Two Videos on Bush's healthcare veto - Page 2

Bluesman · 10-09-2007, 01:58 AM

But this grotty little trick of using sick kids - even when they have to be MADE sick - is nothing new. From 2000:

Quote:

Hillary's poisoned
poster child

Judaism: The Jewish site -- FLORIDA IS HOME to an ill-fated child whose life was ruined upon becoming a political pawn. No, this is not another lamentation about Elian Gonzalez.

This is the tragic tale of Jennifer Bush.

Do you remember Jennifer? Probably not. First Lady Hillary Clinton, who helped turn Jennifer into a national political prop for health care reform in 1994, must be very grateful that we've all forgotten the poor little girl from Coral Springs. Jennifer's story, which took a shocking but largely unnoticed twist last week, is not merely a case of legislation-by-anecdote run amok.

It's poster child abuse.

Six years ago, Jennifer's mother wrote a widely-publicized letter to the White House. "Do you know what it is like to choose between purchasing groceries for the week to feed your family or buying needed medications for your chronically ill child?" Kathleen Bush asked.

Pale and wan, young Jennifer suffered from unidentified chronic digestive problems and myriad ailments from birth. She had her gall bladder, appendix, and fragments of her intestines removed. Those organs were replaced with a tangled cable of feeding tubes that constricted Jennifer's 43-pound frame. Surgeons threaded a catheter into the girl's heart. After 200 hospital visits and 40 operations, the Bush family had racked up medical bills worth more than $2 million.

Puzzled doctors and nurses scratched their heads over Jennifer's 33,000-page medical file. The media ran maudlin profiles of the family. With TV crews in tow, saintly mother and sickly child headed up to Capitol Hill to campaign for Clinton-sponsored health insurance mandates.

Politicians unquestioningly embraced the Bushes and their tale of need. Hillary cuddled with seven-year-old Jennifer for the cameras; their mugs were splashed on the pages of USA Today and newspapers across the country. Shamelessly coached, Jennifer gave the Clintons a lucky silver dollar "to bring you good luck so everyone can have good insurance." In another pre-programmed, kiddie-sized soundbite, Jennifer dutifully told the press: "I pray every night that I can get better - and that everyone can have insurance."

Jennifer's mother reveled in the relentless media attention and generous outpourings of public sympathy. Dropped by the family's health insurer, out of a job, and in allegedly dire financial straits, Mrs. Bush poignantly appealed for government relief from the burden of Jennifer's mysterious illness. "It's strangling us," she told one reporter.

OOPS!
But who was strangling whom? Several years before Hillary deified Mrs. Bush and elevated Jennifer to poster-child stardom, suspicious medical professionals had already begun questioning the mother's role in making her "beautiful little angel" sick. Nurses complained that Mrs. Bush was force-feeding her child with unnecessary seizure drugs that made her vomit.

Independent specialists conducted extensive tests on Jennifer and found no evidence of digestive disorders. When Jennifer was separated from her mother for treatment at a Cincinnati hospital, the starved child feasted mightily on pizza, hot dogs, and chocolate bars. Meanwhile, authorities discovered that while the Bush family claimed poverty because of Jennifer's health problems, they had splurged on trips to the Bahamas and Disney World, house remodeling, and a new Harley-Davidson motorcycle.

Dr. Eli Newberger, a professor of pediatrics at Harvard Medical School, concluded that nothing in Jennifer's extensive records indicated "that the child has any underlying illness except the suffering she has had to endure as a result of efforts to portray her as needing urgent care." Jennifer was removed from her family in 1996 and has been healthy ever since.

And now the final piece of the story that didn't make it onto the front page of USA Today or into the First Lady's talking points: Last week, Kathleen Bush – Hillary Clinton's once-proud and loud sister in arms -- was sentenced to five years in prison on two counts of aggravated child abuse and one count of fraud. She also pled guilty to a separate count of welfare fraud for misrepresenting $60,000 in assets on Medicaid forms. "There was probably more abuse in this single case," lead prosecutor Bob Nichols noted, "than in all of the child-abuse cases I've prosecuted in my life combined."

Mrs. Bush's behavior is an extreme example of the Nanny State opportunism to which Hillary Clinton has dedicated her life. It's enough to make you sick.

gunnut · 10-09-2007, 04:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Julie

Okay, that particular family could afford $1,200 per month health insurance for a family of 4, and put their children in public school as opposed to private school.

How many families of 4 making a legitimately gross $40,000 income, approx. $35,000 net, approx. $675.00/week, pay a mortgage, a car payment, car insurance, utilities, food, and clothing for four people, and still afford the above health insurance premium for 4 people, with their children being in public school?

It's not easy, but it can be done. All it takes is some planning and cut down on treats. I've seen low income families with cable TV and a 50" big screen. That's absolutely inexcusable.

Too broke to save money? Never - MSN Money

Quote:

Too broke to save money? Never

Tips about cutting back on vacations seem downright cruel if you're barely hanging on. But even paycheck-to-paycheck types can save money. Here's how you can do it.

By Liz Pulliam Weston

Jason Adair is irritated by all the stories he sees about how to save money.

Most of what he reads on the Internet or sees on television seems targeted at people who actually have budget fat to trim, not people who are truly living paycheck to paycheck -- like he is, supporting a family of three on a single income of $40,000 a year.

Take just one bit of typical belt-tightening advice: "Eat out less!" Adair, an information technology worker from Morrisville, N.C., wonders how that would be possible.

"Please, spending $15 at Arby's every other month is a splurge. My wife and I have not purchased a meal in a real restaurant in about three years," Adair wrote MSN Money in an e-mail. "I want to see an article that helps people that are truly struggling."

Adair's got a good point. When it's a matter of cutting out a few lattes or trips to the mall, saving money can be relatively easy -- maybe not fun, but certainly not excruciating. When you're facing a choice between paying the electric bill and buying health insurance, advice on saving money can seem like a sick joke.

How people really live
Adair's also got plenty of company. Even in the richest country in the world, many people barely keep their heads above water. Consider just a few statistics:

Half of American households live on less than $46,326 a year, the median household income figure for 2005, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. That inflation-adjusted number hasn't seen a substantial increase since 1999. One out of five households lives on less than $20,000.

Twenty-two percent of U.S. respondents in an ACNielsen study of consumers worldwide said they had no spare cash left after paying for basic expenses. That compares to 17% of consumers in Great Britain and 15% in South Korea and Germany.

Some 37 million people, or 12.6% of the population, live below the federal poverty line, according to the Census Bureau. (That line varies by household size and composition; for a family of three with a minor child, the income limit would be $15,720.)

Nearly 47 million, or 15.9%, have no health insurance, the Census Bureau reports, and medical bills are a factor in half of all consumer bankruptcies, according to research by Harvard University professor Elizabeth Warren. Those who do have insurance often pay a big price: Two of five adults (43%) who bought health insurance on their own spent more than 10% of their incomes on premiums and family out-of-pocket medical expenses, according to the Commonwealth Fund, which describes itself as a private nonpartisan foundation that supports independent research on health and social issues. When an employer provided the coverage, one of four (24%) of those insured spent more than 10%.

I'm not going to fix our broken health-care system or cure poverty in this column. I'm also not going to provide an exhaustive list of money-saving tips. You can check out MSN Money's Decision Center on saving for those. (If you're really in a fix, you might want to check out "How to not pay your bills" and MSN Money's Bankruptcy Guide.)

What I want to do here is provide some food for thought for those of you who have OK incomes and have cut expenses every way you can imagine, but are still floundering. To start: I'm not one who believes that financial problems can be solved simply by chanting the right affirmation, decluttering your "money corner" or burying an upside-down statue of a saint.

But I do believe the messages we tell ourselves have a powerful effect on our attitudes and actions. I've learned, though my own struggles with money and from advising other people over the years, that when we tell ourselves we can't do something, it's pretty much a self-fulfilling prophecy. If we believe that the problem is bigger than ourselves -- that we're entirely the victims of circumstance, that nothing we can do will make things better -- we're stuck.

It's true that we can't change the past, and it may also be that a lot of bad stuff happened to put us in the position we are today. But we do have choices going forward.

If I say, "I can't do this" or "I won't do that," I limit my options. As soon as my attitude switches to, "I will do what it takes to solve this problem," solutions begin to present themselves. Often, they were there all along.

I have no idea what your solutions might ultimately be. But I've watched people with tiny incomes get their financial act together, save money and make progress toward their goals. I've also seen people with substantial incomes fail to do any of the above.

The difference: their attitudes and their choices. You do have a choice about whether to save, and your attitude can make all the difference.

Take another look at those 'fixed' expenses
As I discussed in "7 roads to financial ruin," it's pretty tough to sustain a reasonable spending plan if you've let your basic living expenses swell to more than 50% of your after-tax income.

If your basic expenses are too high, you just don't have enough money left over for savings, debt pay-down and "wants," which include stuff like clothes, gifts, vacations and the occasional dinner out, according to Harvard's Warren, co-author of the personal finance book "All Your Worth."

That's exactly the fix Jason Adair is in. His family's rent, at $855 a month, consumes about one-third of his take-home pay. Add in a whopping $400-a-month health insurance premium, and he's already near 50%.

Once he's accounted for all the family's other "must haves" -- car payment ($475), car insurance ($65), utilities ($170), food ($200), other loan payments ($105) -- he's up to 87%. No wonder money feels so tight.

Any solution is likely to be tough. Cheaper insurance might mean switching doctors or pediatricians. A lower car payment might mean selling the current car and settling for a beater -- or might not be possible at all if you owe more on your car than it's worth. Finding less expensive digs means moving and could mean a roommate, neither of which is all that appealing.

No part of your spending should be considered off-limits for possible cuts, though, if you really want your finances to work. One poster on the Your Money message board was shocked that anyone would suggest trimming child-care costs, which are a large part of many budgets. But other posters explained there are often reasonable options for those who do their research and are willing to consider other possibilities.

"Sometimes you can find less-expensive daycare, a sitter, or even change your job shifts to spend more time at home," wrote cschin4. "Nobody is telling anyone to neglect their children."

Another poster, Table for 2, agreed: "My old daycare cost me $110 a week and was very bad. Now my new daycare costs me $90 a week and we just love it."

In some cases, Warren notes, spending more than 50% on basics temporarily isn't a problem, such as when you're unemployed or adjusting to a new baby, as the Adairs are. But long term, you'll want to get as close to that 50% mark as you can if you want a sustainable budget.

Look for ways to boost your income
If you've really cut expenses as far as you're willing to go and you're still not keeping up, your only solution is to make more money.

Talk to people who've gotten out of debt, and many of them did both.

They trimmed their budgets, but they also asked for raises, found new jobs, moonlighted, started sideline businesses, sold stuff on eBay, held yard sales.

Their older children got after-school jobs; if one of the parents had been staying at home, he or she went back to work. (If you're looking for non-commuting options, check out "4 real jobs you can do from home.")

You'll want to avoid any "solution" that's likely to cost more money than it generates, like the typical multilevel marketing scheme or work-from-home scams. Making real money tends to involve real effort, but it can be done.

If you're struggling with money and want ideas for solutions, come to the Your Money message board. You can just lurk and read, or you can post about your situation and get specific suggestions. If you've won your struggle with money -- or are on the way -- please come and share what you've learned. Who knows -- you just might inspire someone else.

Liz Pulliam Weston's column appears every Monday and Thursday, exclusively on MSN Money. She also answers reader questions in the Your Money message board.

**Julie** · 10-09-2007, 10:52 AM

Stop slinging poo Blues....that's not how this election will be won.

I am a proud Democrat because I am FOR the American people. In that I mean, I am for building sustainable and safe bridges in THIS country, and not nation-building in another. I am for KIDS, no matter what 12-year old is representative of them, because they are ALL our future. I am for the ELDERLY, because they have made our country what it is today. I am for the VETERAN’s and it makes me sick that they are stuffed away, in a dilapidated hospital, such as Walter Reid. I am for US border security and enforcement moreso than security for iraqi’s from the Iranians. I am for more inspections of our imports so OUR babies don’t put lead-tainted toys in their mouths that are fatal to them. And yes, I am for the Middle Class because they work hard to avoid welfare.

Oil companies pocketing billions and having the luxury of huge tax breaks can kiss my arse !

Bluesman · 10-09-2007, 12:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Julie

Stop slinging poo Blues....that's not how this election will be won.

Rolleyes all you want; it's not 'poo', it's proof Democrats are SLIMY. That article from 2000? It's directly connected to YOUR party's front-runner. Now, I know, after all this time dealing with you, that you'll never acknowledge that article. But everybody else that reads it will know what kind of people your party has running the show. So, whether Democrats win or lose next year, THAT is the kind of thing the election will turn on. Either this kind of slime will work, like it did last year, or it'll blow up in the Democrats' faces.

Quote:

I am a proud Democrat because I am FOR the American people.

No, you're dam' well NOT. If you WERE, you'd be a Republican.

What you're for is government. You're for government becoming the decider of all of our fate, the alocator of resources, the arbiter of 'fairness'.

Quote:

In that I mean, I am for building sustainable and safe bridges in THIS country, and not nation-building in another.

That's a stupid choice: either we take care of our own infrastructure and totally ignore those countries of vital strategic interest to ourselves, OR we let ourselves fall to rack and ruin because our generosity to the world is limitless? Is THAT our only course?

Hey, here's a thought: why don't we seek a proper course that would attend to BOTH of those extremely important objectives? Or do you imagine that only one thing at a time can be the focus of all federal effort?

Quote:

I am for KIDS, no matter what 12-year old is representative of them, because they are ALL our future. I am for the ELDERLY, because they have made our country what it is today. I am for the VETERAN’s and it makes me sick that they are stuffed away, in a dilapidated hospital, such as Walter Reid. I am for US border security and enforcement moreso than security for iraqi’s from the Iranians. I am for more inspections of our imports so OUR babies don’t put lead-tainted toys in their mouths that are fatal to them. And yes, I am for the Middle Class because they work hard to avoid welfare.

Again, no, you're NOT; you're for federal control of ALL of those things. What you simply refuse to acknowledge is that governments are TERRIBLE at allocating resources, and deciding what's 'good' for all of us various individuals. You're not for 'people', because if you WERE, you'd be trying to return power and choice and personal responsibility and their own resources to THEM. THEY - WE - are the ONLY entity that is good at deciding what's good for us.

The federal government does have a role to play, but the role the Democrats want de-emphasizes individuals, and places above all, society'. Well, that's the Road to Perdition, because it assigns rights to GROUPS. If you'll take a squint at your Constitution, you'll notice that NO group is to be favored over another, and all rights accrue to INDIVIDUALS.

THAT is what's wrong with your silly notion of what you're 'for'.

Quote:

Oil companies pocketing billions and having the luxury of huge tax breaks can kiss my arse !

I don't know why I bother with you. You're silly; that came out of nowhere, and made no dam' sense.

gunnut · 10-09-2007, 18:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Julie

I am for KIDS, no matter what 12-year old is representative of them, because they are ALL our future.

That doesn't make sense. The GOVERNMENT is our future. The GOVERNMENT will take care of us. The GOVERNMENT will provide us with health care. The GOVERNMENT will provide us with retirement. The GOVERNMENT will give us a savings account.

KIDS can't do that.

AlwaysBurning · 10-10-2007, 19:17 PM

As much as I love the Daily Show I think that clip was quite misleading. After I looked through this thread and read up a bit I realized that making Bush look like Scrooge for denying children healthcare is a vast simplification of the issue. Oh for the day when the government gives out vouchers for high quality nutrition (organic produce) rather than antibiotics... then maybe we'd actually solve the public health crisis rather than making it worse. With more care, people become more dependent.

gunnut · 10-11-2007, 01:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AlwaysBurning

As much as I love the Daily Show I think that clip was quite misleading. After I looked through this thread and read up a bit I realized that making Bush look like Scrooge for denying children healthcare is a vast simplification of the issue. Oh for the day when the government gives out vouchers for high quality nutrition (organic produce) rather than antibiotics... then maybe we'd actually solve the public health crisis rather than making it worse. With more care, people become more dependent.

And people say the media doesn't have a left wing slant.

All the Bush haters just recite the daily news brief from the DNC and run with it. They never bother to check the facts because everyone knows Bush is evil. If you confront them they'll shout you down because they have the right to free speech. You don't because you are evil for defending Bush.

I thank you for actually bothering with something called facts. Please spread the word.

**Julie** · 10-11-2007, 13:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bluesman

Holy CRAP, Julie, you may want to get the intellectual bandaids and bactine out for this one, because you're about to take a brutal whippin':

Counter:

The Swift-Boating of Graeme Frost

It turns out, however, that not everything about the Frosts' life pops up on a Google search. While Graeme does attend a private school, he does so on scholarship. Halsey Frost is a self-employed woodworker; he and his wife say they earn between $45,000 and $50,000 a year to provide for their family of six. Their 1936 rowhouse was purchased in 1990 for $55,000. It was vacant and in a run-down neighborhood that has improved since then, in part because of people like themselves who took a chance. It is now assessed at $263,140, though under state law the value of that asset is not taken into account in determining their eligibility for SCHIP. And while they are still uninsured, they claim it is most certainly not by choice. Bonnie Frost says the last time she priced health coverage, she learned it would cost them $1,200 a month.

In short, just as the radio spot claimed, the Frosts are precisely the kind of people that the SCHIP program was intended to help.

While the family continues to support the vetoed bill that would expand the program to 4 million more children, they are hoping to remove themselves from the middle of the storm. After giving a few interviews, Halsey and Bonnie Frost now say they don't want to say anything more, though network camera crews have planted themselves in front of their house.

Halsey did have this to say in an e-mail to me:

"My son Graeme has helped put on a human face, that of a young boy, representing the needs of children and families across this nation. We are a hard working family that has stepped forward to support SCHIP. Mudslinging from the fringe has now been directed at the messenger. To be smeared all over the Internet and receive nasty e-mail — my family does not deserve this retribution. It is both shameful and pathetic.

"Driven by a most dubious agenda, shortsighted cut-and-paste bloggers, lacking all the facts, have made a feeble attempt at being crack reporters. This is an aberrant attempt to distract the American people from what the real issues are. Hard working American families need affordable health insurance.

"I find it morally reprehensible, and the act of a true coward, to publicly (world wide) smear a man and his family and not sign one's own real name to what they have written. I sign my name to what I write.

-Halsey Frost"

He also passed along a letter from a friend, Andrew Gray, who wrote: "Chances are, Bonnie, Halsey and their kids will survive this. The sad reality is that they've already been through much worse. But what does it say about us as a nation that we seek to destroy the reputations of those we should honor? Have we become so cynical and nasty that we no longer can recognize simple courage and decency?"

Politics has never been a gentle game. As far back as 1895, satirist Finley Peter Dunne's fictional saloonkeeper Martin Dooley observed that women, children and prohibitionists would do well to stay out of it, because "politics ain't beanbag." But surely, even Mr. Dooley could never have imagined a day would come when a mere seventh grader could be swift-boated.

The Swift-Boating of Graeme Frost - TIME

glyn · 10-11-2007, 14:02 PM

OK guys, not intruding into US domestic politics here but the term 'swift-boating' is one I have never encountered. Can somebody explain it please?

**Julie** · 10-11-2007, 14:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by glyn

OK guys, not intruding into US domestic politics here but the term 'swift-boating' is one I have never encountered. Can somebody explain it please?

Swiftboating is American political jargon that is used (primarily) as a strong pejorative description of some kind of attack that the speaker considers unfair—for example, an ad hominem attack or a smear campaign.

The term comes from the Swift Vets and POWs for Truth (formerly "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth") and their widely-publicized attacks on 2004 Presidential candidate John Kerry.

glyn · 10-11-2007, 15:08 PM

Thank you Julie.

There is always something to learn at WAB!

Bluesman · 10-11-2007, 17:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Julie

Counter:

The Swift-Boating of Graeme Frost

It turns out, however, that not everything about the Frosts' life pops up on a Google search. While Graeme does attend a private school, he does so on scholarship. Halsey Frost is a self-employed woodworker; he and his wife say they earn between $45,000 and $50,000 a year to provide for their family of six. Their 1936 rowhouse was purchased in 1990 for $55,000. It was vacant and in a run-down neighborhood that has improved since then, in part because of people like themselves who took a chance. It is now assessed at $263,140, though under state law the value of that asset is not taken into account in determining their eligibility for SCHIP. And while they are still uninsured, they claim it is most certainly not by choice. Bonnie Frost says the last time she priced health coverage, she learned it would cost them $1,200 a month.

In short, just as the radio spot claimed, the Frosts are precisely the kind of people that the SCHIP program was intended to help.

While the family continues to support the vetoed bill that would expand the program to 4 million more children, they are hoping to remove themselves from the middle of the storm. After giving a few interviews, Halsey and Bonnie Frost now say they don't want to say anything more, though network camera crews have planted themselves in front of their house.

Halsey did have this to say in an e-mail to me:

"My son Graeme has helped put on a human face, that of a young boy, representing the needs of children and families across this nation. We are a hard working family that has stepped forward to support SCHIP. Mudslinging from the fringe has now been directed at the messenger. To be smeared all over the Internet and receive nasty e-mail — my family does not deserve this retribution. It is both shameful and pathetic.

"Driven by a most dubious agenda, shortsighted cut-and-paste bloggers, lacking all the facts, have made a feeble attempt at being crack reporters. This is an aberrant attempt to distract the American people from what the real issues are. Hard working American families need affordable health insurance.

"I find it morally reprehensible, and the act of a true coward, to publicly (world wide) smear a man and his family and not sign one's own real name to what they have written. I sign my name to what I write.

-Halsey Frost"

He also passed along a letter from a friend, Andrew Gray, who wrote: "Chances are, Bonnie, Halsey and their kids will survive this. The sad reality is that they've already been through much worse. But what does it say about us as a nation that we seek to destroy the reputations of those we should honor? Have we become so cynical and nasty that we no longer can recognize simple courage and decency?"

Politics has never been a gentle game. As far back as 1895, satirist Finley Peter Dunne's fictional saloonkeeper Martin Dooley observed that women, children and prohibitionists would do well to stay out of it, because "politics ain't beanbag." But surely, even Mr. Dooley could never have imagined a day would come when a mere seventh grader could be swift-boated.

The Swift-Boating of Graeme Frost - TIME

Well, since I can't 'Ignore' you, I'll continue to crush your arguments.

Here we go:

Bluesman · 10-11-2007, 17:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Julie

While Graeme does attend a private school, he does so on scholarship.

But his two uninjured siblings do NOT. The family is choosing to pay for their tuition; it's OPTIONAL, and it's EXPENSIVE.

Carrying on...

Bluesman · 10-11-2007, 17:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Julie

Halsey Frost is a self-employed woodworker; he and his wife say they earn between $45,000 and $50,000 a year to provide for their family of six.

This is ALSO a choice made by the family. He wasn't ALWAYS a self-employed woodworker, and if I quit MY high-paying job to indulge in a hobby and to be a stay-at-home parent, well, perhaps if I didn't provide for my family as well as I was able, the Julies of America wouldn't mind underwriting my CHOICE.

Dad there also owns a piece of commercial real etate; he's actually got more income than the $45K/year.

And I think this is signifigant: when asked if he'd release documentation as to his assets and finacial condition, he refused. Nothing wrong with not wanting your entire business out in front of the world, HOWEVER, ole Dad there is the one that wants us to take his word for it that they simply can't afford health inurance.

Movin' down the page:

Bluesman · 10-11-2007, 17:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Julie

Their 1936 rowhouse was purchased in 1990 for $55,000. It was vacant and in a run-down neighborhood that has improved since then, in part because of people like themselves who took a chance. It is now assessed at $263,140, though under state law the value of that asset is not taken into account in determining their eligibility for SCHIP.

Seems like a HELLUVA lot of equity to ME, how 'bout YOU, Julie? I mean, I'm mortgaged to the eyes right now: two homes, the rent for one isn't covering the payment, and the OTHER is quite simply madly over-priced. But if my kids got hurt in a traffic accident, I bet even I, a semi-retired enlisted military guy, married to a mid-career military officer, would be able to squeak out enough of our own assets to cover it BEFORE we expected the rest of y'all to stump up our private-skool tuition money, our health care, our preferred lifestyle choices.

This really is too easy.

But I'm doing some major damage to your argument, just as I always can, so, onward we go...

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode

10-09-2007, 10:52 AM	#18 (permalink)
Julie Moderator Join Date: 08-04-03 Location: Georgia, USA Posts: 6,517 Country:	Stop slinging poo Blues....that's not how this election will be won. I am a proud Democrat because I am FOR the American people. In that I mean, I am for building sustainable and safe bridges in THIS country, and not nation-building in another. I am for KIDS, no matter what 12-year old is representative of them, because they are ALL our future. I am for the ELDERLY, because they have made our country what it is today. I am for the VETERAN’s and it makes me sick that they are stuffed away, in a dilapidated hospital, such as Walter Reid. I am for US border security and enforcement moreso than security for iraqi’s from the Iranians. I am for more inspections of our imports so OUR babies don’t put lead-tainted toys in their mouths that are fatal to them. And yes, I am for the Middle Class because they work hard to avoid welfare. Oil companies pocketing billions and having the luxury of huge tax breaks can kiss my arse !

10-10-2007, 19:17 PM	#21 (permalink)
AlwaysBurning New Member Join Date: 03-31-07 Posts: 14	As much as I love the Daily Show I think that clip was quite misleading. After I looked through this thread and read up a bit I realized that making Bush look like Scrooge for denying children healthcare is a vast simplification of the issue. Oh for the day when the government gives out vouchers for high quality nutrition (organic produce) rather than antibiotics... then maybe we'd actually solve the public health crisis rather than making it worse. With more care, people become more dependent.

10-11-2007, 14:02 PM	#24 (permalink)
glyn Banished *Military Professional* Join Date: 09-15-06 Location: Penzance, Cornwall UK Posts: 6,886	OK guys, not intruding into US domestic politics here but the term 'swift-boating' is one I have never encountered. Can somebody explain it please?

10-11-2007, 15:08 PM	#26 (permalink)
glyn Banished *Military Professional* Join Date: 09-15-06 Location: Penzance, Cornwall UK Posts: 6,886	Thank you Julie. There is always something to learn at WAB!

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)