Inkara1
Well-Known Member
I know a lot of people that are on Medi-Cal and I'm familiar with their medical histories.
Will it Happen in America?
- Thread starter Cerise
- Start date
I know a lot of people that are on Medi-Cal and I'm familiar with their medical histories.
Inkara1
Well-Known Member
When did I do that? Please stop making shit up and acting like it's true.
catocom
Well-Known Member
I want him to succeed the along with the idiots in DC, back to his homeland.
Gato_Solo
Out-freaking-standing OTC member
Blather, dit, rah...
We all know most of the false intel was from Saddam himself at this point, so your continued lunacy on that point is bordering on moronic. The same can be said for your attacks on Haliburton...especially considering that Haliburton was already involved with no-bid contracts through the DoD since the Bosnia/Kosovo days and the first Gulf war. If you ever decide to actually look these things up in a larger viewpoint than just dislike for the previous administration, you'd see that everything you're against today has been going on for decades. Haliburton was chosen simply because they were the only source capable at the time that could respond in a rapid enough fashion.random said:
Most of us are against the corporate bailouts. Please remove the blinders and put down the Kool-aid. Once again, we come to looking at this through a bigger perspective than you can muster. Those bonuses et al, however egregious, were in the contracts for those executives when Congress...which is and was heavily Democrat, voted for those programs from the beginning. In other words...they knew this was coming, and could've done something about it before they voted on the money, but they chose not to. As soon as the public found out, through the media, they are now upset? Give me a break. Those same businessmen are now being threatened with a 90% tax on bonuses. Of course...those businessmen cannot be touched because of a little thing called "post-facto" law. So who is that bill going to hurt, really?
random said:
And where, in the Constitution, does it mandate welfare at all? Before you get all 'righteously indignant', you'd better come correct...with something besides the yammering you've done so far.
chcr
Too cute for words
I've always carried the foolish, romantic notion that what's good for America is what the citizens of America want for America. I realize this flies in the face of your opinions, but it is, after all, what the founders intended.
This is his homeland.
Hoping that the duly elected leader will fail in advance is absolutely the most un-American position I have ever heard of. Traitorous bastards, one and all.
Complaining when he proceeds to fail is a time honored tradition.
I abslutely concur. Too bad so many folks that voted for him are now asking themselves where that guy went. The man that ran for office was a decent enough fella. However, those of us who looked at his record were dismissed & criticized. Hindsight is 20-20, huh?
spike
New Member
In hindsight the people that were dismissed and criticized deserved it and the people that voted for him are pretty happy.
Cerise
Well-Known Member
The hope is that Fearless Leader's socialist plans for this country will fail. He wants America and its' economy to fail. He is the one who wants to "begin again the work of remaking America." Into what? A country where freewill and ambition are taxed into submission, where the population looks to the government for their daily needs?
What about these traitorous bastards? Talk about un-American. Do you applaud them?
"This war is lost and the surge is not accomplishing anything....."
"And let me be clear, the violence in Anbar has gone down despite the surge, not because of the surge. The inability of American soldiers to......"
"Study hard and you do your homework, and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well. If you don't, you get stuck in Iraq.'
"Our troops overreacted because of the pressure on them, and they killed innocent civilians in cold blood."
"That requires us to have enough troops so that we're not just air-raiding villages and killing civilians...."
Here, some traitorous motherfuckers wanted somebody else to fail. Where's the outrage?
51% of democrats wanted Bush to fail
chcr
Too cute for words
Once again, I don't understand all the histrionics. Changes in the way science is regarded which can only be seen as an improvemint by rational people, the suggestion of a timetable for leaving Iraq which was inevitable regardless of who got elected and another useless bailout that only serves the fatcats. Looks like SSDD to me. Oh, I have noticed significantly more whining from the right than the left ever managed with Bush. Aren't you proud?
randomJACKASS
Banned
As for you Gato, your blind acceptance of what they feed you borders on moronic.
As for bailouts, whether I agree or not, I know that if they are going to give them I want some conditions placed on the money, so it's not even at issue about agreeing or disagreeing.
As for you Inkara1, I was using you in the royal sense and if it doesn't apply to you, don't wear it. But the reality here is we have a two farce, er I mean party system. You may have not thought Bush was good for the country, but I'd bet you voted for him? I'd also bet you think the alternative would have been worse? No matter, as the point is now moot anyway.
Now on Medicaid; I can only speak as a Washington resident, but it is a JOKE!
Those are the income limits for Medicaid in my state. So basically if I am single, and I make $500 a month in gross income, then I am on my own with medical care! I mean obviously $500 a month is more than enough for health insurance! As long as i have no pre-existing conditions, but then such people are undesirable anyway, and we want them to die off, and not further contaminate the gene pool. Oh wait we forget rent and food?!? Well of course a roof over your head is a luxury item, and food stamps have higher income levels.....But WAIT...If you aren't paying rent then $40 ought to cover your food for the month.....Yeah, the poor are well covered, for 5 years max. And then ONLY of they have a child or are pregnant! Damn! You mean I don't qualify for any assistance at all?!?
Well I do IF, I become 100% disabled then I get fairly good care through the federal and state governments. But if I find some kind of way to support myself I better be "cured", because no medical insurer will touch me otherwise, and if I make any significant money well then all aid disappears and it all becomes a vicious circle. Tell me another one Inkara1, The poor are covered! That was a good one, quite worthy of a good belly laugh if it wasn't so freaking sad!
It's all well and good to sit in our ivory towers with our good health and good coverage, and think all is well in the world, but the chance tumor, for any of us, and it could all fall like the house of cards that it is. You might want to think about that, I know I do.
As for bailouts, whether I agree or not, I know that if they are going to give them I want some conditions placed on the money, so it's not even at issue about agreeing or disagreeing.
As for you Inkara1, I was using you in the royal sense and if it doesn't apply to you, don't wear it. But the reality here is we have a two farce, er I mean party system. You may have not thought Bush was good for the country, but I'd bet you voted for him? I'd also bet you think the alternative would have been worse? No matter, as the point is now moot anyway.
Now on Medicaid; I can only speak as a Washington resident, but it is a JOKE!
Those are the income limits for Medicaid in my state. So basically if I am single, and I make $500 a month in gross income, then I am on my own with medical care! I mean obviously $500 a month is more than enough for health insurance! As long as i have no pre-existing conditions, but then such people are undesirable anyway, and we want them to die off, and not further contaminate the gene pool. Oh wait we forget rent and food?!? Well of course a roof over your head is a luxury item, and food stamps have higher income levels.....But WAIT...If you aren't paying rent then $40 ought to cover your food for the month.....Yeah, the poor are well covered, for 5 years max. And then ONLY of they have a child or are pregnant! Damn! You mean I don't qualify for any assistance at all?!?
Well I do IF, I become 100% disabled then I get fairly good care through the federal and state governments. But if I find some kind of way to support myself I better be "cured", because no medical insurer will touch me otherwise, and if I make any significant money well then all aid disappears and it all becomes a vicious circle. Tell me another one Inkara1, The poor are covered! That was a good one, quite worthy of a good belly laugh if it wasn't so freaking sad!
It's all well and good to sit in our ivory towers with our good health and good coverage, and think all is well in the world, but the chance tumor, for any of us, and it could all fall like the house of cards that it is. You might want to think about that, I know I do.
Cerise
Well-Known Member
The mere fact that they turned against their CinC in a time of war, giving aid and comfort to the enemy with their words and actions makes them the very definition of the word filthy traitors.
Are you ignoring the 2006 poll that reflects the dim's desire for Bush to fail?
Here, some traitorous motherfuckers wanted somebody else to fail. Where's the outrage?
51% of democrats wanted Bush to fail
jimpeel
Well-Known Member
Of course he is. Synonyms and antonyms have no use in his world.
He does not consider the desire that someone should not succeed as being the desire that that person should fail. They just don't want him to succeed, that's all.
They never used the word "fail" so their wanting that person to fail to succeed is not the same as wishing them failure.
They also did not wish that person should succeed to fail so that also is not the same as wishing them failure.
Got it?
Over and out from Spike's fantasyland.
spike
New Member
The mere fact that they turned against their CinC in a time of war, giving aid and comfort to the enemy with their words and actions makes them the very definition of the word filthy traitors.
Umnn no, and none of those quotes were traitorous. However you have turned against your CinC in a time of war. Should we lock you up as a traitor?
It's fascinating that those couple hundred people said they didn't want them to succeed. I know you don't think there was anything wrong with that right?
spike
New Member
Why do make up shit as if you are constantly inventing some fictitional world where facts don't matter. I do consider them about the same thing.
The only one in a fantasyland here is you. You just completely made up a few paragraphs with not truth in them.
Cerise
Well-Known Member
Uhmmm, yes they were.
Article III, Section 3, Clause 1, "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, (or) in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort."
Zero is not in any way, shape or form, my commander in chief, and what is this "war" you are talking about?
I've heard something about an "illegal war."
Why is O'Doofus sending America's blood and treasure to die in an illegal war?
What about the innocent children paying for his bloodlust with their lives?
No wonder the rest of the world hates us.
Can you translate that into English?
spike
New Member
Cool, they did none of that.
Yeah, he's commander in chief of the military not you. But hey, if anyone didn't consider Bush their CinC then they could turn against them all they want right?
Same one as you.
According to your poll a couple hundred democrats did not want Bush to succeed. I believe you have made it clear you don't have a problem with people not wanting a president to succeed.
Cerise
Well-Known Member
They did do that.
The enemy was "comforted" by those statements from U.S. officials. The comments from the left's "bash Bush" playbook were paraphrased by the now-dead Zawahiri when he said "Where the American invasion stands now, after five years, is failure and defeat".
Jihad's course in Iraq was "aided" by those headlines, their acts of terror "justified" everytime leftists like you opened your mouths to speak your hate Booooosh! agenda.
Actually it was a little more than a couple. More than half. 51% of 900 registered voters.
The difference is that wishing Bush to fail meant wishing America's efforts to in Iraq to fail.
Wishing Teleprompter-boy to fail means hoping that his Socialistic policies fail.
A prediction: you won't acknowledge the difference.
Do you think that when dims said they wanted Bush to fail it meant they rejected what they viewed as his far right-wing policies? No, they wanted him to fail and with that the objective in Iraq.
What is it about 0bama's leftist agenda that makes you feel he is good for this country?
spike
New Member
Nope, Iraq was always a waste of time that increased terrorism. Therefore the real enemy was aided and comforted by the fact that we invaded Iraq at all. So Bush committed treason by sending our troops there in the 1st place.
Other people taking an assessment of the situation is not treason. It's what needs to happen sticking your head in the sand and acting oblivious to the situation is far closer to treason.
No, that would mean every person surveyed was a Democrat. Which obviously isn't the case.
No wishing Obama to fail means wishing America's efforts to get out of your Iraq farce fail.
Wishing the idiot Bish child to fail means wishing hoping that his Fascists policies fail.
Yes, the Dems in that survey probably wanted his far right wing fascist policies to fail. While the Pubes who want Obama to fail want America's objective in Iraq to fail.
I like how he's undoing a lot of the damage done by the Shrub's rightist agenda that was so bad for the country.