Record number of uninsured adults...What is the GOP going to do about it?

[Revere]

If Fox News is owned by an Arab, is GM now owned by the Chinese?

Chinese Plan to Buy Stake in GM - WSJ.com

OMG, you mean you don't know? Rupert Murdoch brought Prince Alwaleed bin Talal on board because their two shares, as the largest and second largest stakeholders, prevents any "hostile takeover". The "Prince" has boasted that he has changed Fox's programming. When you are part of a coalition that prevents a takeover, you have much more power, why? Because you could go to the "other side". I can't believe that right wingers listen to a faux news network whose owner is determined to bring down this country. On second thought, considering what right wingers are willing to believe, maybe it isn't really a stretch.

In an awkward moment on Fox News this week, a pundit suggested that a member of the Saudi royal family who has supported the bridge-building work of the imam behind a planned Muslim community center and mosque in Lower Manhattan “funds radical madrasas all over the world.” The awkwardness came from the fact — unmentioned by anyone on the Fox set — that the same Saudi, Prince Alwaleed bin Talal, also happens to be the second-largest shareholder in News Corp., the parent company of the Fox News Channel.

Saudi Royal Backs Imam and Fox News - NYTimes.com

What percent stake does he have in News Corp.?

Hurry up.

 

[rdean]

Well, you'll die if you need healthcare before 2014, which is the soonest Obamacare will give you healthcare.

And right wingers plan? "Die Quickly". Too bad they fought Obama. We could have gotten more. But they love corporations over American citizens. Oh wait, they believe corporations ARE American citizens. Sorry, I forgot.

 

[Revere]

Did Republicans have the votes in either the Senate or House to stop anything Obama wanted to do?

Hurry up.

 

[rdean]

If Fox News is owned by an Arab, is GM now owned by the Chinese?

Chinese Plan to Buy Stake in GM - WSJ.com

OMG, you mean you don't know? Rupert Murdoch brought Prince Alwaleed bin Talal on board because their two shares, as the largest and second largest stakeholders, prevents any "hostile takeover". The "Prince" has boasted that he has changed Fox's programming. When you are part of a coalition that prevents a takeover, you have much more power, why? Because you could go to the "other side". I can't believe that right wingers listen to a faux news network whose owner is determined to bring down this country. On second thought, considering what right wingers are willing to believe, maybe it isn't really a stretch.

In an awkward moment on Fox News this week, a pundit suggested that a member of the Saudi royal family who has supported the bridge-building work of the imam behind a planned Muslim community center and mosque in Lower Manhattan “funds radical madrasas all over the world.” The awkwardness came from the fact — unmentioned by anyone on the Fox set — that the same Saudi, Prince Alwaleed bin Talal, also happens to be the second-largest shareholder in News Corp., the parent company of the Fox News Channel.

Saudi Royal Backs Imam and Fox News - NYTimes.com

What percent stake does he have in News Corp.?

Hurry up.

It doesn't matter. Their two shares together prevent any hostile takeover. Murdoch only has 37 or 39%. The Prince's shares bring it so close to half that together, they have control. Now suppose the Prince went with a coalition that together had 33%. Add in his 7% and they would have 40% and be in total control.

Does everything have to be explained?

 

[Revere]

OMG, you mean you don't know? Rupert Murdoch brought Prince Alwaleed bin Talal on board because their two shares, as the largest and second largest stakeholders, prevents any "hostile takeover". The "Prince" has boasted that he has changed Fox's programming. When you are part of a coalition that prevents a takeover, you have much more power, why? Because you could go to the "other side". I can't believe that right wingers listen to a faux news network whose owner is determined to bring down this country. On second thought, considering what right wingers are willing to believe, maybe it isn't really a stretch.

In an awkward moment on Fox News this week, a pundit suggested that a member of the Saudi royal family who has supported the bridge-building work of the imam behind a planned Muslim community center and mosque in Lower Manhattan “funds radical madrasas all over the world.” The awkwardness came from the fact — unmentioned by anyone on the Fox set — that the same Saudi, Prince Alwaleed bin Talal, also happens to be the second-largest shareholder in News Corp., the parent company of the Fox News Channel.

Saudi Royal Backs Imam and Fox News - NYTimes.com

What percent stake does he have in News Corp.?

Hurry up.

It doesn't matter. Their two shares together prevent any hostile takeover. Murdoch only has 37 or 39%. The Prince's shares bring it so close to half that together, they have control. Now suppose the Prince went with a coalition that together had 33%. Add in his 7% and they would have 40% and be in total control.

Does everything have to be explained?

So it's 7 percent.

Hmmm.

 

[rdean]

Did Republicans have the votes in either the Senate or House to stop anything Obama wanted to do?

Hurry up.

Why do you keep saying, "Hurry up"? Have your Depends sprung a leak?

It takes 60 votes in the Senate to pass anything. 40 votes can stop everything. How many votes did Republicans have?

You know, I've said this before and it drives your kind crazy. The Republican Party is 90% white and mostly Christian. They vote in lockstep and there are no liberals in the Republican Party.

On the other hand, the Democratic Party is made up of blacks, whites, browns, Christians, Liberals, Conservatives, young, old, gays, straights, men, women, Hindus, Muslims, atheists and everyone NOT welcome in the Republican Party, which of course, is 90% white and mostly Christian.

It's difficult to get 60 votes because of the Conservative Democrats.

But when Republicans say, "See, you couldn't pass it", and then leave out, "Because every single Republican voted against it", you can't really shift the responsibility.

Remember, there were six years when Republicans totally controlled both houses and presidency.

Did they work on:

Education
Immigration
The economy
Health Care

No, they started two wars which they left for the next president and left the economy in ruins.

Now argue your way out of that without calling names.

Hurry up!

 

[Revere]

What percent of US debt do the Chinese hold?

More or less than 7%?

 

[rdean]

What percent stake does he have in News Corp.?

Hurry up.

It doesn't matter. Their two shares together prevent any hostile takeover. Murdoch only has 37 or 39%. The Prince's shares bring it so close to half that together, they have control. Now suppose the Prince went with a coalition that together had 33%. Add in his 7% and they would have 40% and be in total control.

Does everything have to be explained?

So it's 7 percent.

Hmmm.

When Murdoch has to depend on him to prevent a hostile takeover, it might as well be 3/4. The guy that's needed the most has the most power. That's just the way it is.

 

[The T]

Did Republicans have the votes in either the Senate or House to stop anything Obama wanted to do?

Hurry up.

Nope. Everything they proposed was swatted down. And whom here can forget Obama to McCain during that 'HealthCare Summit' with Republicans?

“Let me just make this point, John, because we’re not campaigning anymore,” the president said. “The election’s over.”

LINK

And this popular favourite in January 2009: "I WON"

Some real bipartisanship there...

Thing is? The Republicans are now tasked to make Obama and the Statists defend what thery've done at every turn. Put them on the defensive.

 

[Revere]

The guy with 7% has more power than the guys with 93%.

Hmm.

 

[blu]

leave it to the market of course! the insurance companies love you and would hate to see sick people without help!

 

[Revere]

If insurance companies are forced to sell "insurance" to sick people, is it insurance or welfare?

 

[rdean]

Did Republicans have the votes in either the Senate or House to stop anything Obama wanted to do?

Hurry up.

Nope. Everything they proposed was swatted down. And whom here can forget Obama to McCain during that 'HealthCare Summit' with Republicans?

“Let me just make this point, John, because we’re not campaigning anymore,” the president said. “The election’s over.”

LINK

And this popular favourite in January 2009: "I WON"

Some real bipartisanship there...

Thing is? The Republicans are now tasked to make Obama and the Statists defend what thery've done at every turn. Put them on the defensive.

From your article:

McCain continued saying the American people “want us to go back to the beginning".

Yea, start over. Democrats won and yet Republicans did everything they could to stop Democrats.

Like I said, Republicans had both houses and the Presidency for 6 straight years.

What did they do on:

Immigration
Health Care
Education
American Infrastructure
The economy
Jobs

You keep complaining about what Democrats tried to do and I will only add more about what Republicans didn't do. And don't get me started on what they did do. The list there is endless.

Two unpaid for wars
Well over a trillion in tax breaks to the top 1%
deregulation of OSHA and the EPA
deregulation of Wall Street
almost Zero cleanup after Katrina
No bid contracts

Believe me, I could go on endlessly. And during that time, what did Democrats do? The real question is "What COULD Democrats do?"

 

[The T]

If insurance companies are forced to sell "insurance" to sick people, is it insurance or welfare?

Insurance is to prepare for unforeseen circumstance...so that leaves us with the answer, does it not?

 

[The T]

Did Republicans have the votes in either the Senate or House to stop anything Obama wanted to do?

Hurry up.

Nope. Everything they proposed was swatted down. And whom here can forget Obama to McCain during that 'HealthCare Summit' with Republicans?

“Let me just make this point, John, because we’re not campaigning anymore,” the president said. “The election’s over.”

LINK

And this popular favourite in January 2009: "I WON"

Some real bipartisanship there...

Thing is? The Republicans are now tasked to make Obama and the Statists defend what thery've done at every turn. Put them on the defensive.

From your article:

McCain continued saying the American people “want us to go back to the beginning".

Yea, start over. Democrats won and yet Republicans did everything they could to stop Democrats.

Like I said, Republicans had both houses and the Presidency for 6 straight years.

What did they do on:

Immigration
Health Care
Education
American Infrastructure
The economy
Jobs

You keep complaining about what Democrats tried to do and I will only add more about what Republicans didn't do. And don't get me started on what they did do. The list there is endless.

Two unpaid for wars
Well over a trillion in tax breaks to the top 1%
deregulation of OSHA and the EPA
deregulation of Wall Street
almost Zero cleanup after Katrina
No bid contracts

Believe me, I could go on endlessly. And during that time, what did Democrats do? The real question is "What COULD Democrats do?"

You missed the point as usual...but even that got us to what deany?

A. _______________________________?

Be honest. [If you are able]

 

[rdean]

Nope. Everything they proposed was swatted down. And whom here can forget Obama to McCain during that 'HealthCare Summit' with Republicans?

LINK

And this popular favourite in January 2009: "I WON"

Some real bipartisanship there...

Thing is? The Republicans are now tasked to make Obama and the Statists defend what thery've done at every turn. Put them on the defensive.

From your article:

McCain continued saying the American people “want us to go back to the beginning".

Yea, start over. Democrats won and yet Republicans did everything they could to stop Democrats.

Like I said, Republicans had both houses and the Presidency for 6 straight years.

What did they do on:

Immigration
Health Care
Education
American Infrastructure
The economy
Jobs

You keep complaining about what Democrats tried to do and I will only add more about what Republicans didn't do. And don't get me started on what they did do. The list there is endless.

Two unpaid for wars
Well over a trillion in tax breaks to the top 1%
deregulation of OSHA and the EPA
deregulation of Wall Street
almost Zero cleanup after Katrina
No bid contracts

Believe me, I could go on endlessly. And during that time, what did Democrats do? The real question is "What COULD Democrats do?"

You missed the point as usual...but even that got us to what deany?

A. _______________________________?

Be honest. [If you are able]

It's Republicans who are dishonest. Saying that the Health Care bill forces companies to sell to "sick" people.
Sick being a "pre-existing condition".
Pre-existing condition being:

An allergy.
Having a mammogram within the last six months.
Having your tonsils out.
Having a hernia operation.

That's right. Go look up how Health Care companies define "pre-existing" condition and then come back here and "be honest". If you dare.

 

[Avatar4321]

Rdean,

You keep going on and on about what the Republicans did wrong in the past. Perhaps you could instead offer suggestions for fixing our current problems. Because simply saying Republicans did bad in the past, doesnt mean we should listen to Democrats. In fact, I dont think you've ever promoted your own policies. It's all how bad the other guys are.

Do you just want to play blame games, or do you want to fix problems?

 

[The T]

From your article:

McCain continued saying the American people “want us to go back to the beginning".

Yea, start over. Democrats won and yet Republicans did everything they could to stop Democrats.

Like I said, Republicans had both houses and the Presidency for 6 straight years.

What did they do on:

Immigration
Health Care
Education
American Infrastructure
The economy
Jobs

You keep complaining about what Democrats tried to do and I will only add more about what Republicans didn't do. And don't get me started on what they did do. The list there is endless.

Two unpaid for wars
Well over a trillion in tax breaks to the top 1%
deregulation of OSHA and the EPA
deregulation of Wall Street
almost Zero cleanup after Katrina
No bid contracts

Believe me, I could go on endlessly. And during that time, what did Democrats do? The real question is "What COULD Democrats do?"

You missed the point as usual...but even that got us to what deany?

A. _______________________________?

Be honest. [If you are able]

It's Republicans who are dishonest. Saying that the Health Care bill forces companies to sell to "sick" people.
Sick being a "pre-existing condition".
Pre-existing condition being:

An allergy.
Having a mammogram within the last six months.
Having your tonsils out.
Having a hernia operation.

That's right. Go look up how Health Care companies define "pre-existing" condition and then come back here and "be honest". If you dare.

I suppose I set the bar too high. Sad.

 

[rdean]

The guy with 7% has more power than the guys with 93%.

Hmm.

Who has 93%? Fox is publicly owned, but run by the major share holders. The coalition of Rupert Murdoch and the Saudi Prince.

What is it you don't understand? What is the meaning behind all the "hmmmm"? You think you have some kind of point and obviously don't.

 

[rdean]

You missed the point as usual...but even that got us to what deany?

A. _______________________________?

Be honest. [If you are able]

It's Republicans who are dishonest. Saying that the Health Care bill forces companies to sell to "sick" people.
Sick being a "pre-existing condition".
Pre-existing condition being:

An allergy.
Having a mammogram within the last six months.
Having your tonsils out.
Having a hernia operation.

That's right. Go look up how Health Care companies define "pre-existing" condition and then come back here and "be honest". If you dare.

I suppose I set the bar too high. Sad.

So you admit you don't know what "pre-existing" condition is?