What Now, Republicans???

[jc456]

What now, GOP?

Lower taxes on the very wealthy.

Strangle the EPA so our air can be as lovely as that in Bejing.

Repeal the ACA, we don't need healthy children.

Repeal child labor laws, the little buggers need to earn their keep.

Repeal evolution, that is a Marxist idea.

Repeal Climate Change, tell those damned glaciers to stop melting. Make it illegal for the seas to rise any further.

Oh my, so much on the agenda.

Can you explain how the ACA helps children? You got me there. How does insurance help children?

pretend children don't get cancer or any other diseases that call for expensive long term medical care ... now pretend their family can afford expensive long term medical care ..

prove that they get cancer and that they are not taken care of without the ACA? Where did this happen? You have zero evidence, ZERO!!!!!

prove you're not a blithering IDIOT.

So I see you have no evidence to support your lame claim...Note the poet in me.

 

[jc456]

What now, GOP?

Lower taxes on the very wealthy.

Strangle the EPA so our air can be as lovely as that in Bejing.

Repeal the ACA, we don't need healthy children.

Repeal child labor laws, the little buggers need to earn their keep.

Repeal evolution, that is a Marxist idea.

Repeal Climate Change, tell those damned glaciers to stop melting. Make it illegal for the seas to rise any further.

Oh my, so much on the agenda.

Can you explain how the ACA helps children? You got me there. How does insurance help children?

pretend children don't get cancer or any other diseases that call for expensive long term medical care ... now pretend their family can afford expensive long term medical care ..

no kids were denied cancer treatment before ACA.

lol

LOL yourself--------------no kids in the USA were denied cancer treatment before ACA.

And he has no evidence, another lefter spouting lies about something political and expecting everyone to believe him. NOPE........................

 

[kaz]

There are two outliers....

a. The dopes who boast that they never vote for either, 'they're the same...' which usually means that they are afraid to have to confront arguments, or to lazy to study the choices.

b. Loser-terians, the 'my way or else' folks who more often than not, throw elections to the Democrats.

Wow, I'm both of those...

BTW, they are the same

 

[jc456]

Can you explain how the ACA helps children? You got me there. How does insurance help children?

pretend children don't get cancer or any other diseases that call for expensive long term medical care ... now pretend their family can afford expensive long term medical care ..

no kids were denied cancer treatment before ACA.

lol

LOL yourself--------------no kids in the USA were denied cancer treatment before ACA.

No, you are as always missing the point. The implication is people went backrupt treating these diseases.

http://www.pnhp.org/new_bankruptcy_study/Bankruptcy-2009.pdf

Those pesky facts again!

Perhaps you should read the documents from the links you post. Here, from the middle of the report..


"Most medical debtors were well educated
and middle class; three quarters
had health insurance."

Edit: BTW, I love it when someone like you use terms like 'fact' and have no idea what a 'fact' actually is. hahahahahahahahahahahaa

 

[jc456]

There are two outliers....

a. The dopes who boast that they never vote for either, 'they're the same...' which usually means that they are afraid to have to confront arguments, or to lazy to study the choices.

b. Loser-terians, the 'my way or else' folks who more often than not, throw elections to the Democrats.

Wow, I'm both of those...

BTW, they are the same

So your comments have zero value in a political discussion. don't go away mad space varmit, just go away!!!!

 

[Redfish]

Can you explain how the ACA helps children? You got me there. How does insurance help children?

pretend children don't get cancer or any other diseases that call for expensive long term medical care ... now pretend their family can afford expensive long term medical care ..

no kids were denied cancer treatment before ACA.

lol

LOL yourself--------------no kids in the USA were denied cancer treatment before ACA.

And he has no evidence, another lefter spouting lies about something political and expecting everyone to believe him. NOPE........................

Ever hear of St Judes, Ronald McDonald house, Mayo clinic, Ochsner clinic, Shriners, Cleveland clinic, MD Anderson? You made the claim now give us proof that kids with cancer were denied treatment before Obozocare.

 

[Redfish]

pretend children don't get cancer or any other diseases that call for expensive long term medical care ... now pretend their family can afford expensive long term medical care ..

no kids were denied cancer treatment before ACA.

lol

LOL yourself--------------no kids in the USA were denied cancer treatment before ACA.

No, you are as always missing the point. The implication is people went backrupt treating these diseases.

http://www.pnhp.org/new_bankruptcy_study/Bankruptcy-2009.pdf

Those pesky facts again!

Perhaps you should read the documents from the links you post. Here, from the middle of the report..


"Most medical debtors were well educated
and middle class; three quarters
had health insurance."

Edit: BTW, I love it when someone like you use terms like 'fact' and have no idea what a 'fact' actually is. hahahahahahahahahahahaa

those people also had mortgages, car payments, credit card debt, bank loans, etc. They chose to default on their medical debts because they could.

They did not go bankrupt BECAUSE of medical bills, they went bankrupt WITH medical bills.

 

[kaz]

There are two outliers....

a. The dopes who boast that they never vote for either, 'they're the same...' which usually means that they are afraid to have to confront arguments, or to lazy to study the choices.

b. Loser-terians, the 'my way or else' folks who more often than not, throw elections to the Democrats.

Wow, I'm both of those...

BTW, they are the same

So your comments have zero value in a political discussion. don't go away mad space varmit, just go away!!!!

You want to vote between Tweedledum and Tweedledee, you just go right ahead...

 

[jc456]

There are two outliers....

a. The dopes who boast that they never vote for either, 'they're the same...' which usually means that they are afraid to have to confront arguments, or to lazy to study the choices.

b. Loser-terians, the 'my way or else' folks who more often than not, throw elections to the Democrats.

Wow, I'm both of those...

BTW, they are the same

So your comments have zero value in a political discussion. don't go away mad space varmit, just go away!!!!

You want to vote between Tweedledum and Tweedledee, you just go right ahead...

yep, I vote, you can write a name in, at least you voted. Not voting discards your right to a discussion with those who do. byE

 

[kaz]

There are two outliers....

a. The dopes who boast that they never vote for either, 'they're the same...' which usually means that they are afraid to have to confront arguments, or to lazy to study the choices.

b. Loser-terians, the 'my way or else' folks who more often than not, throw elections to the Democrats.

Wow, I'm both of those...

BTW, they are the same

So your comments have zero value in a political discussion. don't go away mad space varmit, just go away!!!!

You want to vote between Tweedledum and Tweedledee, you just go right ahead...

yep, I vote, you can write a name in, at least you voted. Not voting discards your right to a discussion with those who do. byE

I didn't say I don't vote, I do. I just try not to vote for the twins. I generally vote for the strongest non-party candidate no matter their affiliation. What I am voting for by doing that is getting people to believe they have a choice.

I did BTW vote for Romney. While Democrats have run as Marxists for years, they generally stopped short once elected. Obama did the former and not the latter. I don't plan to make it a pattern.

 

[jc456]

There are two outliers....

a. The dopes who boast that they never vote for either, 'they're the same...' which usually means that they are afraid to have to confront arguments, or to lazy to study the choices.

b. Loser-terians, the 'my way or else' folks who more often than not, throw elections to the Democrats.

Wow, I'm both of those...

BTW, they are the same

So your comments have zero value in a political discussion. don't go away mad space varmit, just go away!!!!

You want to vote between Tweedledum and Tweedledee, you just go right ahead...

yep, I vote, you can write a name in, at least you voted. Not voting discards your right to a discussion with those who do. byE

I didn't say I don't vote, I do. I just try not to vote for the twins. I generally vote for the strongest non-party candidate no matter their affiliation. What I am voting for by doing that is getting people to believe they have a choice.

I did BTW vote for Romney. While Democrats have run as Marxists for years, they generally stopped short once elected. Obama did the former and not the latter. I don't plan to make it a pattern.

Not sure why you wanted us to believe you didn't vote. Anyway, that's what I said.

 

[kaz]

Wow, I'm both of those...

BTW, they are the same

So your comments have zero value in a political discussion. don't go away mad space varmit, just go away!!!!

You want to vote between Tweedledum and Tweedledee, you just go right ahead...

yep, I vote, you can write a name in, at least you voted. Not voting discards your right to a discussion with those who do. byE

I didn't say I don't vote, I do. I just try not to vote for the twins. I generally vote for the strongest non-party candidate no matter their affiliation. What I am voting for by doing that is getting people to believe they have a choice.

I did BTW vote for Romney. While Democrats have run as Marxists for years, they generally stopped short once elected. Obama did the former and not the latter. I don't plan to make it a pattern.

Not sure why you wanted us to believe you didn't vote. Anyway, that's what I said.

Not sure why you thought I didn't vote, I never said that. I said I don't vote for Republicans and Democrats. Well, I almost never do. That I don't vote was strictly your imagination. Probably your bias since it's so important to you to decide which of the identical candidates gets to be President.

 

[jc456]

So your comments have zero value in a political discussion. don't go away mad space varmit, just go away!!!!

You want to vote between Tweedledum and Tweedledee, you just go right ahead...

yep, I vote, you can write a name in, at least you voted. Not voting discards your right to a discussion with those who do. byE

I didn't say I don't vote, I do. I just try not to vote for the twins. I generally vote for the strongest non-party candidate no matter their affiliation. What I am voting for by doing that is getting people to believe they have a choice.

I did BTW vote for Romney. While Democrats have run as Marxists for years, they generally stopped short once elected. Obama did the former and not the latter. I don't plan to make it a pattern.

Not sure why you wanted us to believe you didn't vote. Anyway, that's what I said.

Not sure why you thought I didn't vote, I never said that. I said I don't vote for Republicans and Democrats. Well, I almost never do. That I don't vote was strictly your imagination. Probably your bias since it's so important to you to decide which of the identical candidates gets to be President.

your post to this:

"a. The dopes who boast that they never vote for either, 'they're the same...' which usually means that they are afraid to have to confront arguments, or to lazy to study the choices.

b. Loser-terians, the 'my way or else' folks who more often than not, throw elections to the Democrats."

Which I took to mean didn't vote, but alas, I was in error with that thinking now that you've pointed it out to me. I was in error.

 

[kaz]

Not sure why you thought I didn't vote, I never said that. I said I don't vote for Republicans and Democrats. Well, I almost never do. That I don't vote was strictly your imagination. Probably your bias since it's so important to you to decide which of the identical candidates gets to be President.

your post to this:

"a. The dopes who boast that they never vote for either, 'they're the same...' which usually means that they are afraid to have to confront arguments, or to lazy to study the choices.

b. Loser-terians, the 'my way or else' folks who more often than not, throw elections to the Democrats."

Which I took to mean didn't vote, but alas, I was in error with that thinking now that you've pointed it out to me. I was in error.

Fair enough, we're good! I was only agreeing that voting for the two parties is the same. I do believe in voting. When anarchists say they are against voting, I argue with them too.

 

[Votto]

How does the GOP repeal the ACA over the president's veto?

Get him drunk stupid.

 

[NYcarbineer]

pretend children don't get cancer or any other diseases that call for expensive long term medical care ... now pretend their family can afford expensive long term medical care ..

no kids were denied cancer treatment before ACA.

lol

LOL yourself--------------no kids in the USA were denied cancer treatment before ACA.

And he has no evidence, another lefter spouting lies about something political and expecting everyone to believe him. NOPE........................

Ever hear of St Judes, Ronald McDonald house, Mayo clinic, Ochsner clinic, Shriners, Cleveland clinic, MD Anderson? You made the claim now give us proof that kids with cancer were denied treatment before Obozocare.

So why do you buy insurance if you know you can be treated for free?

 

[PoliticalChic]

1.) Secure the border

2.) Solidify net neutrality by law, protect it under first amendment.

3.) Heavily amend Obamacare

Private Property and the Net US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[PoliticalChic]

There are two outliers....

a. The dopes who boast that they never vote for either, 'they're the same...' which usually means that they are afraid to have to confront arguments, or to lazy to study the choices.

b. Loser-terians, the 'my way or else' folks who more often than not, throw elections to the Democrats.

Wow, I'm both of those...

BTW, they are the same

So your comments have zero value in a political discussion. don't go away mad space varmit, just go away!!!!

You want to vote between Tweedledum and Tweedledee, you just go right ahead...

yep, I vote, you can write a name in, at least you voted. Not voting discards your right to a discussion with those who do. byE

I didn't say I don't vote, I do. I just try not to vote for the twins. I generally vote for the strongest non-party candidate no matter their affiliation. What I am voting for by doing that is getting people to believe they have a choice.

I did BTW vote for Romney. While Democrats have run as Marxists for years, they generally stopped short once elected. Obama did the former and not the latter. I don't plan to make it a pattern.

"The common wisdom holds that 'both parties' have to appeal to the extremes during the primary and then move to the center for the general election. To the contrary, both parties run for office as conservatives. Once they have fooled the voters and are safely in office, Republicans sometimes double-cross the voters. Democrats always do."
Coulter, 11-27-03

 

[Redfish]

no kids were denied cancer treatment before ACA.

lol

LOL yourself--------------no kids in the USA were denied cancer treatment before ACA.

And he has no evidence, another lefter spouting lies about something political and expecting everyone to believe him. NOPE........................

Ever hear of St Judes, Ronald McDonald house, Mayo clinic, Ochsner clinic, Shriners, Cleveland clinic, MD Anderson? You made the claim now give us proof that kids with cancer were denied treatment before Obozocare.

So why do you buy insurance if you know you can be treated for free?

Many people don't. Those of us who do buy it pay for those who do not. Exactly the same situation under obamacare. Except that because of many stupid rules and the need to fund a huge new govt beaurocracy, those who pay are paying more, and those who are getting it free are-----------getting it free.
the ACA law accomplished nothing except making everything worse.

 

[Borillar]

Most folks understand the binary nature of our political system.

Between Democrat and Republican, you pick the one closest to your views....and bubble in the little circle.


There are two outliers....

a. The dopes who boast that they never vote for either, 'they're the same...' which usually means that they are afraid to have to confront arguments, or to lazy to study the choices.

b. Loser-terians, the 'my way or else' folks who more often than not, throw elections to the Democrats.

(This does not include the out-right liars who claim to be Republicans, but consistently post support of the Liberals....we all know who that is, don't we.)






Now that the American people have finally done what we on the Right, more particularly, conservatives, implored them to do six years ago, kick the community organizer to the curb......we need to elucidate what it is we hoped for when we gave our votes, our support to the Republican candidates.


Here is my considered list, in no particular order, of what the anti-Leftist aims should be.



1. ObamaCare: Repeal this fraudulent bill, replace it with one based on more accurate and truthful accounts, i.e., numbers covered, actual costs to the nation and of deductibles, promises about keeping doctors and plans.


Obama wasn't the first Bolshevik to support socialized medicine. For context, there was Henry Sigerist: "He devoted himself to the study of history of medicine.Socialized Medicine in the Soviet Union(1937), andHistory of Medicinewere among his most important works. He emerged as a major spokesman for "compulsory health insurance". ...He attacked the American Medical Association because of his conflicting views on socialized medicine." Henry E. Sigerist - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

a. And, Sigerist was one of the apologists for Stalin, including his state-engineered famine in the Ukraine. 7 million perished
(The History Place - Genocide in the 20th Century Stalin s Forced Famine 1932-33).


b. Sigerist "shared with the architects of Soviet health policy under Stalin an outlook best described as medical totalitarianism. He really believed that humanity would be better off if every individual were under the medical supervision of the state from cradle to grave....[and] Sigerist's belief in the necessity for state control over all aspects of medicine ultimately made him an apologist for state control over most aspects of human life."
Fee and Brown, eds. "Making Medical History: The Life and Times of Henry E. Sigerist," p. 252

Knowing the thinking behind ObamaCare should make it easier to end it.




2. Close and man the borders, and remind the world that we are a sovereign nation.
Before any consideration be given to dealing with those who have broken our laws, stop the flow of new law-breakers.

a. The "Global Governance Movement," the Soviet-inspired United Nations, claims precedence over a wide area of issues: budget practices, law enforcement, criminal law, criminal law, school curriculum, textbooks, immigration, border enforcement, healthcare, parental care, discipline of children, employment, multilingualism, gender composition of government bodies, among others. UN Human Rights treaties address all of the above.
Fonte, "Submission or Sovereignty."


b. There is a responsibility that flows from citizenship, duties to others, basically to strangers, including a defense of their common territory and the maintenance of the law that applies within said jurisdiction.
Roger Scruton, "The West and the Rest."

Note the central idea: territory. There is no common territory without borders, and without national sovereignty.



More to follow.

Wow, a list of total bullshit from DB. What Americans want are jobs and good paying salaries and education and healthcare.

Republicans want minimum wage and "let him die".

In all fairness to Republicans, they want to do away with the minimum wage laws too.