up with a candidate who is not an over-the-top
idiot, who says things like "half the country are moochers, trying to get
OUR money!" The NEXT problem for them will be getting a sane, moderate
candidate through the primary, where the over-the-top idiots will insist
on voting for one of their own.
Neither of those seems likely at this point, but who knows?
After the GOP passes hurdles 1 and 2, the Dems can start to worry.
Americans as a whole have decided that they want and deserve
everything for free. They have proven it in the last two presidential
elections.
Who cut taxes beyond reason? Who started wars without paying for them?
Post by FirstPost
So the candidate that promises free healthcare, free food stamps, free
welfare and basically total government control over their lives, will
be the one they vote for.
You must hate Bush for his promises of free government. Obama promised
to roll back some of the Bush tax cuts.
Post by FirstPost
Whoever it was (since there is a lot of discussion as to who actually
said it) that stated that a free nation will only last around a couple
hundred years because the people will fuck it up when they realize
they can vote themselves entitlements was 100% correct.
The reactionaries keep making silly claims like that as they demand free
government. The Republicans adopt the Ryan Budget and refuse to vote on
any of the spending cuts that they demanded of themselves.
Post by FirstPost
That is exactly what we are facing today. Everyone expects to live
high on the hog on someone elses dime and government control and they
are damned determined to get what they want.
Right-winger don't understand government.
Y***@Jurgis.net
2013-08-07 02:57:48 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 06 Aug 2013 18:42:01 -0500, FirstPost
Post by FirstPost
Post by MarkA
After the GOP passes hurdles 1 and 2, the Dems can start to worry.
Americans as a whole have decided that they want and deserve
everything for free.
Isn't the act of paying a penny or two "Burden" on millions of income
the same thing as "free"?
Post by FirstPost
So the candidate that promises free healthcare, free food stamps, free
welfare and basically total government control over their lives, will
be the one they vote for.
No candidate you can name does that, you dumbfuckwit

If you had even one functioning bat in that empty belfry---you'd know
the idea of the REFORM in HC is to have everyone pay something for
their health care

The PRESENT system provides "Free" HC from anyone who must use ER
rooms that the state bills the Federal government for---and YOU
pay-for-NOW.
Post by FirstPost
Whoever it was (since there is a lot of discussion as to who actually
said it) that stated that a free nation will only last around a couple
hundred years because the people will fuck it up when they realize
they can vote themselves entitlements was 100% correct.
Ya moron

80% of ALL income and wealth EACH YEAR is going to less than 12% of
the top income levels. The other 20% is the wages and income of ALL
others in this country.

80% of ALL amassed wealth is owned and/or controlled by less than 8%
of the top wealth class.

How long do you think ANY nation can survive that system

IDIOT
Vandar
2013-08-07 13:15:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Free Lunch
On Tue, 06 Aug 2013 18:42:01 -0500, FirstPost
Post by FirstPost
Post by MarkA
After the GOP passes hurdles 1 and 2, the Dems can start to worry.
Americans as a whole have decided that they want and deserve
everything for free.
Isn't the act of paying a penny or two "Burden" on millions of income
the same thing as "free"?
Post by FirstPost
So the candidate that promises free healthcare, free food stamps, free
welfare and basically total government control over their lives, will
be the one they vote for.
No candidate you can name does that, you dumbfuckwit
If you had even one functioning bat in that empty belfry---you'd know
the idea of the REFORM in HC is to have everyone pay something for
their health care
No. It's to have some people pay for their own plus something for the
healthcare of other people (who pay nothing).
Post by Free Lunch
The PRESENT system provides "Free" HC from anyone who must use ER
rooms that the state bills the Federal government for---and YOU
pay-for-NOW.
Post by FirstPost
Whoever it was (since there is a lot of discussion as to who actually
said it) that stated that a free nation will only last around a couple
hundred years because the people will fuck it up when they realize
they can vote themselves entitlements was 100% correct.
Ya moron
80% of ALL income and wealth EACH YEAR is going to less than 12% of
the top income levels. The other 20% is the wages and income of ALL
others in this country.
80% of ALL amassed wealth is owned and/or controlled by less than 8%
of the top wealth class.
Neither of which has anything to do with what he said.
Post by Free Lunch
How long do you think ANY nation can survive that system
Until those who want freebies outnumber those who aren't afraid of work,
and they start electing incompetent morons to maintain those freebies.
Y***@Jurgis.net
2013-08-07 17:04:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Vandar
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
Post by FirstPost
So the candidate that promises free healthcare, free food stamps, free
welfare and basically total government control over their lives, will
be the one they vote for.
No candidate you can name does that, you dumbfuckwit
If you had even one functioning bat in that empty belfry---you'd know
the idea of the REFORM in HC is to have everyone pay something for
their health care
No. It's to have some people pay for their own plus something for the
healthcare of other people (who pay nothing).
Pay attention---(See below)
Post by Vandar
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
The PRESENT system provides "Free" HC from anyone who must use ER
rooms that the state bills the Federal government for---and YOU
pay-for-NOW.
Post by FirstPost
Whoever it was (since there is a lot of discussion as to who actually
said it) that stated that a free nation will only last around a couple
hundred years because the people will fuck it up when they realize
they can vote themselves entitlements was 100% correct.
Ya moron
80% of ALL income and wealth EACH YEAR is going to less than 12% of
the top income levels. The other 20% is the wages and income of ALL
others in this country.
80% of ALL amassed wealth is owned and/or controlled by less than 8%
of the top wealth class.
Neither of which has anything to do with what he said.
DId you miss the part that says the PRESENT system is what is being
reformed?

RIGHT NOW---the 60,000,000 without health care----use the ER. That
uncompensated Care the Federal government (You) MUST reimburse the
States for.

If (look up the word, if necessary)---If everyone paid
"something"---those 60,000,000 would (in effect) pay for most of what
the govt (you) pay-for-now.

secondly, the cost of those who do have HC policies---goes up to cover
the rising costs of ER rooms (which are unrealistically expensive),
which means---YOU pay for YOUR insurance, YOU pay for Others (taxes)
who don't have insurance, and then you pay MORE for your Premium
because the actuarials include the non-payers.

Third---YOUR premium includes (look up the word)---CEO salaries,
Dividends to investors, high administration costs, costs of
advertising, ...AND----(pay attention now)---the associated medical
equipment, drugs, for Health care related things.

Ex: If YOU need a wheel chair---YOU can go to any medical supply
store and buy one for about $200.

When the insurance companies provide one, or when the Govt (you)
reimburse states for ER charges (uncompensated)---the cost to the govt
(you) is $1200. Across the board, providers, doctors, hostpitals, and
insurance companies charge Huge amounts that YOU pay for. (you still
have to pay YOUR premium).

(no, the govt (you) cannot refuse to pay---It's the (old) LAW.
Post by Vandar
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
How long do you think ANY nation can survive that system
Until those who want freebies outnumber those who aren't afraid of work,
and they start electing incompetent morons to maintain those freebies.
You're not capable of any argument without some credible evidence you
even understand that your silly faux fed crap isn't rational.

The cost of HC is independent of anyone's ability to pay---it's based
on profit and greed---not good of nation.

The HC is NOT "Free" is it being paid for (by law)

The REFORM will stop what you call "freebie" and require everyone to
pay according to ability

Don't you get it?

(
Vandar
2013-08-07 17:25:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
Post by Vandar
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
Post by FirstPost
So the candidate that promises free healthcare, free food stamps, free
welfare and basically total government control over their lives, will
be the one they vote for.
No candidate you can name does that, you dumbfuckwit
If you had even one functioning bat in that empty belfry---you'd know
the idea of the REFORM in HC is to have everyone pay something for
their health care
No. It's to have some people pay for their own plus something for the
healthcare of other people (who pay nothing).
Pay attention---(See below)
Post by Vandar
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
The PRESENT system provides "Free" HC from anyone who must use ER
rooms that the state bills the Federal government for---and YOU
pay-for-NOW.
Post by FirstPost
Whoever it was (since there is a lot of discussion as to who actually
said it) that stated that a free nation will only last around a couple
hundred years because the people will fuck it up when they realize
they can vote themselves entitlements was 100% correct.
Ya moron
80% of ALL income and wealth EACH YEAR is going to less than 12% of
the top income levels. The other 20% is the wages and income of ALL
others in this country.
80% of ALL amassed wealth is owned and/or controlled by less than 8%
of the top wealth class.
Neither of which has anything to do with what he said.
DId you miss the part that says the PRESENT system is what is being
reformed?
Legislating mandatory participation is not reform.
In a struggling economy, it's absurd.
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
RIGHT NOW---the 60,000,000 without health care----use the ER.
Not all of them. Not even most of them.
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
That uncompensated Care the Federal government (You) MUST reimburse the
States for.
If (look up the word, if necessary)---If everyone paid
"something"---those 60,000,000 would (in effect) pay for most of what
the govt (you) pay-for-now.
They will stay pay nothing under Obama's "reform". The issue is that the
costs for those who do pay are skyrocketing.
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
secondly, the cost of those who do have HC policies---goes up to cover
the rising costs of ER rooms (which are unrealistically expensive),
which means---YOU pay for YOUR insurance, YOU pay for Others (taxes)
who don't have insurance, and then you pay MORE for your Premium
because the actuarials include the non-payers.
Obamacare adds millions of non-payers.
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
Third---YOUR premium includes (look up the word)---CEO salaries,
Dividends to investors, high administration costs, costs of
advertising, ...AND----(pay attention now)---the associated medical
equipment, drugs, for Health care related things.
Those things are still paid out of premiums. When the government said
the industry had to spend 80% of premium revenue on "healthcare costs",
the industry responded by reclassifying executive salaries as
"healthcare costs".
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
Ex: If YOU need a wheel chair---YOU can go to any medical supply
store and buy one for about $200.
When the insurance companies provide one, or when the Govt (you)
reimburse states for ER charges (uncompensated)---the cost to the govt
(you) is $1200. Across the board, providers, doctors, hostpitals, and
insurance companies charge Huge amounts that YOU pay for. (you still
have to pay YOUR premium).
(no, the govt (you) cannot refuse to pay---It's the (old) LAW.
Post by Vandar
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
How long do you think ANY nation can survive that system
Until those who want freebies outnumber those who aren't afraid of work,
and they start electing incompetent morons to maintain those freebies.
You're not capable of any argument without some credible evidence you
even understand that your silly faux fed crap isn't rational.
I haven't watched 5 minutes of FOXNews in my life.
And my dog knows infinitely more about any topic than you.
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
The cost of HC is independent of anyone's ability to pay---it's based
on profit and greed---not good of nation.
It's even more focused on that under Obamacare.
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
The HC is NOT "Free" is it being paid for (by law)
It's not free *for me*. It is free for the morons that support the moron
in the White House.
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
The REFORM will stop what you call "freebie" and require everyone to
pay according to ability
That's a lie.
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
Don't you get it?
I understand it perfectly. I also understand that you don't know a damn
thing about it.
unknown
2013-08-07 20:12:23 UTC
Permalink
==========================================================

KEEP IT OUT OF CANADIAN NEWSGROUPS, THANKS

==========================================================
Post by Vandar
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
Post by Vandar
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
Post by FirstPost
So the candidate that promises free healthcare, free food stamps, free
welfare and basically total government control over their lives, will
be the one they vote for.
No candidate you can name does that, you dumbfuckwit
If you had even one functioning bat in that empty belfry---you'd know
the idea of the REFORM in HC is to have everyone pay something for
their health care
No. It's to have some people pay for their own plus something for the
healthcare of other people (who pay nothing).
Pay attention---(See below)
Post by Vandar
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
The PRESENT system provides "Free" HC from anyone who must use ER
rooms that the state bills the Federal government for---and YOU
pay-for-NOW.
Post by FirstPost
Whoever it was (since there is a lot of discussion as to who actually
said it) that stated that a free nation will only last around a couple
hundred years because the people will fuck it up when they realize
they can vote themselves entitlements was 100% correct.
Ya moron
80% of ALL income and wealth EACH YEAR is going to less than 12% of
the top income levels. The other 20% is the wages and income of ALL
others in this country.
80% of ALL amassed wealth is owned and/or controlled by less than 8%
of the top wealth class.
Neither of which has anything to do with what he said.
DId you miss the part that says the PRESENT system is what is being
reformed?
Legislating mandatory participation is not reform.
In a struggling economy, it's absurd.
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
RIGHT NOW---the 60,000,000 without health care----use the ER.
Not all of them. Not even most of them.
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
That uncompensated Care the Federal government (You) MUST reimburse the
States for.
If (look up the word, if necessary)---If everyone paid
"something"---those 60,000,000 would (in effect) pay for most of what
the govt (you) pay-for-now.
They will stay pay nothing under Obama's "reform". The issue is that
the costs for those who do pay are skyrocketing.
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
secondly, the cost of those who do have HC policies---goes up to cover
the rising costs of ER rooms (which are unrealistically expensive),
which means---YOU pay for YOUR insurance, YOU pay for Others (taxes)
who don't have insurance, and then you pay MORE for your Premium
because the actuarials include the non-payers.
Obamacare adds millions of non-payers.
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
Third---YOUR premium includes (look up the word)---CEO salaries,
Dividends to investors, high administration costs, costs of
advertising, ...AND----(pay attention now)---the associated medical
equipment, drugs, for Health care related things.
Those things are still paid out of premiums. When the government said
the industry had to spend 80% of premium revenue on "healthcare
costs", the industry responded by reclassifying executive salaries as
"healthcare costs".
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
Ex: If YOU need a wheel chair---YOU can go to any medical supply
store and buy one for about $200.
When the insurance companies provide one, or when the Govt (you)
reimburse states for ER charges (uncompensated)---the cost to the govt
(you) is $1200. Across the board, providers, doctors, hostpitals, and
insurance companies charge Huge amounts that YOU pay for. (you still
have to pay YOUR premium).
(no, the govt (you) cannot refuse to pay---It's the (old) LAW.
Post by Vandar
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
How long do you think ANY nation can survive that system
Until those who want freebies outnumber those who aren't afraid of work,
and they start electing incompetent morons to maintain those freebies.
You're not capable of any argument without some credible evidence you
even understand that your silly faux fed crap isn't rational.
I haven't watched 5 minutes of FOXNews in my life.
And my dog knows infinitely more about any topic than you.
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
The cost of HC is independent of anyone's ability to pay---it's based
on profit and greed---not good of nation.
It's even more focused on that under Obamacare.
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
The HC is NOT "Free" is it being paid for (by law)
It's not free *for me*. It is free for the morons that support the
moron in the White House.
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
The REFORM will stop what you call "freebie" and require everyone to
pay according to ability
That's a lie.
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
Don't you get it?
I understand it perfectly. I also understand that you don't know a
damn thing about it.
Vandar
2013-08-07 23:56:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Free Lunch
==========================================================
KEEP IT OUT OF CANADIAN NEWSGROUPS, THANKS
==========================================================
==========================================================

YOU DIDN'T SAY PLEASE

==========================================================
Post by Free Lunch
Post by Vandar
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
Post by Vandar
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
Post by FirstPost
So the candidate that promises free healthcare, free food stamps, free
welfare and basically total government control over their lives, will
be the one they vote for.
No candidate you can name does that, you dumbfuckwit
If you had even one functioning bat in that empty belfry---you'd know
the idea of the REFORM in HC is to have everyone pay something for
their health care
No. It's to have some people pay for their own plus something for the
healthcare of other people (who pay nothing).
Pay attention---(See below)
Post by Vandar
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
The PRESENT system provides "Free" HC from anyone who must use ER
rooms that the state bills the Federal government for---and YOU
pay-for-NOW.
Post by FirstPost
Whoever it was (since there is a lot of discussion as to who actually
said it) that stated that a free nation will only last around a couple
hundred years because the people will fuck it up when they realize
they can vote themselves entitlements was 100% correct.
Ya moron
80% of ALL income and wealth EACH YEAR is going to less than 12% of
the top income levels. The other 20% is the wages and income of ALL
others in this country.
80% of ALL amassed wealth is owned and/or controlled by less than 8%
of the top wealth class.
Neither of which has anything to do with what he said.
DId you miss the part that says the PRESENT system is what is being
reformed?
Legislating mandatory participation is not reform.
In a struggling economy, it's absurd.
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
RIGHT NOW---the 60,000,000 without health care----use the ER.
Not all of them. Not even most of them.
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
That uncompensated Care the Federal government (You) MUST reimburse the
States for.
If (look up the word, if necessary)---If everyone paid
"something"---those 60,000,000 would (in effect) pay for most of what
the govt (you) pay-for-now.
They will stay pay nothing under Obama's "reform". The issue is that
the costs for those who do pay are skyrocketing.
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
secondly, the cost of those who do have HC policies---goes up to cover
the rising costs of ER rooms (which are unrealistically expensive),
which means---YOU pay for YOUR insurance, YOU pay for Others (taxes)
who don't have insurance, and then you pay MORE for your Premium
because the actuarials include the non-payers.
Obamacare adds millions of non-payers.
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
Third---YOUR premium includes (look up the word)---CEO salaries,
Dividends to investors, high administration costs, costs of
advertising, ...AND----(pay attention now)---the associated medical
equipment, drugs, for Health care related things.
Those things are still paid out of premiums. When the government said
the industry had to spend 80% of premium revenue on "healthcare
costs", the industry responded by reclassifying executive salaries as
"healthcare costs".
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
Ex: If YOU need a wheel chair---YOU can go to any medical supply
store and buy one for about $200.
When the insurance companies provide one, or when the Govt (you)
reimburse states for ER charges (uncompensated)---the cost to the govt
(you) is $1200. Across the board, providers, doctors, hostpitals, and
insurance companies charge Huge amounts that YOU pay for. (you still
have to pay YOUR premium).
(no, the govt (you) cannot refuse to pay---It's the (old) LAW.
Post by Vandar
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
How long do you think ANY nation can survive that system
Until those who want freebies outnumber those who aren't afraid of work,
and they start electing incompetent morons to maintain those freebies.
You're not capable of any argument without some credible evidence you
even understand that your silly faux fed crap isn't rational.
I haven't watched 5 minutes of FOXNews in my life.
And my dog knows infinitely more about any topic than you.
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
The cost of HC is independent of anyone's ability to pay---it's based
on profit and greed---not good of nation.
It's even more focused on that under Obamacare.
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
The HC is NOT "Free" is it being paid for (by law)
It's not free *for me*. It is free for the morons that support the
moron in the White House.
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
The REFORM will stop what you call "freebie" and require everyone to
pay according to ability
That's a lie.
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
Don't you get it?
I understand it perfectly. I also understand that you don't know a
damn thing about it.
Vandar
2013-08-07 23:56:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Free Lunch
==========================================================
KEEP IT OUT OF CANADIAN NEWSGROUPS, THANKS
==========================================================
==========================================================

YOU DIDN'T SAY PLEASE

==========================================================
Post by Free Lunch
Post by Vandar
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
Post by Vandar
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
Post by FirstPost
So the candidate that promises free healthcare, free food stamps, free
welfare and basically total government control over their lives, will
be the one they vote for.
No candidate you can name does that, you dumbfuckwit
If you had even one functioning bat in that empty belfry---you'd know
the idea of the REFORM in HC is to have everyone pay something for
their health care
No. It's to have some people pay for their own plus something for the
healthcare of other people (who pay nothing).
Pay attention---(See below)
Post by Vandar
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
The PRESENT system provides "Free" HC from anyone who must use ER
rooms that the state bills the Federal government for---and YOU
pay-for-NOW.
Post by FirstPost
Whoever it was (since there is a lot of discussion as to who actually
said it) that stated that a free nation will only last around a couple
hundred years because the people will fuck it up when they realize
they can vote themselves entitlements was 100% correct.
Ya moron
80% of ALL income and wealth EACH YEAR is going to less than 12% of
the top income levels. The other 20% is the wages and income of ALL
others in this country.
80% of ALL amassed wealth is owned and/or controlled by less than 8%
of the top wealth class.
Neither of which has anything to do with what he said.
DId you miss the part that says the PRESENT system is what is being
reformed?
Legislating mandatory participation is not reform.
In a struggling economy, it's absurd.
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
RIGHT NOW---the 60,000,000 without health care----use the ER.
Not all of them. Not even most of them.
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
That uncompensated Care the Federal government (You) MUST reimburse the
States for.
If (look up the word, if necessary)---If everyone paid
"something"---those 60,000,000 would (in effect) pay for most of what
the govt (you) pay-for-now.
They will stay pay nothing under Obama's "reform". The issue is that
the costs for those who do pay are skyrocketing.
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
secondly, the cost of those who do have HC policies---goes up to cover
the rising costs of ER rooms (which are unrealistically expensive),
which means---YOU pay for YOUR insurance, YOU pay for Others (taxes)
who don't have insurance, and then you pay MORE for your Premium
because the actuarials include the non-payers.
Obamacare adds millions of non-payers.
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
Third---YOUR premium includes (look up the word)---CEO salaries,
Dividends to investors, high administration costs, costs of
advertising, ...AND----(pay attention now)---the associated medical
equipment, drugs, for Health care related things.
Those things are still paid out of premiums. When the government said
the industry had to spend 80% of premium revenue on "healthcare
costs", the industry responded by reclassifying executive salaries as
"healthcare costs".
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
Ex: If YOU need a wheel chair---YOU can go to any medical supply
store and buy one for about $200.
When the insurance companies provide one, or when the Govt (you)
reimburse states for ER charges (uncompensated)---the cost to the govt
(you) is $1200. Across the board, providers, doctors, hostpitals, and
insurance companies charge Huge amounts that YOU pay for. (you still
have to pay YOUR premium).
(no, the govt (you) cannot refuse to pay---It's the (old) LAW.
Post by Vandar
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
How long do you think ANY nation can survive that system
Until those who want freebies outnumber those who aren't afraid of work,
and they start electing incompetent morons to maintain those freebies.
You're not capable of any argument without some credible evidence you
even understand that your silly faux fed crap isn't rational.
I haven't watched 5 minutes of FOXNews in my life.
And my dog knows infinitely more about any topic than you.
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
The cost of HC is independent of anyone's ability to pay---it's based
on profit and greed---not good of nation.
It's even more focused on that under Obamacare.
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
The HC is NOT "Free" is it being paid for (by law)
It's not free *for me*. It is free for the morons that support the
moron in the White House.
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
The REFORM will stop what you call "freebie" and require everyone to
pay according to ability
That's a lie.
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
Don't you get it?
I understand it perfectly. I also understand that you don't know a
damn thing about it.
unknown
2013-08-07 20:12:23 UTC
Permalink
==========================================================

KEEP IT OUT OF CANADIAN NEWSGROUPS, THANKS

==========================================================
Post by Vandar
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
Post by Vandar
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
Post by FirstPost
So the candidate that promises free healthcare, free food stamps, free
welfare and basically total government control over their lives, will
be the one they vote for.
No candidate you can name does that, you dumbfuckwit
If you had even one functioning bat in that empty belfry---you'd know
the idea of the REFORM in HC is to have everyone pay something for
their health care
No. It's to have some people pay for their own plus something for the
healthcare of other people (who pay nothing).
Pay attention---(See below)
Post by Vandar
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
The PRESENT system provides "Free" HC from anyone who must use ER
rooms that the state bills the Federal government for---and YOU
pay-for-NOW.
Post by FirstPost
Whoever it was (since there is a lot of discussion as to who actually
said it) that stated that a free nation will only last around a couple
hundred years because the people will fuck it up when they realize
they can vote themselves entitlements was 100% correct.
Ya moron
80% of ALL income and wealth EACH YEAR is going to less than 12% of
the top income levels. The other 20% is the wages and income of ALL
others in this country.
80% of ALL amassed wealth is owned and/or controlled by less than 8%
of the top wealth class.
Neither of which has anything to do with what he said.
DId you miss the part that says the PRESENT system is what is being
reformed?
Legislating mandatory participation is not reform.
In a struggling economy, it's absurd.
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
RIGHT NOW---the 60,000,000 without health care----use the ER.
Not all of them. Not even most of them.
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
That uncompensated Care the Federal government (You) MUST reimburse the
States for.
If (look up the word, if necessary)---If everyone paid
"something"---those 60,000,000 would (in effect) pay for most of what
the govt (you) pay-for-now.
They will stay pay nothing under Obama's "reform". The issue is that
the costs for those who do pay are skyrocketing.
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
secondly, the cost of those who do have HC policies---goes up to cover
the rising costs of ER rooms (which are unrealistically expensive),
which means---YOU pay for YOUR insurance, YOU pay for Others (taxes)
who don't have insurance, and then you pay MORE for your Premium
because the actuarials include the non-payers.
Obamacare adds millions of non-payers.
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
Third---YOUR premium includes (look up the word)---CEO salaries,
Dividends to investors, high administration costs, costs of
advertising, ...AND----(pay attention now)---the associated medical
equipment, drugs, for Health care related things.
Those things are still paid out of premiums. When the government said
the industry had to spend 80% of premium revenue on "healthcare
costs", the industry responded by reclassifying executive salaries as
"healthcare costs".
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
Ex: If YOU need a wheel chair---YOU can go to any medical supply
store and buy one for about $200.
When the insurance companies provide one, or when the Govt (you)
reimburse states for ER charges (uncompensated)---the cost to the govt
(you) is $1200. Across the board, providers, doctors, hostpitals, and
insurance companies charge Huge amounts that YOU pay for. (you still
have to pay YOUR premium).
(no, the govt (you) cannot refuse to pay---It's the (old) LAW.
Post by Vandar
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
How long do you think ANY nation can survive that system
Until those who want freebies outnumber those who aren't afraid of work,
and they start electing incompetent morons to maintain those freebies.
You're not capable of any argument without some credible evidence you
even understand that your silly faux fed crap isn't rational.
I haven't watched 5 minutes of FOXNews in my life.
And my dog knows infinitely more about any topic than you.
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
The cost of HC is independent of anyone's ability to pay---it's based
on profit and greed---not good of nation.
It's even more focused on that under Obamacare.
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
The HC is NOT "Free" is it being paid for (by law)
It's not free *for me*. It is free for the morons that support the
moron in the White House.
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
The REFORM will stop what you call "freebie" and require everyone to
pay according to ability
That's a lie.
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
Don't you get it?
I understand it perfectly. I also understand that you don't know a
damn thing about it.
Vandar
2013-08-07 17:25:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
Post by Vandar
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
Post by FirstPost
So the candidate that promises free healthcare, free food stamps, free
welfare and basically total government control over their lives, will
be the one they vote for.
No candidate you can name does that, you dumbfuckwit
If you had even one functioning bat in that empty belfry---you'd know
the idea of the REFORM in HC is to have everyone pay something for
their health care
No. It's to have some people pay for their own plus something for the
healthcare of other people (who pay nothing).
Pay attention---(See below)
Post by Vandar
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
The PRESENT system provides "Free" HC from anyone who must use ER
rooms that the state bills the Federal government for---and YOU
pay-for-NOW.
Post by FirstPost
Whoever it was (since there is a lot of discussion as to who actually
said it) that stated that a free nation will only last around a couple
hundred years because the people will fuck it up when they realize
they can vote themselves entitlements was 100% correct.
Ya moron
80% of ALL income and wealth EACH YEAR is going to less than 12% of
the top income levels. The other 20% is the wages and income of ALL
others in this country.
80% of ALL amassed wealth is owned and/or controlled by less than 8%
of the top wealth class.
Neither of which has anything to do with what he said.
DId you miss the part that says the PRESENT system is what is being
reformed?
Legislating mandatory participation is not reform.
In a struggling economy, it's absurd.
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
RIGHT NOW---the 60,000,000 without health care----use the ER.
Not all of them. Not even most of them.
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
That uncompensated Care the Federal government (You) MUST reimburse the
States for.
If (look up the word, if necessary)---If everyone paid
"something"---those 60,000,000 would (in effect) pay for most of what
the govt (you) pay-for-now.
They will stay pay nothing under Obama's "reform". The issue is that the
costs for those who do pay are skyrocketing.
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
secondly, the cost of those who do have HC policies---goes up to cover
the rising costs of ER rooms (which are unrealistically expensive),
which means---YOU pay for YOUR insurance, YOU pay for Others (taxes)
who don't have insurance, and then you pay MORE for your Premium
because the actuarials include the non-payers.
Obamacare adds millions of non-payers.
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
Third---YOUR premium includes (look up the word)---CEO salaries,
Dividends to investors, high administration costs, costs of
advertising, ...AND----(pay attention now)---the associated medical
equipment, drugs, for Health care related things.
Those things are still paid out of premiums. When the government said
the industry had to spend 80% of premium revenue on "healthcare costs",
the industry responded by reclassifying executive salaries as
"healthcare costs".
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
Ex: If YOU need a wheel chair---YOU can go to any medical supply
store and buy one for about $200.
When the insurance companies provide one, or when the Govt (you)
reimburse states for ER charges (uncompensated)---the cost to the govt
(you) is $1200. Across the board, providers, doctors, hostpitals, and
insurance companies charge Huge amounts that YOU pay for. (you still
have to pay YOUR premium).
(no, the govt (you) cannot refuse to pay---It's the (old) LAW.
Post by Vandar
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
How long do you think ANY nation can survive that system
Until those who want freebies outnumber those who aren't afraid of work,
and they start electing incompetent morons to maintain those freebies.
You're not capable of any argument without some credible evidence you
even understand that your silly faux fed crap isn't rational.
I haven't watched 5 minutes of FOXNews in my life.
And my dog knows infinitely more about any topic than you.
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
The cost of HC is independent of anyone's ability to pay---it's based
on profit and greed---not good of nation.
It's even more focused on that under Obamacare.
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
The HC is NOT "Free" is it being paid for (by law)
It's not free *for me*. It is free for the morons that support the moron
in the White House.
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
The REFORM will stop what you call "freebie" and require everyone to
pay according to ability
That's a lie.
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
Don't you get it?
I understand it perfectly. I also understand that you don't know a damn
thing about it.
Y***@Jurgis.net
2013-08-07 17:04:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Vandar
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
Post by FirstPost
So the candidate that promises free healthcare, free food stamps, free
welfare and basically total government control over their lives, will
be the one they vote for.
No candidate you can name does that, you dumbfuckwit
If you had even one functioning bat in that empty belfry---you'd know
the idea of the REFORM in HC is to have everyone pay something for
their health care
No. It's to have some people pay for their own plus something for the
healthcare of other people (who pay nothing).
Pay attention---(See below)
Post by Vandar
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
The PRESENT system provides "Free" HC from anyone who must use ER
rooms that the state bills the Federal government for---and YOU
pay-for-NOW.
Post by FirstPost
Whoever it was (since there is a lot of discussion as to who actually
said it) that stated that a free nation will only last around a couple
hundred years because the people will fuck it up when they realize
they can vote themselves entitlements was 100% correct.
Ya moron
80% of ALL income and wealth EACH YEAR is going to less than 12% of
the top income levels. The other 20% is the wages and income of ALL
others in this country.
80% of ALL amassed wealth is owned and/or controlled by less than 8%
of the top wealth class.
Neither of which has anything to do with what he said.
DId you miss the part that says the PRESENT system is what is being
reformed?

RIGHT NOW---the 60,000,000 without health care----use the ER. That
uncompensated Care the Federal government (You) MUST reimburse the
States for.

If (look up the word, if necessary)---If everyone paid
"something"---those 60,000,000 would (in effect) pay for most of what
the govt (you) pay-for-now.

secondly, the cost of those who do have HC policies---goes up to cover
the rising costs of ER rooms (which are unrealistically expensive),
which means---YOU pay for YOUR insurance, YOU pay for Others (taxes)
who don't have insurance, and then you pay MORE for your Premium
because the actuarials include the non-payers.

Third---YOUR premium includes (look up the word)---CEO salaries,
Dividends to investors, high administration costs, costs of
advertising, ...AND----(pay attention now)---the associated medical
equipment, drugs, for Health care related things.

Ex: If YOU need a wheel chair---YOU can go to any medical supply
store and buy one for about $200.

When the insurance companies provide one, or when the Govt (you)
reimburse states for ER charges (uncompensated)---the cost to the govt
(you) is $1200. Across the board, providers, doctors, hostpitals, and
insurance companies charge Huge amounts that YOU pay for. (you still
have to pay YOUR premium).

(no, the govt (you) cannot refuse to pay---It's the (old) LAW.
Post by Vandar
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
How long do you think ANY nation can survive that system
Until those who want freebies outnumber those who aren't afraid of work,
and they start electing incompetent morons to maintain those freebies.
You're not capable of any argument without some credible evidence you
even understand that your silly faux fed crap isn't rational.

The cost of HC is independent of anyone's ability to pay---it's based
on profit and greed---not good of nation.

The HC is NOT "Free" is it being paid for (by law)

The REFORM will stop what you call "freebie" and require everyone to
pay according to ability

Don't you get it?

(
unknown
2013-08-07 20:13:02 UTC
Permalink
==========================================================

KEEP IT OUT OF CANADIAN NEWSGROUPS, THANKS

==========================================================
Post by Vandar
Post by Free Lunch
On Tue, 06 Aug 2013 18:42:01 -0500, FirstPost
Post by FirstPost
Post by MarkA
After the GOP passes hurdles 1 and 2, the Dems can start to worry.
Americans as a whole have decided that they want and deserve
everything for free.
Isn't the act of paying a penny or two "Burden" on millions of income
the same thing as "free"?
Post by FirstPost
So the candidate that promises free healthcare, free food stamps, free
welfare and basically total government control over their lives, will
be the one they vote for.
No candidate you can name does that, you dumbfuckwit
If you had even one functioning bat in that empty belfry---you'd know
the idea of the REFORM in HC is to have everyone pay something for
their health care
No. It's to have some people pay for their own plus something for the
healthcare of other people (who pay nothing).
Post by Free Lunch
The PRESENT system provides "Free" HC from anyone who must use ER
rooms that the state bills the Federal government for---and YOU
pay-for-NOW.
Post by FirstPost
Whoever it was (since there is a lot of discussion as to who actually
said it) that stated that a free nation will only last around a couple
hundred years because the people will fuck it up when they realize
they can vote themselves entitlements was 100% correct.
Ya moron
80% of ALL income and wealth EACH YEAR is going to less than 12% of
the top income levels. The other 20% is the wages and income of ALL
others in this country.
80% of ALL amassed wealth is owned and/or controlled by less than 8%
of the top wealth class.
How long do you think ANY nation can survive that system
unknown
2013-08-07 20:13:02 UTC
Permalink
==========================================================

KEEP IT OUT OF CANADIAN NEWSGROUPS, THANKS

==========================================================
Post by Vandar
Post by Free Lunch
On Tue, 06 Aug 2013 18:42:01 -0500, FirstPost
Post by FirstPost
Post by MarkA
After the GOP passes hurdles 1 and 2, the Dems can start to worry.
Americans as a whole have decided that they want and deserve
everything for free.
Isn't the act of paying a penny or two "Burden" on millions of income
the same thing as "free"?
Post by FirstPost
So the candidate that promises free healthcare, free food stamps, free
welfare and basically total government control over their lives, will
be the one they vote for.
No candidate you can name does that, you dumbfuckwit
If you had even one functioning bat in that empty belfry---you'd know
the idea of the REFORM in HC is to have everyone pay something for
their health care
No. It's to have some people pay for their own plus something for the
healthcare of other people (who pay nothing).
Post by Free Lunch
The PRESENT system provides "Free" HC from anyone who must use ER
rooms that the state bills the Federal government for---and YOU
pay-for-NOW.
Post by FirstPost
Whoever it was (since there is a lot of discussion as to who actually
said it) that stated that a free nation will only last around a couple
hundred years because the people will fuck it up when they realize
they can vote themselves entitlements was 100% correct.
Ya moron
80% of ALL income and wealth EACH YEAR is going to less than 12% of
the top income levels. The other 20% is the wages and income of ALL
others in this country.
80% of ALL amassed wealth is owned and/or controlled by less than 8%
of the top wealth class.
How long do you think ANY nation can survive that system
Vandar
2013-08-07 13:15:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Free Lunch
On Tue, 06 Aug 2013 18:42:01 -0500, FirstPost
Post by FirstPost
Post by MarkA
After the GOP passes hurdles 1 and 2, the Dems can start to worry.
Americans as a whole have decided that they want and deserve
everything for free.
Isn't the act of paying a penny or two "Burden" on millions of income
the same thing as "free"?
Post by FirstPost
So the candidate that promises free healthcare, free food stamps, free
welfare and basically total government control over their lives, will
be the one they vote for.
No candidate you can name does that, you dumbfuckwit
If you had even one functioning bat in that empty belfry---you'd know
the idea of the REFORM in HC is to have everyone pay something for
their health care
No. It's to have some people pay for their own plus something for the
healthcare of other people (who pay nothing).
Post by Free Lunch
The PRESENT system provides "Free" HC from anyone who must use ER
rooms that the state bills the Federal government for---and YOU
pay-for-NOW.
Post by FirstPost
Whoever it was (since there is a lot of discussion as to who actually
said it) that stated that a free nation will only last around a couple
hundred years because the people will fuck it up when they realize
they can vote themselves entitlements was 100% correct.
Ya moron
80% of ALL income and wealth EACH YEAR is going to less than 12% of
the top income levels. The other 20% is the wages and income of ALL
others in this country.
80% of ALL amassed wealth is owned and/or controlled by less than 8%
of the top wealth class.
Neither of which has anything to do with what he said.
Post by Free Lunch
How long do you think ANY nation can survive that system
Until those who want freebies outnumber those who aren't afraid of work,
and they start electing incompetent morons to maintain those freebies.
Don Kresch
2013-08-07 22:36:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Free Lunch
On Tue, 06 Aug 2013 18:42:01 -0500, FirstPost
Post by FirstPost
Post by MarkA
After the GOP passes hurdles 1 and 2, the Dems can start to worry.
Americans as a whole have decided that they want and deserve
everything for free.
Isn't the act of paying a penny or two "Burden" on millions of income
the same thing as "free"?
Except it's way more than a penny or two. And it is a burden.
Post by Free Lunch
Post by FirstPost
So the candidate that promises free healthcare, free food stamps, free
welfare and basically total government control over their lives, will
be the one they vote for.
No candidate you can name does that, you dumbfuckwit
Except they all do.

Don
aa#51, Knight of BAAWA, Jedi Slackmaster
Praise "Bob" or burn in Slacklessness trying not to.
FirstPost
2013-08-07 22:51:08 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 07 Aug 2013 17:36:32 -0500, Don Kresch
Post by Don Kresch
Post by Free Lunch
On Tue, 06 Aug 2013 18:42:01 -0500, FirstPost
Post by FirstPost
Post by MarkA
After the GOP passes hurdles 1 and 2, the Dems can start to worry.
Americans as a whole have decided that they want and deserve
everything for free.
Isn't the act of paying a penny or two "Burden" on millions of income
the same thing as "free"?
Except it's way more than a penny or two. And it is a burden.
Post by Free Lunch
Post by FirstPost
So the candidate that promises free healthcare, free food stamps, free
welfare and basically total government control over their lives, will
be the one they vote for.
No candidate you can name does that, you dumbfuckwit
Except they all do.
The stupid son of a bitch apparently forgot who it was he voted for
last two elections yes?
Post by Don Kresch
Don
aa#51, Knight of BAAWA, Jedi Slackmaster
Praise "Bob" or burn in Slacklessness trying not to.
FirstPost
2013-08-07 22:51:08 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 07 Aug 2013 17:36:32 -0500, Don Kresch
Post by Don Kresch
Post by Free Lunch
On Tue, 06 Aug 2013 18:42:01 -0500, FirstPost
Post by FirstPost
Post by MarkA
After the GOP passes hurdles 1 and 2, the Dems can start to worry.
Americans as a whole have decided that they want and deserve
everything for free.
Isn't the act of paying a penny or two "Burden" on millions of income
the same thing as "free"?
Except it's way more than a penny or two. And it is a burden.
Post by Free Lunch
Post by FirstPost
So the candidate that promises free healthcare, free food stamps, free
welfare and basically total government control over their lives, will
be the one they vote for.
No candidate you can name does that, you dumbfuckwit
Except they all do.
The stupid son of a bitch apparently forgot who it was he voted for
last two elections yes?
Post by Don Kresch
Don
aa#51, Knight of BAAWA, Jedi Slackmaster
Praise "Bob" or burn in Slacklessness trying not to.
Don Kresch
2013-08-07 22:36:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Free Lunch
On Tue, 06 Aug 2013 18:42:01 -0500, FirstPost
Post by FirstPost
Post by MarkA
After the GOP passes hurdles 1 and 2, the Dems can start to worry.
Americans as a whole have decided that they want and deserve
everything for free.
Isn't the act of paying a penny or two "Burden" on millions of income
the same thing as "free"?
Except it's way more than a penny or two. And it is a burden.
Post by Free Lunch
Post by FirstPost
So the candidate that promises free healthcare, free food stamps, free
welfare and basically total government control over their lives, will
be the one they vote for.
No candidate you can name does that, you dumbfuckwit
Except they all do.

Don
aa#51, Knight of BAAWA, Jedi Slackmaster
Praise "Bob" or burn in Slacklessness trying not to.
Y***@Jurgis.net
2013-08-07 02:57:48 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 06 Aug 2013 18:42:01 -0500, FirstPost
Post by FirstPost
Post by MarkA
After the GOP passes hurdles 1 and 2, the Dems can start to worry.
Americans as a whole have decided that they want and deserve
everything for free.
Isn't the act of paying a penny or two "Burden" on millions of income
the same thing as "free"?
Post by FirstPost
So the candidate that promises free healthcare, free food stamps, free
welfare and basically total government control over their lives, will
be the one they vote for.
No candidate you can name does that, you dumbfuckwit

If you had even one functioning bat in that empty belfry---you'd know
the idea of the REFORM in HC is to have everyone pay something for
their health care

The PRESENT system provides "Free" HC from anyone who must use ER
rooms that the state bills the Federal government for---and YOU
pay-for-NOW.
Post by FirstPost
Whoever it was (since there is a lot of discussion as to who actually
said it) that stated that a free nation will only last around a couple
hundred years because the people will fuck it up when they realize
they can vote themselves entitlements was 100% correct.
Ya moron

80% of ALL income and wealth EACH YEAR is going to less than 12% of
the top income levels. The other 20% is the wages and income of ALL
others in this country.

80% of ALL amassed wealth is owned and/or controlled by less than 8%
of the top wealth class.

How long do you think ANY nation can survive that system

IDIOT
MarkA
2013-08-07 14:02:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by MarkA
Post by Kurt Nicklas
<"What does it really matter??">
GOP tries to damage Hillary Clinton ahead of 2016 election By Alexander
Bolton - 08/06/13 05:00 AM ET
Heh. If the GOP wants to oppose Hillary in 2016, the FIRST thing they
will need to do is come up with a candidate who is not an over-the-top
idiot, who says things like "half the country are moochers, trying to get
OUR money!" The NEXT problem for them will be getting a sane, moderate
candidate through the primary, where the over-the-top idiots will insist
on voting for one of their own.
Neither of those seems likely at this point, but who knows?
After the GOP passes hurdles 1 and 2, the Dems can start to worry.
Americans as a whole have decided that they want and deserve everything
for free. They have proven it in the last two presidential elections.
So the candidate that promises free healthcare, free food stamps, free
welfare and basically total government control over their lives, will be
the one they vote for.
Whoever it was (since there is a lot of discussion as to who actually said
it) that stated that a free nation will only last around a couple hundred
years because the people will fuck it up when they realize they can vote
themselves entitlements was 100% correct. That is exactly what we are
facing today. Everyone expects to live high on the hog on someone elses
dime and government control and they are damned determined to get what
they want.
That Kool-Aid sure tastes good, doesn't it? You seem to drink a lot of it.
--
MarkA
Keeper of Things Put There Only Just The Night Before
About eight o'clock
unknown
2013-08-07 20:11:45 UTC
Permalink
==========================================================

KEEP IT OUT OF CANADIAN NEWSGROUPS, THANKS

==========================================================
Post by MarkA
Post by Kurt Nicklas
<"What does it really matter??">
GOP tries to damage Hillary Clinton ahead of 2016 election By Alexander
Bolton - 08/06/13 05:00 AM ET
Heh. If the GOP wants to oppose Hillary in 2016, the FIRST thing they
will need to do is come up with a candidate who is not an over-the-top
idiot, who says things like "half the country are moochers, trying to get
OUR money!" The NEXT problem for them will be getting a sane, moderate
candidate through the primary, where the over-the-top idiots will insist
on voting for one of their own.
Neither of those seems likely at this point, but who knows?
After the GOP passes hurdles 1 and 2, the Dems can start to worry.
Americans as a whole have decided that they want and deserve everything
for free. They have proven it in the last two presidential elections.
So the candidate that promises free healthcare, free food stamps, free
welfare and basically total government control over their lives, will be
the one they vote for.
Whoever it was (since there is a lot of discussion as to who actually said
it) that stated that a free nation will only last around a couple hundred
years because the people will fuck it up when they realize they can vote
themselves entitlements was 100% correct. That is exactly what we are
facing today. Everyone expects to live high on the hog on someone elses
dime and government control and they are damned determined to get what
they want.
unknown
2013-08-07 20:11:45 UTC
Permalink
==========================================================

KEEP IT OUT OF CANADIAN NEWSGROUPS, THANKS

==========================================================
Post by MarkA
Post by Kurt Nicklas
<"What does it really matter??">
GOP tries to damage Hillary Clinton ahead of 2016 election By Alexander
Bolton - 08/06/13 05:00 AM ET
Heh. If the GOP wants to oppose Hillary in 2016, the FIRST thing they
will need to do is come up with a candidate who is not an over-the-top
idiot, who says things like "half the country are moochers, trying to get
OUR money!" The NEXT problem for them will be getting a sane, moderate
candidate through the primary, where the over-the-top idiots will insist
on voting for one of their own.
Neither of those seems likely at this point, but who knows?
After the GOP passes hurdles 1 and 2, the Dems can start to worry.
Americans as a whole have decided that they want and deserve everything
for free. They have proven it in the last two presidential elections.
So the candidate that promises free healthcare, free food stamps, free
welfare and basically total government control over their lives, will be
the one they vote for.
Whoever it was (since there is a lot of discussion as to who actually said
it) that stated that a free nation will only last around a couple hundred
years because the people will fuck it up when they realize they can vote
themselves entitlements was 100% correct. That is exactly what we are
facing today. Everyone expects to live high on the hog on someone elses
dime and government control and they are damned determined to get what
they want.
MarkA
2013-08-07 14:02:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by MarkA
Post by Kurt Nicklas
<"What does it really matter??">
GOP tries to damage Hillary Clinton ahead of 2016 election By Alexander
Bolton - 08/06/13 05:00 AM ET
Heh. If the GOP wants to oppose Hillary in 2016, the FIRST thing they
will need to do is come up with a candidate who is not an over-the-top
idiot, who says things like "half the country are moochers, trying to get
OUR money!" The NEXT problem for them will be getting a sane, moderate
candidate through the primary, where the over-the-top idiots will insist
on voting for one of their own.
Neither of those seems likely at this point, but who knows?
After the GOP passes hurdles 1 and 2, the Dems can start to worry.
Americans as a whole have decided that they want and deserve everything
for free. They have proven it in the last two presidential elections.
So the candidate that promises free healthcare, free food stamps, free
welfare and basically total government control over their lives, will be
the one they vote for.
Whoever it was (since there is a lot of discussion as to who actually said
it) that stated that a free nation will only last around a couple hundred
years because the people will fuck it up when they realize they can vote
themselves entitlements was 100% correct. That is exactly what we are
facing today. Everyone expects to live high on the hog on someone elses
dime and government control and they are damned determined to get what
they want.
That Kool-Aid sure tastes good, doesn't it? You seem to drink a lot of it.
--
MarkA
Keeper of Things Put There Only Just The Night Before
About eight o'clock
FirstPost
2013-08-06 23:42:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by MarkA
Post by Kurt Nicklas
<"What does it really matter??">
GOP tries to damage Hillary Clinton ahead of 2016 election By Alexander
Bolton - 08/06/13 05:00 AM ET
Heh. If the GOP wants to oppose Hillary in 2016, the FIRST thing they
will need to do is come up with a candidate who is not an over-the-top
idiot, who says things like "half the country are moochers, trying to get
OUR money!" The NEXT problem for them will be getting a sane, moderate
candidate through the primary, where the over-the-top idiots will insist
on voting for one of their own.
Neither of those seems likely at this point, but who knows?
After the GOP passes hurdles 1 and 2, the Dems can start to worry.
Americans as a whole have decided that they want and deserve
everything for free. They have proven it in the last two presidential
elections.
So the candidate that promises free healthcare, free food stamps, free
welfare and basically total government control over their lives, will
be the one they vote for.
Whoever it was (since there is a lot of discussion as to who actually
said it) that stated that a free nation will only last around a couple
hundred years because the people will fuck it up when they realize
they can vote themselves entitlements was 100% correct.
That is exactly what we are facing today. Everyone expects to live
high on the hog on someone elses dime and government control and they
are damned determined to get what they want.
MarkA
2013-08-06 12:15:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kurt Nicklas
<"What does it really matter??">
GOP tries to damage Hillary Clinton ahead of 2016 election By Alexander
Bolton - 08/06/13 05:00 AM ET
Heh. If the GOP wants to oppose Hillary in 2016, the FIRST thing they
will need to do is come up with a candidate who is not an over-the-top
idiot, who says things like "half the country are moochers, trying to get
OUR money!" The NEXT problem for them will be getting a sane, moderate
candidate through the primary, where the over-the-top idiots will insist
on voting for one of their own.

Neither of those seems likely at this point, but who knows?

After the GOP passes hurdles 1 and 2, the Dems can start to worry.
--
MarkA
Keeper of Things Put There Only Just The Night Before
About eight o'clock
Lee
2013-08-06 14:46:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kurt Nicklas
<"What does it really matter??">
GOP tries to damage Hillary Clinton ahead of 2016 election
By Alexander Bolton - 08/06/13 05:00 AM ET
http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/315651-gop-tries-to-damage-hillar
y- clinton-in-advance-of-2016
Republicans have begun trying to damage Hillary Clinton?s political
image ahead of her expected 2016 White House bid.
The GOP calculates that it needs to make an early start in ramping up
public scrutiny of Clinton ? and that it will be too late if it waits
much longer.
The party assumes Clinton will announce a presidential campaign in
early 2015 but sees that preparations are well underway and fears
that the media have already begun to rally to the Democratic banner.
Its efforts are intended to make sure Clinton does not have the same
big head start in 2016 that President Obama enjoyed in 2012. And it
is focused on the media, which Republicans fear will rally to
Clinton?s cause in the same way it embraced Obama in 2008.
As an initial step, Republican National Committee Chairman Reince
Priebus on Monday pushed back against what he worries is the positive
narrative beginning to take shape around Clinton.
He sent letters to the heads of NBC and CNN calling on them to cancel
their plans to air a miniseries and a documentary, respectively, that
one GOP official called ?infomercials? for Clinton.
So much for the Republican commitment to free speech.
Dänk 42Ø
2013-08-06 16:25:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lee
Post by Kurt Nicklas
<"What does it really matter??">
GOP tries to damage Hillary Clinton ahead of 2016 election By Alexander
Bolton - 08/06/13 05:00 AM ET
http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/315651-gop-tries-to-damage-hillar
y- clinton-in-advance-of-2016
Republicans have begun trying to damage Hillary Clinton?s political
image ahead of her expected 2016 White House bid.
The GOP calculates that it needs to make an early start in ramping up
public scrutiny of Clinton ? and that it will be too late if it waits
much longer.
The party assumes Clinton will announce a presidential campaign in
early 2015 but sees that preparations are well underway and fears that
the media have already begun to rally to the Democratic banner. Its
efforts are intended to make sure Clinton does not have the same big
head start in 2016 that President Obama enjoyed in 2012. And it is
focused on the media, which Republicans fear will rally to Clinton?s
cause in the same way it embraced Obama in 2008.
As an initial step, Republican National Committee Chairman Reince
Priebus on Monday pushed back against what he worries is the positive
narrative beginning to take shape around Clinton.
He sent letters to the heads of NBC and CNN calling on them to cancel
their plans to air a miniseries and a documentary, respectively, that
one GOP official called ?infomercials? for Clinton.
So much for the Republican commitment to free speech.
Isn't this a perfect example of "corporate speech" that liberals want to
ban?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nbc

"The National Broadcasting Company (NBC) is an American commercial
broadcasting television network and radio network headquartered in the GE
Building in New York City's Rockefeller Center with additional major
offices near Los Angeles and in Chicago."

"Owner: NBCUniversal (Comcast CORPORATION)"


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comcast

"[Comcast] is headquartered in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. In January
2011, Comcast acquired a 51% majority stake in media conglomerate
NBCUniversal from GE, and began the process of purchasing the remaining
49% on February 12, 2013, at a cost of $16.7 billion. It completed the
purchase on March 19, 2013."

"Comcast has been the subject of criticism for activities including its
stance on net neutrality, as well as poor results on customer
satisfaction surveys."

[A greedy corporation meddling in political issues like net neutrality?
Oh, the horror! Oh, wait, Comcast is endorsing a Democrat candidate and
laundering billions of dollars into her campaign, so this is just fine.]
Lee
2013-08-06 16:58:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lee
Post by Kurt Nicklas
<"What does it really matter??">
GOP tries to damage Hillary Clinton ahead of 2016 election By
Alexander >> Bolton - 08/06/13 05:00 AM ET
http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/315651-gop-tries-to-damage-hillar
Post by Lee
Post by Kurt Nicklas
y- clinton-in-advance-of-2016 >>
Republicans have begun trying to damage Hillary Clinton?s political
image ahead of her expected 2016 White House bid.
The GOP calculates that it needs to make an early start in ramping
up >> public scrutiny of Clinton ? and that it will be too late if it
waits >> much longer.
Post by Lee
Post by Kurt Nicklas
The party assumes Clinton will announce a presidential campaign in
early 2015 but sees that preparations are well underway and fears
that >> the media have already begun to rally to the Democratic
banner. Its >> efforts are intended to make sure Clinton does not
have the same big >> head start in 2016 that President Obama enjoyed
in 2012. And it is >> focused on the media, which Republicans fear
will rally to Clinton?s >> cause in the same way it embraced Obama in
2008. >>
Post by Lee
Post by Kurt Nicklas
As an initial step, Republican National Committee Chairman Reince
Priebus on Monday pushed back against what he worries is the
positive >> narrative beginning to take shape around Clinton.
Post by Lee
Post by Kurt Nicklas
He sent letters to the heads of NBC and CNN calling on them to
cancel >> their plans to air a miniseries and a documentary,
respectively, that >> one GOP official called ?infomercials? for
Clinton.
Post by Lee
So much for the Republican commitment to free speech.
Isn't this a perfect example of "corporate speech" that liberals want
to ban?
Republicans are demanding a network show be
cancelled and it is the fault of liberals?

Really?
Kurt Nicklas
2013-08-06 22:12:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lee
Post by Kurt Nicklas
<"What does it really matter??">
GOP tries to damage Hillary Clinton ahead of 2016 election
By Alexander Bolton - 08/06/13 05:00 AM ET
http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/315651-gop-tries-to-damage-hillar
y- clinton-in-advance-of-2016
Republicans have begun trying to damage Hillary Clinton?s political
image ahead of her expected 2016 White House bid.
The GOP calculates that it needs to make an early start in ramping up
public scrutiny of Clinton ? and that it will be too late if it waits
much longer.
The party assumes Clinton will announce a presidential campaign in
early 2015 but sees that preparations are well underway and fears
that the media have already begun to rally to the Democratic banner.
Its efforts are intended to make sure Clinton does not have the same
big head start in 2016 that President Obama enjoyed in 2012. And it
is focused on the media, which Republicans fear will rally to
Clinton?s cause in the same way it embraced Obama in 2008.
As an initial step, Republican National Committee Chairman Reince
Priebus on Monday pushed back against what he worries is the positive
narrative beginning to take shape around Clinton.
He sent letters to the heads of NBC and CNN calling on them to cancel
their plans to air a miniseries and a documentary, respectively, that
one GOP official called ?infomercials? for Clinton.
So much for the Republican commitment to free speech.
Kinda like when Media Maters organized a boycott of Rush Limbaugh and Daily Kos called for readers to boycott Koch Bros products?
Y***@Jurgis.net
2013-08-06 23:33:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lee
Post by Kurt Nicklas
As an initial step, Republican National Committee Chairman Reince
Priebus on Monday pushed back against what he worries is the positive
narrative beginning to take shape around Clinton.
He sent letters to the heads of NBC and CNN calling on them to cancel
their plans to air a miniseries and a documentary, respectively, that
one GOP official called ?infomercials? for Clinton.
So much for the Republican commitment to free speech.
Alas, poor knickkkers now being issued a paddle for the trip up
shit-creek
Lee
2013-08-07 14:33:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lee
Post by Kurt Nicklas
As an initial step, Republican National Committee Chairman Reince
Priebus on Monday pushed back against what he worries is the
positive >> narrative beginning to take shape around Clinton.
Post by Lee
Post by Kurt Nicklas
He sent letters to the heads of NBC and CNN calling on them to
cancel >> their plans to air a miniseries and a documentary,
respectively, that >> one GOP official called ?infomercials? for
Clinton.
Post by Lee
So much for the Republican commitment to free speech.
Alas, poor knickkkers now being issued a paddle for the trip up
shit-creek
Is he still in between Russian mailorder brides
or has their government banned him now?
Kurt Nicklas
2013-08-08 01:29:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lee
Post by Kurt Nicklas
<"What does it really matter??">
GOP tries to damage Hillary Clinton ahead of 2016 election
By Alexander Bolton - 08/06/13 05:00 AM ET
http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/315651-gop-tries-to-damage-hillar
y- clinton-in-advance-of-2016
Republicans have begun trying to damage Hillary Clinton?s political
image ahead of her expected 2016 White House bid.
The GOP calculates that it needs to make an early start in ramping up
public scrutiny of Clinton ? and that it will be too late if it waits
much longer.
The party assumes Clinton will announce a presidential campaign in
early 2015 but sees that preparations are well underway and fears
that the media have already begun to rally to the Democratic banner.
Its efforts are intended to make sure Clinton does not have the same
big head start in 2016 that President Obama enjoyed in 2012. And it
is focused on the media, which Republicans fear will rally to
Clinton?s cause in the same way it embraced Obama in 2008.
As an initial step, Republican National Committee Chairman Reince
Priebus on Monday pushed back against what he worries is the positive
narrative beginning to take shape around Clinton.
He sent letters to the heads of NBC and CNN calling on them to cancel
their plans to air a miniseries and a documentary, respectively, that
one GOP official called ?infomercials? for Clinton.
So much for the Republican commitment to free speech.
So this is like the Media Matters boycott of Rush Limbaugh and the Daily Kos boycott of the Koch Bros?
Loading...