Post #4,599
8/11/01 12:46:17 AM
|
I did...your decoder ring is set to the wrong frequency.
The republicans offer programs to help the poor. The democrats reject these plans. They then call the Republicans uncaring bastards with no regard for the poor.
The democrats offered UHC. The republicans rejected this plan. They did NOT...however call Clinton an uncaring bastard with no regard for the uninsured.
Any clearer and I'd have to stamp it on your forehead.
Um...er...well...
I have no choice!
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #4,625
8/11/01 12:40:19 PM
|
Message decoded.
Please confirm.
"The democrats offered UHC. The republicans rejected this plan. They did NOT...however call Clinton an uncaring bastard with no regard for the uninsured."
Clinton seeks to help uninsured.
Republicans seek to stop such help for the uninsured.
Republicans do NOT say Clinton has NO regard for uninsured.
------------Is that what you're trying to say?-------------------
The republicans offer programs to help the poor.
The democrats reject these plans.
They then call the Republicans uncaring bastards with no regard for the poor.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Why, those nasty Democrats. Have they no shame? Will they stoop to anything?
Would it be possible for you to name one of these programs that the Democrats have rejected and which they vilified the Republicans about?
Not that I would ever doubt your word.
|
Post #4,657
8/11/01 6:15:44 PM
|
Unfair..
The Republicans *are* compassionate, and are simply misunderstood. Their perennial inaction is perfectly reasonable. See -
Since words can be so easily misinterpreted - especially by the Liberal Press (all four.. three? remaining Press Corporations, that is) -
Naturally the Republicans do not wish to commit their compassionate feelings for the poor, to actual proposed legislation with words and clauses and ummm.. er funding.. and such small details.
(Call this a conservative prescience: someone would be *sure* to twist their words! So the best thing is not to propose anything in writing. Safer.. and we know how important safety is, when you are tryin to conserve everything. As much as you can get, 'to conserve', anyway.)
See? they really *mean* well, and it's mean of you - to put words in their clamped-shut mouths. Prove! they don't mean well. Show me in their detailed proposa--
Uh.. Never mind.
Ashton Congressional Record enough words to reassemble any way ya want - as is most often done
|
Post #4,660
8/11/01 6:21:27 PM
|
look up
Um...er...well...
I have no choice!
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #4,665
8/11/01 7:13:19 PM
|
I see....
my ceiling and a spider web w/spider and my light.
Hmmm, so, you're saying that the spider is a metaphor for Republican compassion?
Not that I'd ever doubt your word.
|
Post #4,675
8/11/01 9:00:58 PM
|
block grants for welfare to the communities
Gingrich proposed and Clinton no noed. Gotta have that federal bj^H^Hoversight. thanx, bill
Our bureaucracy and our laws have turned the world into a clean, safe work camp. We are raising a nation of slaves. Chuck Palahniuk
|
Post #4,873
8/13/01 1:15:50 PM
|
Wow, and you say that's not a straw man
Clinton seeks to help uninsured.
Republicans seek to stop such help for the uninsured.
By "help uninsured" do you mean the Universal Health Care part of the Clinton Health Plan that went to Congress? Because there were quite a few other things covered in that package. And even that part wasn't universally supported. There are still arguments raging over the effectivenss of the Canadian style of socialized medicine, so I don't think nationalized health care is a clear winner.
But even if a particular congressperson supported the particular form of Universal Health Care codified in the Clinton Health Plan, there could still be critical flaws in other parts of it that would cause the congressperson to vote against the package.
I guess I'd be tilting at windmills to even bring up the concept of a poison pill.
This is my sig. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
|
Post #4,881
8/13/01 2:17:24 PM
|
Re: Wow, and you say that's not a straw man
There are still arguments raging over the effectivenss of the Canadian style of socialized medicine[...] Boy, I'll say! One such aspect of this debate is the "effectiveness" of having Canadians paying something like 1/8th of the cost for a given prescription medication as Merkins do. I suppose that debate would be between the large 3 or so multinational pharmaceutical producers, and ...consumers?
jb4
(Resistance is not futile...)
|
Post #4,891
8/13/01 3:21:32 PM
|
No, it'd be ...
From the people who have to wait until some bureaucrat decides you're "sick enough" for the procedure. Unless you're wealthy enough to just come to the U.S. and pay to have it done. But then socialized medicine would seem to be good enough only for those who can't afford to make their own decisions, which seems pretty much like non-socialized medicine anyway.
This is my sig. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
|