 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Republican response to Health Reform
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform From: Jack the Sailor Date: 04 Apr 10 - 11:59 AM I have heard Fox News employee Juan William speak a hundred times on FOX and NPR. If he is not a conservative, he is to the right of conservative. He mostly talks about what liberals are doing wrong and by implication, how to defeat them. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform From: Sawzaw Date: 21 Apr 10 - 12:38 PM House passes health care bill Mar 21, 2010 CNN.com... The House passed the bill in a 219-212 vote on Sunday. ... Republicans [and 34 Democrats] failed to stop the Democratic health care initiative despite utilizing almost every weapon in their legislative arsenal ... The plan, according to CBO projections, will cut budget deficits by over $1 trillion in its second decade ... Huffington Post April 2, 2010 .....Democrats trumpeted the bill as reducing the deficit. They relied on last minute scoring from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) reporting that the bill will reduce the federal deficit by $138 billion over 10 years. As a result, proponents declared the bill as good for the deficit and the economy. History will prove whether this claim is true. But anyone who has even peeled back one layer of this onion knows the CBO was boxed in to giving a distorted picture. This law will be proven quickly to expand our bloated deficit -- and sadly, the media was asleep at the switch and did not report on it. The big distortion occurred by the CBO assumption that the 21 percent cut in doctors' Medicare reimbursements would stay in place...... This allowed them to claim $450 billion in Medicare savings. Yet, the same politicians who voted for the bill have also promised doctors a "fix" and that they will restore the drastic cuts in Medicare reimbursement. Democrats Successful in Stopping [their own] Big Cut in Medicare Pay for Physicians April 16, 2010 Senior citizens can take their annual sigh of relief that a Medicare pay cut for physicians has once again been avoided. The giant pay cut over 21 percent had the potential of causing many doctors to no longer care for Medicare patients. The bill stopping this year's pay cut was signed by President Barack Obama last night after Democrats won a hard fought battle with Republicans [and 34 democrats].... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 21 Apr 10 - 02:24 PM Here's a post I put on another thread that maybe fits better here: "I think the NHS is a wonderful, wonderful thing. What it did for my family and for my son, I will never forget. I went from hospital to hospital, A&Es in the middle of the night, sleeping in different wards in different places. The dedication, and the vocation and the love you get from people who work in the NHS just, I think, makes me incredibly proud of this country, so thank you for all that you've done. "I think it is special, the NHS, and we made a special exception of the NHS and said yes, there are going to have to be difficult financial decisions elsewhere, but we think that the NHS budget should grow in real terms, i.e., more than inflation, every year under a Conservative government. My vision is that we improve it, we expand it, we develop it, we make sure that it's got more choice and more control for the patient." Quote comes from the leader of the British Conservative Party, speaking in the course of the first TV debate with his rivals to be elected to become Prime Minister. That's the kind of thing that makes it so hard for non-Americans to begin to understand where the fanatical hatred for advocates of health reform in the USA comes from. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform From: Greg F. Date: 21 Apr 10 - 07:14 PM Kevin, don't bother trying to change their minds with facts..... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform From: Bobert Date: 21 Apr 10 - 07:34 PM Only time will tell about any net savings from the health "insurance" reform... One thing that never quite got talked about is that the uninsured do go to hospit6als when they are very sick or are badly injured and the hospital ends up eating the cost of these folks care which gets passed on to everyone else in the form of cost... Now if we insure 35,000,000 people then the hospitals won't have to absorb those losses and should be able to, at the very least, keep cost increases closer to inflation rates... But that is in theory... But the second aspect is that these same 35,000,000 people will get care before stuff gets so out of hand that the care becomes very expensive... This, in theory, should help control overall cost of health care... We'll just have to see... One thing is for sure and that is that the 17% of GNP that we are spoending on health care alone will cripple our economy... I was fir a single payer system... I think it has the greatest chance of holding down future costs but that politically wasn't possible... I think we have moved forward but I aslo think that we have not had the courage to really put a good fix in and that we will have to revisit this problem again very soon... Like within the next 7 to 10 years... Maybe then the politic will be better and we will put together a system that works... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform From: Sawzaw Date: 21 Apr 10 - 10:42 PM Why does it cost $940 Billion to save money? What is in the health care bill that lowers the cost of medical care, health insurance or medecine? To make it more palatable they built in a 21% medicare pay cut for doctors. They hooted about how they won the fight against the Republicans and do not mention the Democrats they battled with. Then they restore the 21% cut in another bill that has nothing to do with healths care and hoot about how they beat the evil Republicans again. The bill is the product of health care, insurance and medical industry and drug company lobbyists, after we were told lobbyists were not going to have any influence any more. No back room dealing. Every thing out in the open, on Cspan even. Familiar Players in Health Bill Lobbying Firms Are Enlisting Ex-Lawmakers, Aides Washington Post The nation's largest insurers, hospitals and medical groups have hired more than 350 former government staff members and retired members of Congress in hopes of influencing their old bosses and colleagues, according to an analysis of lobbying disclosures and other records. The tactic is so widespread that three of every four major health-care firms have at least one former insider on their lobbying payrolls, according to The Washington Post's analysis. ...The hirings are part of a record-breaking influence campaign by the health-care industry, which is spending more than $1.4 million a day on lobbying in the current fight, according to disclosure records. And even in a city where lobbying is a part of life, the scale of the effort has drawn attention. For example, the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) doubled its spending to nearly $7 million in the first quarter of 2009, followed by Pfizer, with more than $6 million. The push has reunited many who worked together in government on health-care reform, but are now employed as advocates for pharmaceutical and insurance companies.... ...A June 10 meeting between aides to Baucus, chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, and health-care lobbyists included two former Baucus chiefs of staff: David Castagnetti, whose clients include PhRMA and America's Health Insurance Plans, and Jeffrey A. Forbes, who represents PhRMA, Amgen, Genentech, Merck and others. Castagnetti did not return a telephone call; Forbes declined to comment. Also inside the closed committee hearing room that day was Richard Tarplin, a veteran of both the Department of Health and Human Services and the Senate, where he worked for Christopher J. Dodd (D-Conn.), one of the leaders in fashioning reform legislation this year. Tarplin now represents the American Medical Association as head of his own lobbying firm, Tarplin Strategies.... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform From: Maryrrf Date: 22 Apr 10 - 10:08 PM Here's an example of why health care reform was needed, and what ended up being passed was far too watered down. This kind of thing is unconscionable and wrong, but it has been going on for a long time. People who pay their premiums, get diagnosed with an illness, and suddenly the policy is cancelled. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform From: mousethief Date: 23 Apr 10 - 01:56 AM Operating a for-profit business and ethically delivering health care or health care financing (insurance) are mutually exclusive. Discuss. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform From: Sawzaw Date: 23 Apr 10 - 09:46 AM HHS Report says health care bill will cover more, cost more AP 4/23/10 WASHINGTON -President Barack Obama's health care overhaul law is getting a mixed verdict in the first comprehensive look by neutral experts: More Americans will be covered, but costs are also going up. Economic experts at the Health and Human Services Department concluded in a report issued Thursday that the health care remake will achieve Obama's aim of expanding health insurance, adding 34 million to the coverage rolls. But the analysis also found that the law falls short of the president's twin goal of controlling runaway costs, raising projected spending by about 1 percent over 10 years. That increase could get bigger, since Medicare cuts in the law may be unrealistic and unsustainable, the report warned. It's a worrisome assessment for Democrats. In particular, concerns about Medicare could become a major political liability in the midterm elections. The report projected that Medicare cuts could drive about 15 percent of hospitals and other institutional providers into the red, "possibly jeopardizing access" to care for seniors. The report from Medicare's Office of the Actuary carried a disclaimer saying it does not represent the official position of the Obama administration. White House officials have repeatedly complained that such analyses have been too pessimistic and lowball the law's potential to achieve savings. The report acknowledged that some of the cost-control measures in the bill, Medicare cuts, a tax on high-cost insurance and a commission to seek ongoing Medicare savings, could help reduce the rate of cost increases beyond 2020. But it held out little hope for progress in the first decade. "During 2010-2019, however, these effects would be outweighed by the increased costs associated with the expansions of health insurance coverage," wrote Richard S. Foster, Medicare's chief actuary. "Also, the longer-term viability of the Medicare ... reductions is doubtful." Foster's office is responsible for long-range costs estimates............. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform From: Sawzaw Date: 12 May 10 - 11:05 PM Health Overhaul Law Potentially Costs $115B More ...Congressional estimators also said they simply had not had enough time to run the numbers. Costs could go higher, because the legislation authorizes several programs without setting specific funding levels. The health care law provides coverage to some more than 30 million now uninsured, offering tax credits to help purchase health insurance through new competitive markets that open for business in 2014. When Congress passed the bill in March, the CBO estimated the coverage expansion would cost $938 billion over 10 years, while reducing the federal deficit by $143 billion.... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 13 May 10 - 08:37 AM Maybe there's a distinction between a for profit business which has the priority of maximising profit, and one where the idea is just to avoid making a loss. The former is essentially a form of theft. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform From: Bobert Date: 13 May 10 - 09:30 AM Well, here we go again with that "r" word... Seems that the conservatives here and elsewhere think that "regulation" is the enemy... Horrors!!! If we regulate anything then the next thing ya' know s that we'll end up as a socialist country!!! That is their mindset... The problem is that we tyried 3 decades of deregulation and letting marrkets police themselves and in the words of Dr. Phil, "How's it workin' for ya???" What is has produced is a massive redistribution of wealth from the working classd to the wealthy and corpoartions running rougshod over not only the working class but over the environment as well... Yes, it has been a very good 30 year run for the wealthy but it hasn't served our country very well when it is compared to other nations in qulaity of life issues, like life expectancy, employement, standard of living, infant mortality, edfucation, etcv. etc... Face it, the US is a declining nation and the letting industry, and monopolies write their own rules is at the heart of what ails it... Yes, the health care industry needs some over due regs... Like pricing of procedures... They are way off the scale... I just had a basil cell removed from my face... The outpatient procedure lasted less than 5 minutes... The bill was $2300!!! My wife had a brace made for her thumb base arthritis... Total time to make it was less than a half an hour... The bill was $1700!!! These are crazy charges... I mean, I understand the idea of profits but this is theft!!! Time to rethink deregulatioon that allows the hospitals to decide just how much ***they*** think they are entitled to for performing minor procedures... Or even major ones... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform From: Sawzaw Date: 10 Oct 10 - 03:48 PM according to the health care reform bill: "If a landscaper wants to buy a new lawnmower, or a restaurant needs a new ice-maker, they have to report that to the feds. If you're a mom-and-pop grocery store, and you buy $1,000 worth of merchandise from each of 15 different vendors, that's 15 different forms you have to file." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform From: GUEST,Bobert, on the road... Date: 10 Oct 10 - 09:05 PM Seein' as yer into that source stuff, Sawz... How about posting the lawn mower reg in it's entirety so that it can be taken in context... As fir purchasing??? If you have been in business for any period of time you realize that you do have to keep records of expenses... Doesn't matter how little the expense or how many vendors are involved... But no forms are required that need to be filed with any government agency... That is pure bullshit!!! I mean, like another right wing lie... Yes, when a company sets up an account with a vendor the vendor is going to require that you are authorized to purchase wholesale in order to not have a duplication of collecting sales tax... Hey, that is to the retailers advantage... Sales tax is intended to be paid by the end user... Not middle men... Big deal... The forms are filled out with tax-exempt numbers... Been like that going back decades... Who cares??? To read that forms need to be filed is bullshit??? They need to be filed with the vendors... Not the government... The only time the government gets involved is in the case on an audit when someone is trying evade paying taxes as an end user... But it sho nuff sounds scarey... Just ain't exactly true if one is trying to imply that these forms need to be filed with the mean ol' government... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform From: dick greenhaus Date: 10 Oct 10 - 09:42 PM And if they had simply made Medicare available for everybody, think of how much simpler it all could be. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform From: Sawzaw Date: 11 Oct 10 - 01:21 AM Glad you asked Bobert. Politifact.com Before you try to discredit the information by attacking the site, PolitiFact Ohio is a partnership of The Cleveland Plain Dealer and PolitiFact.com, a Pulitzer Prize-winning Web site of the St. Petersburg Times, to help you find the truth in politics. The St. Petersburg Times is a United States newspaper. It is one of two major publications serving the Tampa Bay Area, the other being The Tampa Tribune, which the Times tops in both circulation and readership. Based in St. Petersburg, Florida, the Times has won eight Pulitzers since 1964, and in 2009, won two in a single year for the first time in the paper's history. It is published by the Times Publishing Company, which is owned by The Poynter Institute for Media Studies, a nonprofit journalism school directly adjacent to the University of South Florida campus in St. Petersburg. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform From: Greg F. Date: 11 Oct 10 - 09:27 AM Relax, Sawz- From the same source you quoted: "This obviously was something that needed to be better thought out," said Democrat Dennis Kucinich, in a telephone interview. "It has to be fixed, and it will be fixed, because it's not tolerable." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform From: DougR Date: 11 Oct 10 - 07:48 PM Gee, I wonder why Democrat candidates are NOT including their support for Obama Care in their efforts to get re-elected on November 2? Senator Finegold of Wisconsin appears to be the only one who is claiming credit for voting for it. It's a puzzelment, isn't it? DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform From: Bobert Date: 11 Oct 10 - 09:23 PM Lots are, Dougie... Seems the Dems have been afraid (as per usual) of standing up to the loudmouth bullies... But many are now touting health care reform as an accomplishment in spite of the hundred of millions of negative ads run by the health insurance companies over the last couple years.. Kinda hard to go up against that much negative advertising... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform From: Sawzaw Date: 11 Oct 10 - 10:01 PM Looks to me like the loudmouth bullies rammed a new regulation that has nothing to do with health care down the throat of the 70% of the American people that disagreed with parts of it. Good thing we have Kucinich's guarantee that it will go away. Good thing we have Bobert to call everybody that disagrees a loudmouth bully. A little louder Bobert, we can't all hear you. You say your premiums have gone down? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform From: Sawzaw Date: 12 Oct 10 - 12:06 AM "I've said no to more government spending, no to President Obama's big health care plan and no to Wall Street bailouts." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform From: Bobert Date: 12 Oct 10 - 08:04 AM No, Sawz... The only folks I call "loudmouth bullies" are the, ahhhhhh, "loudmouth bullies".... BTW, the Wall Street bailout was on yer guy... Not Obama.... So you can take that lie and shove it... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform From: Sawzaw Date: 12 Oct 10 - 01:02 PM A: Obama voted for TARP. B: A Democratic majority passed it. C: Obama voted for it as a Senator supported it as President. Obama: "In the midst of a really bad recession and the possibility of financial meltdown, preventing the collapse of our banks and with it the access to lending and credit and preventing hundreds of thousands of job losses that would have followed the collapse of two of our major automakers that was the right thing to do. It was the right thing to do; it was the necessary thing to do. It might have not been popular, and I sure didn't like doing it, but it was the right thing to do. And as bad as the damage has been in this recession, without those actions the damage could have been far more extensive. A transcript of his speech at Chesapeake Machine Co. It passed the Senate 74-25 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform From: pdq Date: 12 Oct 10 - 01:37 PM Yes, TARP was passed while George W. Bush was president and he signed it. What is never mentioned by our wonderful folks in the new media is that Bush wanted a system of loans, not gifts. Bank of American and many other recipiants of TARP money paid it back completely plus interest. B of A alone gave back over $40 billion. What did Obama do with the returned money? He gave it away to groups he liked. Obama's actions were not authorised by the bill and amount to theft of money from the American taxpayers. Again, where is the news media? At the country club golfing and drinking with their buddy, Obama. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform From: Don Firth Date: 12 Oct 10 - 02:41 PM An excerpt—part of the Foreword of the very informative (and often shocking) book, The Healing of America : A Global Quest for Better, Cheaper, and Fairer Health Care by T. R. Reid, Penguin Press, copyright T. R. Reid 2009. I think that makes the case better than anything I can say. As T. R. Reid says, it's a moral issue. I must say that there are times when I am not particularly proud to be an American. Blurb on the back cover of the book: "When the World Health Organization rated the national health care systems of 191 countries in terms of 'fairness,' the United States ranked fifty-fourth -- slightly ahead of Chad and Rwanda but just behind Bangladesh and the Maldives. How is it that all the other industrialized democracies provide health care for everyone at a reasonable cost, something the United Stateshas never managed to do?" Reid travels to an number of countries around the world to find out how they manage their health care systems and clearly reports the good points of each one he investigated, along with their "warts." Clear, concise, and very much to the point. Highly recommended if you wish to know what you're talking about when you discuss our health care system -- or lack thereof. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform From: Bobert Date: 12 Oct 10 - 08:45 PM Who cares if Obama voted fir TARP??? Bottom line is that the Repub PR machine is tryin' to put the entire bailout on Obama's back... That is a shameful BIGASS LIE.... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform From: Sawzaw Date: 13 Oct 10 - 01:42 AM "Wall Street bailout was on yer guy... Not Obama" Obama voted for it. he supported it and he said it was the right thing to do. The only loudmouth bullies I hear go around yelling "BIGASS LIE" and trying to shout down any facts that are presented. I haven't heard anybody trying to blame the bailout on Obama. But the money loaned to the banks, not given to the banks, was supposed to be returned to the treasury to reduce the national debt. However Obama saw fit to use it for things like cash for clunkers which is a give away to help the unions that voted for him and not a loan to be repaid with interest. Therefore that part of the debt could be blamed on the former administration. "The law says that money coming back from TARP beneficiaries "shall be paid into the general fund of the Treasury for reduction of the public debt." Rep. Brad Sherman (D-Calif.) was the first to cry foul." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform From: Bobert Date: 13 Oct 10 - 07:53 AM Well, of course you don't hear the implied message from Boss Hog's PR machine, Sawz, because you are are part of the brainwashed... To the unbrainwashed, the message comes thru loud and clear... "We want our country back... We want government off our backs... We don't want no stinkin' Obamacare and government bailouts..." The implication to the "thinking world" is that Obama brought us TARP all by his own little self... You have a major case of denial but, hey, so do the rest of ya'll Tea Baggers... Buy in yer case I'd like to think it's just denial rather than, like yer buddies, eat up stupid... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform From: Sawzaw Date: 14 Oct 10 - 12:20 AM No I haven't heard anything from Boss Hogg since he went off the air. His full name was J. D. Hogg, Jefferson Davis Hogg, obviously a Democrat, known for their PR machines. "Obamacare and government bailouts" that is clearly two things there, one being healthcare the the other being the bank bailout. Only the non thinking world would beleive that it would mean Obama was solely responsible. If it said Obama bailouts you would be correct. Otherwise your BIGASS LIE assertion is a loud, bullying tactic. Of course you could ask others. We have to agree with Bobert so he will quit yelling BIGASS LIE. but Obama did claim a bailout as his: "It might have not been popular, and I sure didn't like doing it, but it was the right thing to do." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform From: Stringsinger Date: 14 Oct 10 - 10:26 AM Greed! Pure and simple. Republican update: "Let 'em eat cake." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform From: Bobert Date: 14 Oct 10 - 08:45 PM You couldn't get a job on Boss Hog's PR firm, Sawz... They all know that by putting Obamacare (a lie) in the same sentence with Bank bailout that most of the morons that they are aiming that toward will think that Obma was president for the bank bailout... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform From: Bobert Date: 15 Oct 10 - 07:09 AM Well, looks as if the government is in the process of putting together an agency that will start explaining the ins and outs of the new health reform bill... BTW, I fully understand that the angry Repubs are running on repealing this bill but the reality is that unless they get 66 votes in the new Senate, which is very unlikely under any scenerio, that all they are doing is wasting tax payer money with their grandstanding... (Normal, Bobert... Wasting tax payers money and grandstanding is all they have done for 2 years now... Why would you expect them to change???) Good point... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform From: Sawzaw Date: 15 Oct 10 - 09:57 AM Yay some more jobs have been saved or created. And Obama has a new grandstand for him to stand on. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform From: Sawzaw Date: 15 Oct 10 - 10:31 AM "With Congress cutting $500 billion from Medicare to pay for their big government health care bill, it's good to know Representative Jim Marshall voted 'no,' telling Washington he's not going to stand for government as the solution." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform From: Sawzaw Date: 16 Oct 10 - 12:50 PM "You couldn't get a job on Boss Hog's PR firm" Why would I want to work for a Democrat Bobert? They can't see that the word and is a separator. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform From: kendall Date: 16 Oct 10 - 03:09 PM I've said it before and I repeat. Tell me one thing the republican party ever did for the BENEFIT of the working man. Let it equal, Social security Minimum wage the 40 hour week the middle class child labor laws workplace safety laws. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform From: kendall Date: 16 Oct 10 - 03:14 PM And a democrat signed into law the right of women to vote. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform From: kendall Date: 17 Oct 10 - 12:45 PM I'm waiting Doug, BB, Jed... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform From: Don Firth Date: 17 Oct 10 - 02:01 PM Just as a matter of amusement, I notice that up until now, Sawz has posted 2,172 times, stating almost exactly two years ago, and NOT ONCE has he posted to a music thread above the line. Strictly here to hawk arch-conservative politics to the hippy folk singers, right, Sawz? Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform From: Sawzaw Date: 17 Oct 10 - 02:56 PM Ever heard of the Emancipation Proclamation? Ever heard of the 14th amendment? Civil Rights Act of 1866? Is that what you are? A hippy folk singer? Are you only interested in listening to people who agree with you or common sense? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform From: Sawzaw Date: 17 Oct 10 - 04:59 PM This is dedicaited to Don: Twang On top of old smokey All covered with snow I found a Hippy Sanger Who didn't want to know Anybody's opinion Other than his own Because he was obviously A left wing drone Twang |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform From: kendall Date: 17 Oct 10 - 08:47 PM Abe Lincoln did not free the slaves, the 13th amendment did. I'm talking about all working men, black, white yellow. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform From: Bobert Date: 17 Oct 10 - 10:18 PM Well, at least since the FDR, it has been the Dems who have been responsible for any bit of progress that the working class has seen... And it seems that every time the Dems do something big it really pisses of the rich and they throw everything and thr kitchen sink at the Gems for having moved the country forward... BTW, the US still lags way behind every industrialized nation in life expectancy... Hmmmmm??? The rich extract 17% of our GNP every year, double all the other countires were people are heathier and live longer... Then they take those profits and invest them overseas that take our jobs... I'll tell ya'll what... Given the fact that the Repubs are so in far in bed with the rich that I find it incredulous that Redneck Nation has been completely duped into voting for these guys... This is like a sick and dieing man who has a dozen leeches allready suckin' the life out of him asking for just one more??? It is insanity... But this is what happens when the media is turned into a 24/7 propaganda machine... I know that folks are tired of hearing this but unless we find a way to stop the brainwashing of our countrymen and take the propaganda out and replace it with facts then Tom Jefferson's little experiement's days are numbered... I mean, we are on the verge of being ruled by the stupid... This does not bode well for the US... We already are scarin' off the brightest and best scientists and reaserchers... I mean, how many people with IQs above 100 really are considering coming to a nation where loonies who belive in the Rapture and creationism get to call the shots??? Beam me up, Scotty... The stupid think that their stupid frioends need to run the show... B~ BTW...Hope that if Sawz ever needs a serious heart operation that he calls on Bubba to do it... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform From: Sawzaw Date: 18 Oct 10 - 02:32 PM "Abe Lincoln did not free the slaves, the 13th amendment did." Abraham Lincoln (February 12, 1809 – April 15, 1865) served as the 16th President of the United States from March 1861 until his assassination [by a Democrat] in April 1865. He successfully led the country through its greatest internal crisis, the American Civil War, preserving the Union, ending slavery, and rededicating the nation to nationalism, equal rights, liberty, and democracy. President Lincoln was concerned that the Emancipation Proclamation, which outlawed slavery in ten Confederate states still in rebellion in 1863, would be seen as a temporary war measure, since it was based on his war powers and did not abolish slavery in the border states. A bill to support an amendment to abolish slavery throughout the entire United States was introduced by Representative James Mitchell Ashley (Republican, Ohio). This was soon followed by a similar proposal made by Representative James F. Wilson (Republican, Iowa). The 14th Amendment to the Constitution was ratified on July 9, 1868, and granted citizenship to all persons born or naturalized in the United States, which included former slaves recently freed. In addition, it forbids states from denying any person "life, liberty or property, without due process of law" or to "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." By directly mentioning the role of the states, the 14th Amendment greatly expanded the protection of civil rights to all Americans and is cited in more litigation than any other amendment. Please keep informed Kendall |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform From: Jack the Sailor Date: 18 Oct 10 - 04:26 PM >>>Abraham Lincoln (February 12, 1809 – April 15, 1865) served as the 16th President of the United States from March 1861 until his assassination [by a Democrat] in April 1865. I was going to read your post until I got to this. >>>[by a Democrat] Then I realized that you were incapable of or unwilling to engage in rational discussion. If you think that Booth was acting as an agent of the Democratic Party, I pity you. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform From: Bobert Date: 18 Oct 10 - 04:33 PM Obama put Booth up to it, Jack... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform From: kendall Date: 18 Oct 10 - 08:23 PM I am informed sir. So I was one number off on the 14th amendment. Abe Lincoln did not free the slaves, and the republican party has done squat for the working man. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform From: kendall Date: 18 Oct 10 - 08:26 PM Prove other wise.and quit nit picking. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform From: Sawzaw Date: 19 Oct 10 - 12:21 AM Funny that Democrats want to harken to the policies of Thomas Jefferson, a slave owner who diddled one of his slaves and blame racial injustice on Republicans. The slave owners were Democrats who even went to war to preserve slavery. They lost and then they fought civil rights tooth and nail, up until the second that they realized it was inevatable and then they flip flopped. I was actually for slavery before I was against it. They realized they needed the black vote to stay in power. As Lyndon Johnson said "I'll have them Ni**ers" voting Democratic for the next 200 years". That's not selfish is it? If anybody wants to dispute this let them give an example of a civil rights bill that the majority of Republicans voted against. Let any accomplishment of the Democrats equal the elimination of slavery by the Republicans. Let any abomination equal the assanation of Abe Linco;n by a Democrat or the Jim Crow laws created and upheld by Democtrats and fought buy Republicans. The Democrats still hold black people in their power by telling them they can't get ahead because white people won't let them. All the while Republicans have been telling them you are equal human beings and you can get ahead. < a href="http://www.pbs.org/wnet/jimcrow/stories_org_democratic.html">PBS: The Democratic Party was formed in 1792, when supporters of Thomas Jefferson began using the name Republicans, or Jeffersonian Republicans, to emphasize its anti-aristocratic policies. It adopted its present name during the Presidency of Andrew Jackson in the 1830s. In the 1840s and '50s, the party was in conflict over extending slavery to the Western territories. Southern Democrats insisted on protecting slavery in all the territories while many Northern Democrats resisted. The party split over the slavery issue in 1860 at its Presidential convention in Charleston, South Carolina. Northern Democrats nominated Stephen Douglas as their candidate, and Southern Democrats adopted a pro-slavery platform and nominated John C. Breckinridge in an election campaign that would be won by Abraham Lincoln and the newly formed Republican Party. After the Civil War, most white Southerners opposed Radical Reconstruction and the Republican Party's support of black civil and political rights. The Democratic Party identified itself as the "white man's party" and demonized the Republican Party as being "Negro dominated," even though whites were in control. Determined to re-capture the South, Southern Democrats "redeemed" state after state -- sometimes peacefully, other times by fraud and violence. By 1877, when Reconstruction was officially over, the Democratic Party controlled every Southern state. The South remained a one-party region until the Civil Rights movement began in the 1960s. Northern Democrats, most of whom had prejudicial attitudes towards blacks, offered no challenge to the discriminatory policies of the Southern Democrats. Then and Now: After the Civil War, the Democratic Party in the South was the party of white supremacy. Now, African Americans form the party's most loyal base of support. One of the consequences of the Democratic victories in the South was that many Southern Congressmen and Senators were almost automatically re-elected every election. Due to the importance of seniority in the U.S. Congress, Southerners were able to control most of the committees in both houses of Congress and kill any civil rights legislation. Even though Franklin Delano Roosevelt was a Democrat, and a relatively liberal president during the 1930s and '40s, he rarely challenged the powerfully entrenched Southern bloc. When the House passed a federal anti-lynching bill several times in the 1930s, Southern senators filibustered it to death. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform From: Sawzaw Date: 19 Oct 10 - 12:35 AM PBS: Early in the Civil War, President Abraham Lincoln was hard pressed by the Radical Republicans -- the party's abolitionist wing -- to abolish slavery by proclamation. Lincoln was opposed. He said that his main concern was preserving the union and he subordinated his feelings about slavery to that goal: "My paramount object is to save the Union, and not either to save or destroy slavery." Moreover, he knew that if he decreed emancipation at the beginning of the war, Missouri, Kentucky, and probably Maryland, all of which technically remained on the Union side, would have joined the South. As the war gloomily dragged on in 1862, and things looked bleak for the Union cause, Lincoln realized that he would have to end slavery. He was willing to issue an Emancipation Proclamation but he felt that the people of the North were not yet ready for it. Lincoln called the proclamation "the central act of my administration, and the greatest event of the 19th century." Lincoln He needed a military victory. In September of 1862, he barely got one. Five days after the Confederate Army's northward march was stopped at the battle of Antietam on September 17, 1862, Lincoln issued a preliminary proclamation. The key paragraph of the Proclamation read: "That on the 1st day of January, A.D. 1863, all persons held as slaves within any State or designated part of a State the people whereof shall then be in rebellion against the United States shall be then, thenceforward, and forever free; and the executive government of the United States, including the military and naval authority thereof, will recognize and maintain the freedom of such persons and will do no act or acts to repress such persons, or any of them, in any efforts they may make for their actual freedom." Lincoln gave the Confederate states until the end of the year to return to the Union if they wanted to maintain slavery. They ignored him. On January 1, 1863, Lincoln issued the final proclamation and slavery was officially abolished, affecting about three million enslaved blacks. The proclamation did not apply to the border states, which were not in rebellion against the Union, and it could not be enforced in the regions held by Confederate troops. Critics charged that the Proclamation ended slavery in areas where it did not exist and was unable to end slavery in areas where it existed. But the Proclamation proved effective as Northern armies penetrated deeper into the South, freeing those who had been enslaved. Lincoln called the proclamation "the central act of my administration, and the greatest event of the 19th century." Later, the Thirteenth Amendment incorporated the abolition of slavery into the U.S. Constitution. |
