Palin says Obama would kill her child

Status
Not open for further replies.
kokonut said:
If you want to side with Krugman, fine.
Click to expand...
If avoiding a biased news report makes me "side" with someone else, so be it.
 
Who cares about McDonald's drops the health plan and their plan sucks. :lol:
 
You being a troother, koko?
 
It's not that, it's the catastrophic failure of Obamacare by issuing at least 111 waivers to companies like McDonald's knowing that Obamacare would ruin their own healthcare insurance plans.
 
saywhatkid said:
If avoiding a biased news report makes me "side" with someone else, so be it.
Click to expand...

Like Krugman? You agree with what he recently said about how death panels can be used to help balance the budget?
 
kokonut said:
Like Krugman? You agree with what he recently said about how death panels can be used to help balance the budget?
Click to expand...
The familiarity of this situation is fatiguing.

By not accepting a news "article" as factual from a site with "anti-Liberalism" emblazoned on it, that makes me want all seniors, disabled and the like be put down so we can harvest organs...Got it.
 
saywhatkid said:
The familiarity of this situation is fatiguing.

By not accepting a news "article" as factual from a site with "anti-Liberalism" emblazoned on it, that makes me want all seniors, disabled and the like be put down so we can harvest organs...Got it.
Click to expand...

I didn't anything about accepting news article but about what Krugman said when he said "death panels" a few times in his disccusion on the ABC show. Let's try YouTube since each person is talking separately which makes CC a bit better. What do you say about Krugman saying that the death panels (CC says "death penalty" ha ha) can be used to help balance the budget as a justification in controlling cost just as Palin has said before what Obamacare will do.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r8lwWMwZJKo]YouTube - Death Panels Paul Krugman[/ame]
 
Daredevel7 said:
Thanks, kokonut, for displaying a perfect example of twisting words and pulling things out of the context. All you have to do is click on the first link (NewsBuster) and actually read it.

BTW, has it occurred to anyone that Medicare (or any other insurance) makes choices RIGHT NOW on your life? The only difference is TRANSPARENCY. Now you can see how life actually works. And of course, no one likes it. But they are blaming it on "Obamacare".

At least argue about the issues of mandatory, "opt out", efficiency of Obamacare, etc. Those are the sensible arguments, but to say that Obamacare is introducing something new "death panels"? Obviously, that's spoken out of denial that it is happening right here, right now. You want transparency in politics? That also means you have to deal with reality.
Click to expand...

On the bolded, THANK YOU for pointing this out. I can tell you first-hand this is NOT a liberal specific issue. For those that don't know, I got very sick back in 2005. I nearly didn't survive the illness, but I also had to fight to get treatment for certain things simply because I signed a living will which stipulated certain wishes should I become terminally ill and wasn't able to communicate .

I've had lifelong hypotension and they knew this. They also informed us that they had not given me enough hydration in the recovery room as I was coming out of the anesthetic after tjhey had performed surgery. As a result, my pressure dropped like a hot rock and they would NOT treat it. There attitude was "Oh, she has long standing hypotension." I'm only here today because I insisted that they page my Dr, so he could write an order for a bolus of fluid. Once the fluids were given, my blood pressure stabilized. At the time, Bush was in office.

I'm NOT the paranoid type, but, this scared me. There is a pervasive attitude in this country to do away with those who cost this country money. I'm on Medicaid and have been since birth. I used to think that these issues are few and far between, but they're not. Since my surgeries back in 2005-06, I've tweaked my LW. I also make it known in writing that if my condition is life threatening, I WANT treatment! I'm NOT terminal; just disabled.

I think blaming one side or the other for this issue is wrong. If you want to rale against something, do so against the attitude itself. Otherwise, don't bring it up to bash whoever is in office at the time.

*For the record, I'm a Republican-Centrist who isn't exactly thrilled with Obama, but I'm not going to vilify the man for trying to fix something that's been broken for decades or more.

As for Palin, she's no better or worse than Obama. Extremists aren't good for this country; no matter what side of the aisle they are on.
 
It's about the ever so increasing use of death panels as a way to help balance the budget by your govt nannies as one those ultimate slippery slope of our times.

Oceanbreeze, you don't vote on bill that you haven't read in the effort to fix something. None of the Democrats ever bothered to read the Obamacare bill to see what was inside it. Also, the 72 hour reading period never took place even though Nancy Pelosi promised that they would be given time to do so before voting. Actually they had several hours chance to read it before Nancy pushed it to have votes done. Try reading 1000+ pages in 72 hours. Yet, none read it before voting on it. That's not fixing something. That's being totally irresponsible!
 
heh Oceanbreeze. good catch.
 
kokonut said:
It's about the ever so increasing use of death panels as a way to help balance the budget by your govt nannies as one those ultimate slippery slope of our times.

Oceanbreeze, you don't vote on bill that you haven't read in the effort to fix something. None of the Democrats ever bothered to read the Obamacare bill to see what was inside it. Also, the 72 hour reading period never took place even though Nancy Pelosi promised that they would be given time to do so before voting. Actually they had several hours chance to read it before Nancy pushed it to have votes done. Try reading 1000+ pages in 72 hours. Yet, none read it before voting on it. That's not fixing something. That's being totally irresponsible!
Click to expand...

No difference from college history course that you have to read over hundreds of pages, if not 1,000 pages.
 
Foxrac said:
No difference from college history course that you have to read over hundreds of pages, if not 1,000 pages.
Click to expand...

These legislators have a staff to assist them in reading. Still sounds like a monumental task.
 
I'm just want goddamn healthcare in US to be fixed so quit point the finger at democrats or republicans.

Healthcare reform is already established so we have more work to get done.
 
Foxrac said:
No difference from college history course that you have to read over hundreds of pages, if not 1,000 pages.
Click to expand...

Koko is on ignore, so I quoted you Fox.

He said the Dems didn't read what was in the bill. Apparently, neither did the Republicans. The bill was signed as a bipartisan effort, so don't go blaming one side over the other. It took republicans AND democrats to get that through Congress.
 
Oceanbreeze said:
Koko is on ignore, so I quoted you Fox.

He said the Dems didn't read what was in the bill. Apparently, neither did the Republicans. The bill was signed as a bipartisan effort, so don't go blaming one side over the other. It took republicans AND democrats to get that through Congress.
Click to expand...

Yup, I agree with you and I don't see any difference on both of parties whatever is majority in congress but they are just same old thing.
 
People, the Republicans voted "no" on the bill owing to the fact they were pushed out of any discussion or negotion with Democrats during that time period. They also asked for time but Nancy pushed that 72 hour "reading period" down to about 7 hours and pushed for votes.

The bill was never signed as a bipartisan effort. In the House it was a 219-212 vote. Nothing bipartisan about it. So, it's a big fat "NO!" that it took both Republicans and Democrats to get that bill through. It took only Democrats to do it. Please, for Pete's sake, re-read the bill's voting history!

House Democrats appear to be softening their pledge to allow the public 72 hours to review the health care reform package online before a House vote. "We will certainly give as much notice as possible, but I'm not going to say that 72 hours is going to be the litmus test," said Majority Leader Steny Hoyer on Friday.

"The House bill or Senate bill, as proposed, has been online for some two-and-a-half months, otherwise known about 75 days," Hoyer added, referring to the November and December dates each chamber passed its version of health care legislation.

But Democrats could vote as soon as next week on a series of changes to the health care package - called a reconciliation bill - and the number two House Republican criticized Hoyer directly on House floor.

"I'm a little bit taken aback that now that 72-hour rule has been completely cast aside, since nobody in the House has seen what's in the reconciliation bill," said Rep. Eric Cantor, R-Virginia.
Click to expand...
Democrats soften pledge for three-day posting of health bill – CNN Political Ticker - CNN.com Blogs

Also, the Senate NEVER had the opportunity to vote for this bill passed by the House because the House used a sleight of hand "deem and pass" rule to circumvent any Senate vote because Democrats knew it couldn't get the needed votes in the Senate chamber to pass that bill as a whole.
House may try to pass Senate health-care bill without voting on it - washingtonpost.com

Again, it pays to go back and reread the history of how it all evolved and the people who voted on it.
 
Then don't say it was a bi-partisan effort on passing that bill when it never even came close.

(not you swk)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top