Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

ironknee · Sep 10, 2009, 01:03 PM

for shame

olePigeon · Sep 10, 2009, 01:25 PM

Another Republican out to save marriage from teh geys is cheating on his wife. This time a California assemblyman.

Apparently, the Appalachians have been really popular lately.

mduell · Sep 10, 2009, 01:48 PM

Heckling during a speech to congress? Don't the Republicans have any new ideas?

besson3c · Sep 10, 2009, 01:49 PM

That guy has kick ass hair, he should have no problems having sex with people regardless of his political status.

mduell · Sep 10, 2009, 01:50 PM

Originally Posted by olePigeon

Another Republican out to save marriage from teh geys is cheating on his wife. This time a California assemblyman.

Apparently, the Appalachians have been really popular lately.

Even better: Former Orange County Assemblyman Michael Duvall, who resigned after inadvertently broadcasting explicit remarks about his sexual conquests over an open microphone, this morning said that his resignation was not an admission that he had an affair.

"I want to make it clear that my decision to resign is in no way an admission that I had an affair or affairs," Duvall said in a statement in his website. "My offense was engaging in inappropriate story-telling and I regret my language and choice of words. The resulting media coverage was proving to be an unneeded distraction to my colleagues and I resigned in the hope that my decision would allow them to return to the business of the state."

besson3c · Sep 10, 2009, 02:01 PM

That guy should be forced to resign regardless of whether or not he had an affair for the simple matter that it is incredibly dumb to kiss and tell, and you should be able to pass a certain intelligence threshold to be a politician

stupendousman · Sep 10, 2009, 02:19 PM

Critics say there is no way to enforce the ban on subsidies for undocumented workers, since the Democratic majority in the House turned back a Republican effort to EXPLICITLY STIFFEN citizenship checks. But Medicare and Medicaid already require those enrolled to provide "a substantial number of documents" to show they're U.S. citizens or legal residents, said Henrie Treadwell, a professor of community and preventive medicine at Atlanta's Morehouse University medical school.

Treadwell calls the issue a "RED HERRING," since many of the estimated 10 million to 12 million illegal immigrants in the United States are getting treatment at emergency rooms already. Doctors are obligated to treat people who show up REGARDLESS OF CITIZENSHIP, and most of those costs are being absorbed by hospitals and state and local governments, Treadwell said.

"It is certainly not just something that disappears," she said. "We are paying now for care that is not preventive, and we are paying millions."

Could you show me where in the law it:

A. Requires this new healthcare initiative to use the same standards as Medicare and Medicaid in screening out illegals, or requires any standards at all.

B. Requires only emergency care be given to the people part of the program, instead of things like long-term care for extended illnesses (chemotherapy for instance), preventive care, non-emergency surgery, etc.

I'm of the understanding that most of the highest costs involved regarding health care aren't for emergency medicine so I'm not sure what the bringing up the fact that we don't need a government program to give people what they are already getting for free in the first place proves. If illegal aliens already get emergency care, how is that a "red herring" when it's suggested that the laws in question would also give them the type of expensive care I've just outlined? I'm thinking that the person crying "red herring" is providing one of their own?

hyteckit · Sep 10, 2009, 02:21 PM

Originally Posted by turtle777

Are you

?

I f***ing QUOTED THE CRS.

Don't you get ? The CRS is an Obama organization. THEY SAID THAT.

Man, you should apply for a job in the White House, you are a genius just like them.

-t

How does it change the fact that you are quoting and highlighting contradictory arguments?

Still don't know which argument you are trying to make.

Make up you mind. Does H.R. 3200 contain any restrictions on noncitzens, whether legally or illegally present?

stupendousman · Sep 10, 2009, 02:21 PM

Originally Posted by besson3c

That guy should be forced to resign regardless of whether or not he had an affair for the simple matter that it is incredibly dumb to kiss and tell, and you should be able to pass a certain intelligence threshold to be a politician

I agree. If you can't be discreet in your own affairs, how can we trust you with real responsibility that requires even more discretion and secrecy? Thankfully, he didn't have to be forced out.

I'm sure you agree that Clinton should have resigned for his similar, serial lack of discretion?

ps. When will Frank, Dodd, Rangel and Geitner decide to resign due to their own, much more serious lack of discretion and ethics? Surely the guy talking dirty can provide a good example for these even less deserving public servants?

Mrjinglesusa · Sep 10, 2009, 02:25 PM

Originally Posted by Snow-i

Good for Wilson.

God forbid someone else's voice is heard during an address from Our Dear Leader.

...At least he didn't throw his shoes at the man.

No one else's voice is supposed to be heard during an address to Joint Congress by the President. This was not an open forum, not a town hall meeting, and not a debate. Members of Congress, Democrats and Republicans alike, are supposed to sit there and listen. Period.

BadKosh · Sep 10, 2009, 04:00 PM

The president is NOT supposed to call his opponents across the isle liars either.

ort888 · Sep 10, 2009, 04:03 PM

Even if they are lying?

dcmacdaddy · Sep 10, 2009, 04:06 PM

Originally Posted by stupendousman

I agree. If you can't be discreet in your own affairs, how can we trust you with real responsibility that requires even more discretion and secrecy? Thankfully, he didn't have to be forced out.

I'm sure you agree that Clinton should have resigned for his similar, serial lack of discretion?

Yes. Clinton should have had the decency to step down when his affair with Monica Lewinksy came to light.

Chongo · 04:17 PM

Originally Posted by Mrjinglesusa

No one else's voice is supposed to be heard during an address to Joint Congress by the President. This was not an open forum, not a town hall meeting, and not a debate. Members of Congress, Democrats and Republicans alike, are supposed to sit there and listen. Period.

It was not a Sate Of The Union address either. I'm sure more of these will turn up as people scour the C-SPAN archives
RealClearPolitics - Video - Flashback: Democrats Boo Bush At 2005 State Of The Union

In 2005, Dems howled, hissed and shouted "No!" when Bush pushed for Social Security reform in the SOU: "Foreshadowing the contentiousness of the coming debate, Democrats broke decorum and booed twice," according to the National Journal.

At the time, CNN’s Bill Schneider remarked, “It was unusual. I had never heard it at least at that level before. The Democrats clearly were booing, heckling, saying no when the president talked about the crisis in Social Security."

OAW · 04:42 PM

Originally Posted by stupendousman

Could you show me where in the law it:

A. Requires this new healthcare initiative to use the same standards as Medicare and Medicaid in screening out illegals, or requires any standards at all.

B. Requires only emergency care be given to the people part of the program, instead of things like long-term care for extended illnesses (chemotherapy for instance), preventive care, non-emergency surgery, etc.

I'm of the understanding that most of the highest costs involved regarding health care aren't for emergency medicine so I'm not sure what the bringing up the fact that we don't need a government program to give people what they are already getting for free in the first place proves. If illegal aliens already get emergency care, how is that a "red herring" when it's suggested that the laws in question would also give them the type of expensive care I've just outlined? I'm thinking that the person crying "red herring" is providing one of their own?

From HR 3200

SEC. 242. AFFORDABLE CREDIT ELIGIBLE INDIVIDUAL.

(a) DEFINITION.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—For purposes of this divi-
sion, the term ‘‘affordable credit eligible individual’’
means, subject to subsection (b), an individual who
is lawfully present in a State in the United States
(other than as a nonimmigrant described in a sub-
paragraph (excluding subparagraphs (K), (T), (U),
and (V)) of section 101(a)(15) of the Immigration
and Nationality Act)—

(A) who is enrolled under an Exchange-
participating health benefits plan and is not en-
rolled under such plan as an employee (or de-pendent of an employee) through an employer 133
qualified health benefits plan that meets the re-
quirements of section 312;

(B) with family income below 400 percent
of the Federal poverty level for a family of the
size involved; and

(C) who is not a Medicaid eligible indi-
vidual, other than an individual described in
section 202(d)(3) or an individual during a
transition period under section 202(d)(4)(B)(ii). 9

SEC. 246. NO FEDERAL PAYMENT FOR UNDOCUMENTED ALIENS.

Nothing in this subtitle shall allow Federal payments for affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States.

Now there it is in black and white! But let's go further and examine the link between HR 3200 and Medicaid:

How does Medicaid work with the Exchange?

States must enter into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the Health Choices Commissioner to coordinate enrollment of individuals in Exchange-participating health plans and under the state’s Medicaid program. States may be authorized to determine eligibility for subsidies or affordability credits through the Health Insurance Exchange. There is a “Medicaid screen and enroll obligation” that would require states to enroll non-traditional Medicaid-eligible individuals (childless adults) in Medicaid if they apply for coverage in the Exchange and are found to be Medicaid eligible. Under an MOU, states must accept without further determination these individuals screened to be Medicaid eligible. For traditional eligibles, states can opt to use the same auto-enrollment process or use presumptive eligibility and follow Medicaid enrollment procedures. If individuals apply for Medicaid but are not eligible, there is no requirement that they be auto-enrolled in the Exchange.

Now what are the citizenship documentation requirements for Medicaid?

Acceptable primary documentation for identification and citizenship:

A U.S. Passport

A Certificate of Naturalization (DHS Forms N-550 or N-570).

A Certificate of U.S. Citizenship (DHS Forms N-560 or N-561).

Acceptable secondary documentation to verify proof of citizenship (an identity document is also required):

A U.S. birth certificate.

A Certification of birth issued by the Department of State (Form DS-1350).

A Report of Birth Abroad of a U.S. Citizen (Form FS-240).

A Certification of Birth Abroad (FS-545).

A U.S. Citizen I.D. card (DHS Form I-197).

An American Indian Card issued by the Department of Homeland Security with the classification code “KIC.” (Issued by DHS to identify U.S. citizen members of the Texas Band of Kickapoos living near the U.S./Mexican border).

A Northern Mariana Identification Card. (Issued by the INS to a collectively naturalized citizen of the United States who was born in the Northern Mariana Islands before November 4, 1986.).

Evidence of civil service employment by the U.S. government before June 1976.

An official military record of service showing a U.S. place of birth.

A verification with the Department of Homeland Security’s Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) database.

Evidence of meeting the automatic criteria for U.S. citizenship outlined in the Child Citizenship Act of 2000.

(see link for 3rd and 4th level of acceptable documentation)

Now that seems pretty thorough to me. And seeing as how the states must determine Medicaid eligibility which utilizes these requirements in conjunction with an individual applying for a Health Insurance Exchange subsidy ... I think that'll cover it. However, if that still doesn't satisfy you ... then the argument should NOT be that HR 3200 provides subsidies to illegal immigrants ... because it outright prohibits that. Instead, the argument should be that the legislation should have verbiage that explicitly states that those individuals who are not eligible for Medicaid must satisfy the same citizenship documentation requirements as Medicaid.

In any event, this entire line of criticism is pretty silly. You have a law that explicitly forbids subsidies to illegal immigrants. Do you really think the agency charged with administering this program is NOT going to require a birth certificate or at a minimum some form of ID that itself necessitated a birth certificate be produced to obtain? Moreover, do you really think the agency charged with administering this program is going to bend over backwards to verify income but turn a complete blind eye to citizenship ... even though both requirements are spelled out in the legislation? I think not.

And regarding your question about emergency care ... I fear you have missed the point. This legislation doesn't address it. Again, the rules that mandate whether or not doctors must treat people coming into an emergency room is existing law. HR 3200 doesn't change that one way or the other.

OAW

CreepDogg · Sep 10, 2009, 04:44 PM

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy

Yes. Clinton should have had the decency to step down when his affair with Monica Lewinksy came to light.

I disagree on both counts. I don't really give a rip who politicians sleep with.

What is notable here is the hypocrisy of a 'traditional values champion' being caught doing this sort of thing. I still don't think he should be 'forced' to step down for it, but I can't say I'm sorry to see him out of government.

besson3c · Sep 10, 2009, 04:58 PM

Originally Posted by stupendousman

I agree. If you can't be discreet in your own affairs, how can we trust you with real responsibility that requires even more discretion and secrecy? Thankfully, he didn't have to be forced out.

I'm sure you agree that Clinton should have resigned for his similar, serial lack of discretion?

I don't care about who a politician sleeps with, it is not my concern. My original comment was a playful comment over how dumb it was to kiss and tell. If you are going to sleep around, it seems like a no brainer to keep to yourself.

I don't want to get into the rest of this with you. Find another launchpad into your next rant rerun.

Captain Obvious · Sep 10, 2009, 05:52 PM

Originally Posted by hyteckit

The Republican was are acting so childish. Shows no respect for the President.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4228927.stm

Throughout the 53-minute speech, many of the president's points were met with loud applause and standing ovations.

But the first half of Mr Bush's speech focused on domestic policy - and this is where he received loud heckles from some members of Congress.

And that was the SOTU not some pet project speech.

besson3c · Sep 10, 2009, 05:54 PM

I knew it was only a matter of time before we got into the "well they did it, so it makes it okay" football tossing.

hyteckit · Sep 10, 2009, 06:05 PM

Originally Posted by Captain Obvious

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4228927.stm

[/i]

And that was the SOTU not some pet project speech.

Reacting to the President's speech cheers and grumbling is not the issue here.

Yelling at the President and calling him a liar while he is giving his speech is the issue.

Show me where any Democratic congressmen yelling out "liar", "murderer", or something equivalent during Pres. Bush's speech.

Doofy · Sep 10, 2009, 06:19 PM

This proves it. Government doesn't work. So march on Capitol Hill, drag them out and send them packing to their retirement homes. Then turn the Capitol Buildings into skate parks and all y'all go home and go about your business with no further bother.

Oh. Wait. You all took the blue pill. Carry on.

Chuckit · Sep 10, 2009, 06:20 PM

What on earth do you think "loud heckles" means?

Also, the idea that somebody would be more upset by a breach of social etiquette than a leader violating their trust is just weird.

hyteckit · Sep 10, 2009, 06:44 PM

Originally Posted by Chuckit

What on earth do you think "loud heckles" means?

Also, the idea that somebody would be more upset by a breach of social etiquette than a leader violating their trust is just weird.

What does "loud heckles" means? Boos and grumblings? I guess that would depend on the reporter.

What's even weirder is drawing a false dichotomy in order to defend the liar Joe Wilson for disrespecting the President.

By the way,

What does "an individual who is lawfully present in a State in the United States" and "Nothing in this subtitle shall allow Federal payments for affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States" mean to you?

stumblinmike · Sep 10, 2009, 07:36 PM

Originally Posted by olePigeon

Another Republican out to save marriage from teh geys is cheating on his wife. This time a California assemblyman.

Apparently, the Appalachians have been really popular lately.

Surprise, surprise! Not only is he a conservative "family values" champion, he owns an insurance firm! It's common knowledge you've sold your soul to the devil once you've joined the insurance game. "Affair or affairs" Ha Ha Ha!

Laminar · Sep 10, 2009, 07:47 PM

Originally Posted by besson3c

I don't care about who a politician sleeps with, it is not my concern. My original comment was a playful comment over how dumb it was to kiss and tell. If you are going to sleep around, it seems like a no brainer to keep to yourself.

I don't want to get into the rest of this with you. Find another launchpad into your next rant rerun.

Originally Posted by besson3c

I knew it was only a matter of time before we got into the "well they did it, so it makes it okay" football tossing.

Besson pretending that he's outside and above the current discussion?

Originally Posted by Doofy

This proves it. Government doesn't work. So march on Capitol Hill, drag them out and send them packing to their retirement homes. Then turn the Capitol Buildings into skate parks and all y'all go home and go about your business with no further bother.

Oh. Wait. You all took the blue pill. Carry on.

Doofy thinking that he's some rogue badass because he hasn't bought into some ideas sold to the rest of us by Big Brother?

I'm bored.

Quick! Someone analyze what I'm doing!

ironknee · Sep 10, 2009, 08:09 PM

Originally Posted by Chuckit

What on earth do you think "loud heckles" means?

Also, the idea that somebody would be more upset by a breach of social etiquette than a leader violating their trust is just weird.

are you the guy who bought the i'm with joe t-shirt?

you are defending him?

olePigeon · Sep 10, 2009, 08:42 PM

Originally Posted by stupendousman

I'm sure you agree that Clinton should have resigned for his similar, serial lack of discretion?

No. Clinton wasn't preaching celibacy and blaming homosexuals for destroying marriage while simultaneously cheating on his wife. Too many Nazi halos in politics.

Doofy · Sep 10, 2009, 08:48 PM

Originally Posted by Laminar

Doofy ~~thinking~~ knowing that he's some rogue badass because he hasn't bought into some ideas sold to the rest of us by Big Brother?

Corrected.

Originally Posted by Laminar

I'm bored.

I never figured I'd ever meet anyone who was geeky enough to post to an Intarwebs forum during their honeymoon. How wrong I was. Man, you are one sad little boy.

Wiskedjak · Sep 10, 2009, 09:03 PM

Originally Posted by besson3c

... you should be able to pass a certain intelligence threshold to be a politician

Then we would have no politicians.

Wiskedjak · Sep 10, 2009, 09:11 PM

Originally Posted by olePigeon

Another Republican out to save marriage from teh geys is cheating on his wife. This time a California assemblyman.

Apparently, the Appalachians have been really popular lately.

I guess it's clear what "traditional family values" means.

stupendousman · Sep 10, 2009, 09:36 PM

Originally Posted by OAW

Now there it is in black and white!

That the plan is for them technically to be ineligible. I get it. That's not what I asked for.

But let's go further and examine the link between HR 3200 and Medicaid:

]States must enter into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the Health Choices Commissioner to coordinate enrollment of individuals in Exchange-participating health plans and under the state’s Medicaid program. States may be authorized to determine eligibility for subsidies or affordability credits through the Health Insurance Exchange.

I see where it says that states "may be authorized" to determine eligibility for those who are enrolled in the "exchange-participating health plans". I don't see where it the law requires it or what specific steps have to be taken to determine eligibility for the "exchange-participating health plan".

The wording of the quote above simply says that States have to enter into the MOU for both the EPHP and their Medicaid plans. It doesn't state that the same standards have to be used for both and it doesn't appear that they are saying that the EPHP's have to be administered by the state medicaid program.

Again, could you show me language from the bill that actually says that the EPHP's are to be administered by the state medicaid programs and use the same eligibility requirments?

Now that seems pretty thorough to me. And seeing as how the states must determine Medicaid eligibility which utilizes these requirements in conjunction with an individual applying for a Health Insurance Exchange subsidy ... I think that'll cover it. However, if that still doesn't satisfy you ... then the argument should NOT be that HR 3200 provides subsidies to illegal immigrants ... because it outright prohibits that.

All I know is that:

A. The President says that the healthcare bill should take care of X number of people in the US without healthcare, and that number includes illegal aliens.

B. I still can't see any requirement for testing eligibility for anything besides the already existing programs.

The President wants these illegals to get insurance, and the bill doesn't seem to really do anything to stop it from what I can see. I'm suggesting that this is BY DESIGN, not on accident. How would YOU get one of the really big Democrat priorities (free healthcare for even illegals) into law knowing that there would be a backlash if you outright said that illegals would be able to get it? You'd simply SAY that they were ineligible, then really do nothing to enforce eligibility. It doesn't take rocket science to put two and two together.

Instead, the argument should be that the legislation should have verbiage that explicitly states that those individuals who are not eligible for Medicaid must satisfy the same citizenship documentation requirements as Medicaid.

That's exactly my argument. Without explicitly stating it, you are creating a loophole - one made by design based on what the President has said, and knowing the goals and priorities of the left-wing Democrat base which has clamored for free healthcare for illegals.

In any event, this entire line of criticism is pretty silly. You have a law that explicitly forbids subsidies to illegal immigrants. Do you really think the agency charged with administering this program is NOT going to require a birth certificate or at a minimum some form of ID that itself necessitated a birth certificate be produced to obtain?

No. Not when it isn't required, nor is it desired by the administration. Obama wants to cover all people in the US without coverage, which includes illegals. Do you really think the agency administering the program is going to make waves and require documentation that isn't actually a legal requirement when it's clear that those in power have no desire to have that put into place, since the Republicans specifically requested this type of "explicit" language and it was taken out?

And regarding your question about emergency care ... I fear you have missed the point. This legislation doesn't address it. Again, the rules that mandate whether or not doctors must treat people coming into an emergency room is existing law. HR 3200 doesn't change that one way or the other.

Um...that's what I said. I pointed out that the person quoted was forwarding their own "red herring" because that was irrelevant to the debate.

LegendaryPinkOx · Sep 10, 2009, 09:57 PM

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey

I'll admit that Pelosi's WTF face during the outburst almost made up for it.

Yeah thats definitely an "OMG" face.

turtle777 · Sep 10, 2009, 10:01 PM

We all know Obama lied about things in the past.

E.g. not raising taxes for low income earners.
His federal cigarette tax increase did just that.

So, is it completely out of the question that he would promise one thing, and do something different later ?

-t

Wiskedjak · Sep 10, 2009, 10:37 PM

Originally Posted by turtle777

is it completely out of the question that he would promise one thing, and do something different later ?

Not at all. He is a politician and politicians lie. Fact of life. And, while we hope that politicians will stop lying, we can also hope that other politicians will act like grown-ups when in public.

Chuckit · Sep 10, 2009, 10:43 PM

Originally Posted by ironknee

are you the guy who bought the i'm with joe t-shirt?

you are defending him?

No. What was the thought process behind this post? "Gosh, he says somebody else might be worse than this guy, so he must be this guy's biggest fan"?

ironknee · Sep 10, 2009, 10:57 PM

Originally Posted by Chuckit

No. What was the thought process behind this post? "Gosh, he says somebody else might be worse than this guy, so he must be this guy's biggest fan"?

you defend the guy... forgive me when i look down my nose at you

hyteckit · Sep 10, 2009, 11:29 PM

Originally Posted by Chuckit

No. What was the thought process behind this post? "Gosh, he says somebody else might be worse than this guy, so he must be this guy's biggest fan"?

Actually that was the false dichotomy you've presented.

If Joe Wilson called Pres. Obama a traitor, would you asked?

"Also, the idea that somebody would be more upset by a breach of social etiquette than a leader who is a traitor."

What's with you and your binary logic?

Must be because of the 8 years of Pres. Bush's "Either you are with us, or you are against us' binary logic.

Chuckit · Sep 10, 2009, 11:40 PM

Originally Posted by ironknee

you defend the guy... forgive me when i look down my nose at you

Quote one positive thing I have said about him.

hyteckit · Sep 10, 2009, 11:59 PM

Originally Posted by Chuckit

Quote one positive thing I have said about him.

You were justifying Joe Wilson's actions by presenting a false dichotomy of the lesser of two evils.

Bad manners or a leader lying to the public

Chuckit · Sep 11, 2009, 12:01 AM

I never brought up the idea that it might justify his actions. That would be you.

SpaceMonkey · 12:30 AM

Originally Posted by hyteckit

Reacting to the President's speech cheers and grumbling is not the issue here.

Yeah, funnily enough if Wilson had been booing I would have had much less of a problem with it. There is a line there where it gets accusatory and over-the-top disrespectful. So Congressman Wilson -- next time stick to booing! Trust me!

hyteckit · Sep 11, 2009, 12:27 AM

Originally Posted by Chuckit

I never brought up the idea that it might justify his actions. That would be you.

Sure you did. You were justifying Joe Wilson's actions by presenting a false dichotomy of the lesser of two evils, by saying:

"Also, the idea that somebody would be more upset by a breach of social etiquette than a leader violating their trust is just weird."

Chuckit · Sep 11, 2009, 01:01 AM

Originally Posted by hyteckit

Sure you did. You were justifying Joe Wilson's actions by presenting a false dichotomy of the lesser of two evils, by saying:

"Also, the idea that somebody would be more upset by a breach of social etiquette than a leader violating their trust is just weird."

If you say so. I thought I was commenting on what I saw as a strange sense of priorities, but I suppose you would know better than I.

hyteckit · Sep 11, 2009, 02:38 AM

Originally Posted by Chuckit

If you say so. I thought I was commenting on what I saw as a strange sense of priorities, but I suppose you would know better than I.

Justifying calling the President a liar:

"Also, the idea that somebody would be more upset by a breach of social etiquette than a leader violating their trust is just weird."

Justifying calling the President a traitor:

"Also, the idea that somebody would be more upset by a breach of social etiquette than a leader who is a traitor is just weird."

Justifying calling the President a communist:

"Also, the idea that somebody would be more upset by a breach of social etiquette than a leader who is a communist is just weird."

Justifying calling the President anything you want:

"Also, the idea that somebody would be more upset by a breach of social etiquette than a leader fill in this line is just weird."

Chuckit · 04:20 AM

Originally Posted by hyteckit

Justifying calling the President a liar:

"Also, the idea that somebody would be more upset by a breach of social etiquette than a leader violating their trust is just weird."

Justifying calling the President a traitor:

"Also, the idea that somebody would be more upset by a breach of social etiquette than a leader who is a traitor is just weird."

Justifying calling the President a communist:

"Also, the idea that somebody would be more upset by a breach of social etiquette than a leader who is a communist is just weird."

Justifying calling the President anything you want:

"Also, the idea that somebody would be more upset by a breach of social etiquette than a leader fill in this line is just weird."

What on earth are you going on about? Take a breath and calm down. All I said was that I detect in some people a tone of "Well, yes, Obama probably was lying. But who cares? I'd rather talk about some idiot's faux pas!"

auto_immune · Sep 11, 2009, 06:15 AM

Death Panels already exist - they are called insurance companies:

1)you live to be really old (if you are lucky)
2)you get sick with aggressive cancer or any other serious illness
that is very expensive to treat
3)scumbag insurance beancounter denies coverage
4)YOU DIE!

*and......you do not actually have to be old for this happen to you.

Originally Posted by stevesnj

Those scum Republicans yelled that the President was a liar during his speech when he said Death Panels are not going to happen. You scum Republicans and Sarah Palin. She is part of the 'scum party' for even coming up with that term. Here's hoping a Moose tramples her ass!

stumblinmike · Sep 11, 2009, 06:21 AM

Originally Posted by auto_immune

Death Panels already exist - they are called insurance companies:

1)you live to be really old (if you are lucky)
2)you get sick with aggressive cancer or any other serious illness
that is very expensive to treat
3)scumbag insurance beancounter denies coverage
4)YOU DIE!

*and......you do not actually have to be old for this happen to you.

Why do you hate America????

stumblinmike · Sep 11, 2009, 06:25 AM

Originally Posted by Chuckit

If you say so. I thought I was commenting on what I saw as a strange sense of priorities, but I suppose you would know better than I.

I've known you to be less then clear, Chuck....

ebuddy · Sep 11, 2009, 06:33 AM

For whatever reason, a collective boo from the left side of the chamber for Bush Jr. is acceptable just as it was acceptable to hold a Congressional Hearing when Bush Sr. spoke in a public school, but some rogue parents and a rogue Senator who can't stand this Administrations' BS anymore breach etiquette... well... that's just unAmerican!

stumblinmike · Sep 11, 2009, 06:37 AM

Originally Posted by ebuddy

For whatever reason, a collective boo from the left side of the chamber for Bush Jr. is acceptable just as it was acceptable to hold a Congressional Hearing when Bush Sr. spoke in a public school, but some rogue parents and a rogue Senator who can't stand this Administrations' BS anymore breach etiquette... well... that's just unAmerican!

You're starting to sound pretty roguish yourself.