Like a sequel to a bad cheap horror film, it's b-a-a-a-c-k.

I just heard on the car radio that that bitch Pelosi shoved through the same vote on SCHIP AGAIN!! And according to the newscaster-we're now down to SEVEN votes short of overriding a veto. These human swine are -telling you right now what their game plan is-going to just keep taking the same vote as many times as it takes until all the repubs opposed cave because their asses are worried about re-election ("They voted against the children"ads). We're screwed, and we may as well get used to it. And on top of being the most raped group in the nation for taxes-on top of it, we're going to be forced to pay for Hillary's/Nancy's/Harry's socialized medicine.

My mistake-they did revise it some...but-all tax increases remain the same, and only smokers would pay for it;

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/25/washington/26cnd-heal...tml?_r=1&oref=slogin

quote:

Originally posted by dave clark:
My mistake-they did revise it some...but-all tax increases remain the same, and only smokers would pay for it;

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/25/washington/26cnd-heal...tml?_r=1&oref=slogin

Just saw on a news "ticker" across the bottom of the TV screen this AM, that it's on it's way to the Senate for approval.

It'll pass the senate easily. Pretty damned bad when our fate lies in the hands of a handful of people who aen't really for us to begin with. I guess the witch put it through the house while the california members were in their state due to the fires (now there's some SHS for you), so there are probably still about 12 or thirteen votes between us and oblivion.

This is just a quote from what I read on another forum,I have not verified it.


Something else worth mentioning to the media is that the SCHIP bill
ALSO CUTS BENEFITS TO those on Medicare.

Are they trying to knock off the elderly and handicapped 'for the children'

This doesn't sound good. Read further than just the opening paragraph and you'll see what I mean. There's no doubt whatsoever in my mind now that these filthy bastards are going to cave and override bush's veto this time. And if they can't-pelosi and reid will just reintroduce the same bill again-it's very obvious to me she's NOT going to let this go-especially the screwing of smokers-and sooner or later, they'll sell us out for their own re-elections. Not only are we going to be the highest-taxed group in the history of the nation, but we're going to be the key to the introduction of full-blown, out-in-the-open socialism in this country. Dear God-what happened?? This was the greatest country in the world once.

----------------------------------------------


Bush Balks at Revised Child Health Bill
Wednesday, 31-Oct-2007 1:11AM EDT Story from AP / DAVID ESPO and CHARLES BABINGTON

Associated Press/AP Online
WASHINGTON - President Bush told Republican lawmakers on Tuesday he will not agree to legislation expanding children's health insurance if it includes a tobacco tax increase, a decision that virtually ensures a renewed veto struggle with the Democratic-controlled Congress.


The president also suggested he would not be willing to sign other types of tax increases that Democrats have attached to major legislation, including an energy bill, according to numerous officials who attended a closed-door meeting at the White House.

Bush's remarks represented a hardening of the administration's public position in a running veto showdown over Democratic-led attempts to enact legislation that provides coverage for 6 million children who now lack it. The officials who disclosed his comments did so on condition of anonymity, saying they were made in a closed-door meeting.

The White House had no response Tuesday night to the report of the president's comments.

The president vetoed one children's health bill, and Democrats failed to override him in the House.

His threat to veto a replacement measure that cleared the House last week has led to a hurried round of negotiations among lawmakers in both parties and both houses.

Their goal is to reach a compromise that can command enough votes to gain the two-thirds majority needed in both houses to override the president's veto, if necessary.

The negotiations were private, but in an ominous sign for the White House, Republican leaders said during the day they might defy a White House veto.

House Republican Leader John Boehner of Ohio, asked if he might support a bill that the president would not sign, he replied: "That's always a possibility."

In a similar vein, House Minority Whip Roy Blunt, R-Mo., said he would "have to see the bill" before deciding.

Their comments were the clearest sign yet that even Bush's most loyal House allies are eager for an end to the impasse, which many Republicans see as politically damaging to the GOP.

The White House has said previously it opposes tobacco tax increases that Democrats included in the health care legislation, but only after first detailing numerous other objections. Additionally, the president's press aides have declined repeatedly to say whether he would sign a bill that raised taxes.

Bush supplied somewhat more emphasis in public comments Tuesday.

"You know, they proposed tax increases in the farm bill, the energy bill, the small business bill and of course," the children's health bill, he said of Democrats. "They haven't seen a bill they could not solve without shoving a tax hike into it. In other words, they believe in raising taxes, and we don't.

The vetoed bill would have brought the number of insured children to 10 million. The bill covered kids from families who make too much money to qualify for Medicaid but not enough to afford private health insurance.

The estimated $35 billion cost of the measure would be covered by higher taxes on tobacco products, including 61 cents per pack of cigarettes.

Several officials said that in the meeting with Bush, Rep. Joe Barton of Texas asked a question about the president's intentions with the health insurance measure. They said the president responded that he wants his budget director, Jim Nussle, to identify spending cuts to offset the cost of any measure.

They also said Bush appeared to extend his no-tax-increase pledge to other measures. They quoted him as saying that if he signed the tobacco tax increase, it would be difficult to draw the line later on other bills.

Barton could not be reached for comment.

The health insurance bill has emerged as a key flash point between Bush and the Democrats in Congress.

The bill's supporters need to add only about a dozen House Republicans to the 44 who voted Oct. 18 to override Bush's veto. If ongoing negotiations can gain that number, and ideally a lot more, then GOP leaders could embrace the deal regardless of the president's stance, Boehner's and Blunt's comments indicated.

Taxes aside, other sticking points have revolved around Republican demands that poor children gain coverage before others are insured and that strict provisions are included to prevent benefits going to illegal immigrants.

Bush, and most House Republicans, also want to eliminate or reduce participation by adults and families earning more than $62,000 or so.

Boehner said of the disagreement with Bush over how to pay for the program's expansion: "He has his position. The House Republicans have their position."

House Democratic leaders last week said they had addressed many criticisms of the bill and put the revised version to a vote. Most Republicans, encouraged by Boehner and Blunt, rejected the changes, which some called politically motivated.

The bill passed, 265-142. Opposition from 141 Republicans kept it from reaching a two-thirds majority.

The Senate gave the legislation a veto-proof majority from the start, with the enthusiastic backing of senior Republicans such as Sens. Charles Grassley of Iowa and Orrin Hatch of Utah.

It's high time to rid ourselves of this annointed ruling class.

Vote out all incumbents. If that doesn't work, well.....

quote:

Originally posted by 383rr:
Vote out all incumbents. If that doesn't work, well.....

Thanks 383rr. I've drawn a blank many times trying to figure out how to say that.

383rr: "Vote out all incumbents...."

I pretty much agree with that, although I'd hate to see, say, Ron Paul voted out. We need more people like that, not less.

As a general rule of thumb, I'd say watch who is getting the big campaign contributions and glowing media attention, and avoid them like the plague. In other words, Hillary, Rudy, Barack, Mitt... sold-out whores, all of them.

Conversely, if the MSM is treating a candidate like a UFO or Bigfoot sighting, saying their name with a smirk, ignoring them in the debates, if possible ignoring them altogether, that's the person you want to vote for.

its for the children you know


SCHIP: Care Enough to Smoke?

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=o_LutWBunb4

you know if this schip thing passes dose it mean that the house and senate both approve smoking is ok..

smoking has the seal of approval ..by congress

It's for the children.
But,whose children are we talking about?

http://immigrationcounters.com/

4,000,000=children of illegal immigrants in public schools

2,000,000=children born in the USA to illegal immgrants since 2002,i.e.pre-school.

6,000,000=total children of illegal immigrants

Note:schip would not cover illegal immigrants;however,the children born in the US are US citizens and would be covered.

Persons not covered by health insurance:
Under 18 years of age=8,373,000
(World Alamanac and Book of Facts 2005,page 84)
Number of illegal immigrants that do not have health insurance=most of them.

$41,000,000,000+=money wired to Mexico since January 2006.That's 41 billion!

The majority of smokers earn less than $35,000 per year.These smokers should not be the only ones taxed to pay for health insurance for the children of illegal immigrants.

The lawmakers state that they hope the increased prices will lead to less smoking;but,they know that will not happen.

For the average smoker(a pack a day), the increase per week will be $4.27. This is not enough to cause very many to quit.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: gkayser30,

http://jonjayray.wordpress.com/

The burden and costs of illegal immigration are still distributed unevenly across the country, but states and regions that were virtually immune to the impact of large-scale illegal immigration just a decade ago are now feeling the effects, finds the study. About 60 percent of all illegal immigrants - nearly 8.4 million people - are settled in just six states, California, Texas, New York, Florida, Illinois and New Jersey . Other recent reports by FAIR indicate that the combined costs of K-12 education, health care and incarceration of criminals to those six states exceeds $27 billion annually.

California, Texas, New York, Florida,and Illinois are the states with the most electoral votes and have the greatest percentage of legal Hispanics as a part of the population.

Schip would provide health insurance for the children of their illegal brothers and sisters.

It could be said that the Democrats are trying to use money from smokers to buy the Hispanic vote.

Sheesh. Illegal immigration isn't something only the Democrats enable. A majority of Republicans enable it too. Ludicrous ideas like building fences and walls along the U.S. southern border are primarily Republican schemes, but all they do is provide astronomical amounts of pork for well-connected government contractors, who use below-minimum-wage Mexican workers to build them. They don't accomplish jack else.

If Washington officials really wanted to correct the problem, they'd pass legislation with serious teeth and go after individuals and companies that hire illegal workers, but you'll notice that that's an idea they assiduously avoid.

Here's why: our political process has been entirely seized by enormous corporations, who WANT cheap labor! They want the middle-class down on its knees (which it actually already is). To win an election for federal office, a politician virtually HAS to be a sold-out whore.

Wee-duh-pee-pull don't put these cretins in office; a majority can simply be counted on to vote for the most "legitimate" name on the ballot. And how is the mantle of legitimacy conferred upon a candidate? Money, and lots of it. Favorable free publicity from corporate media, and lots of it. That's how.

Antitrust law is a joke. Corporations have exported most jobs worth having to nations where labor is cheap. Those jobs that can't be exported are increasingly being filled by illegal immigrant labor, which via the law of supply and demand brings down wages for ALL Americans.

That is no accident. That is by design. As for the voting public, we have met the enemy, and he is us.

We will also be our own worst enemy if we vote for a candidate who makes simpleton statements about ending a war WHILE our men and women are in harm's way in the field.

I would also like to mention how when I spoke to a Ron Paul sign-waver while smoking a cigarette OUTDOORS, she asked me to please blow it in the other direction (and she acted all shrinky and horrified too, like she really thought ETS was harmful).

Dr. Paul is a good man, but the left will laugh him out of town, and the undecided middle will not be impressed. He does not have what it takes to beat Hilary Clinton, unless of course you are promoting Paul because Hilary is who you really want.

richlady248: "...He does not have what it takes to beat Hilary Clinton, unless of course you are promoting Paul because Hilary is who you really want."

You know something? Under "Critical Thinking > Why the Left Seems Right," I described a situation where I tried to warn Libertarians about their nutty "Guns for Tots" campaign, and was shouted down by a minority who accused me of the same thing you're accusing me of here. That time, I took the high road and remained polite. It didn't work. This time, I think I'll come out swinging.

Therefore, f*ck you, and whatever horse you rode in on. I now strongly suspect exactly the same thing of YOU, "Richlady," so don't even think about attempting to pursue this, or you WILL have a verbal slapfight on your hands that I'm prepared to finish. I've been registered with this board since 2002, many of the regulars (including Squeezer and the board's founders) have known me for a very long time, so don't push it.

I have no evidence of your apocryphal little story about the "Ron Paul sign-waver" than your own word, and given the above, your word doesn't cut any ice with me. I suspect you, in fact, of being a plant. Smoke that, Richlady!

As for "staying the course in Iraq," again, bite me. We've already won as much as we're going to win. Only a fool thought we could ever bring stability to a region where most of the people have no national identity as Iraqis, but only as Shiites, Sunnis, and Kurds, and anyone who wants to see this Vietnam continued is only a shill for the Military-Industrial Complex and is working to see more of our own military people killed in a fruitless, doomed effort to establish a senile new era of corporate colonialism. Whether we pull out now or later, the only difference will be the body count. You remind me of Nixon droning on about "peace with honor," after which he gave up and pulled out of Southeast Asia anyway, only after killing over 58,000 of our own finest people.

You're on thin ice. Don't push it.

quote:

whatever horse you rode in on

Leave my poor horse out of it.

quote:

so don't even think about attempting to pursue this, or you WILL have a verbal slapfight on your hands that I'm prepared to finish.

Robert and Richlady I know each of you are strong in your opinions on this issue I only ask that you guys conduct yourselves under the guide lines of speakeasy..and please take the slapfight to your pMs to continue the heated debate

quote:

richlady248: "...He does not have what it takes to beat Hilary Clinton, unless of course (1)you are promoting Paul because Hilary is who you really want."

You know something? Under "Critical Thinking > Why the Left Seems Right," I described a situation where I tried to warn Libertarians about their nutty "Guns for Tots" campaign, and was shouted down by a minority who accused me of the same thing you're accusing me of here. That time, I took the high road and remained polite. It didn't work. This time, I think I'll come out swinging.

(2)Therefore, f*ck you, and whatever horse you rode in on. I now strongly suspect exactly the same thing of YOU, "Richlady," so don't even think about attempting to pursue this, or you WILL have a verbal slapfight on your hands that I'm prepared to finish.(3) I've been registered with this board since 2002, many of the regulars (including Squeezer and the board's founders) have known me for a very long time, so don't push it.

1.I do not see a Mr.Cook mentioned here,just a generic 'you'.

Perhaps,you(Mr.Cook) are being rather vain and have an over-sensitive ego.

2.This crudity is a display of an appalling lack of manners in replying to anyone,much less a woman.

3.This statement merely proves that you are a 'POMPOUS TWIT' and I will push it.

I respectfully submit that you owe the female in question and the entire Forum an apology.

Gary K.

Guess what, Gary: I'm not sexist, and I don't care about the gender of the person to whom I'm responding. I don't take being falsely accused lightly, and don't respond well to anyone trying to defend an indefensible position just because that position happens to belong to a female. You can call call me any name you like, but I won't apologize to "Richlady," or to you.

I will apologize to the moderators of this board for my part in this flare-up, because I understand how difficult it is to keep conflict here to a minimum. So, I'll back out at this point in the discussion, and suggest anyone else with an ax to grind takes it to private email.

My address is racookster@yahoo.com. If anyone wants to express anything at all, take it there. I'll do my part to keep this board as polite as possible.