House Sustains President’s Veto on Child Health
The headline of the New York Times article above is unbelievably slanted. Nevermind that federal government has no business in the health care business and the veto merely put some limits on the whole bad idea.
How about a headline slanted the other way.
The headline of the New York Times article above is unbelievably slanted. Nevermind that federal government has no business in the health care business and the veto merely put some limits on the whole bad idea.
How about a headline slanted the other way.
House Sustains Bush's Defense of the Constitution
How about President shows he hates children?? That's the more accurate headline.
ReplyDeleteThe President hates children? You know this for a fact? If Ann Coulter said anything like that about a Democrat, you'd be all over it.
ReplyDeleteHillary Clinton and Barack Obama voted in favor of the "Dream Act". This would allow illegal immigrants more privileges than Americans. They would be allowed to go to college and pay in-state tuition, no matter which state the college is in. Americans don't get this privilege.
ReplyDeleteShould I assume by your own logic Erik, that Clinton and Obama hate Americans?
Again look at the action and you tell me.
ReplyDeleteOn a positive note theme night tomorrow night at Corbin if you can make it it's impersonation night. I know you don't do impressions you are a Dr. (airplane reference) I would love for you to be there.
And for the record I will disagree with Obama and Clinton with the Dream Act since I am against illegal immigration as my record shows.
The difference is that bill helps (SCHIP) poor children. Pres has no reason to veto that except to show that he hates children. I guess they don't vote so why should he care.
ReplyDeleteNo Erik, you are wrong on both sides of the account.
ReplyDeleteIn what way is the "Dream Act" is of any benefit, whatsoever to the American people? I know you don't agree with it but what possible motivation do these people have to even dream up such a ludicrous idea? The only one I can think of is that they are attempting to recruit more members to the Democratic party. That is strictly a self-serving interest. If you know of any better reason, I'd like to hear it.
On the SCHIP thing, conservatives like me are against such things, not because we hate children, but because it opens up a Pandora's box. SCHIP is for poor children. Define poor. Define children. "Sorry folks, you made $10 too much last year so your children are out of luck." Sorry folks, your child just turned 14 so no more free ride." These programs invariably turn into black holes where more and more money gets poured into it and the more and more abused it becomes. Politicians will scream "We need more funding". We'll fund it more and it will just keep getting worse.
If Bush had any courage, he would have pushed to have this sort of program completely obliterated instead of merely limiting its funding.
You don't have to agree with me, Erik but just concluding that "[Bush] hates children" because of the veto is unbelievably short-sighted on your part.
IF Bush gave a damn about children he would have signed this logical bill. It shows he doesn't just like he didn't care about the people of New Orleans just like he doesn't care about avenging 9/11 and capturing Bin Laden.
ReplyDeleteAs usual your blind support for Bush clouds your thinking. But on a positive note if you can make the next theme at Corbin it's November 16th and Southern Rock night.
ReplyDeleteI guess this is where I find the nearest wall to bang my head against.
ReplyDeleteErik: Bush hates children.
Robert: Why do you say that? (Compares SCHIP to Dream act)
Erik: Bush hates children.
Robert: (Questions motivation for Dream Act and provides logical reasoning for shooting down SCHIP, not to mention criticizing Bush for not doing enough)
Erik: Bush hates children and by the way, you support Bush blindly.
Erik, if you're going to comment on what I say, please have the courtesy to read every word I write instead of picking and choosing.
I respond to you you choose to ignore what I'm saying. You asked how I can say that and I responded by looking at the action taken. Just like other failures of his administration. Contrary to you I look at facts and don't make things up like you do here and on global warming. If nothing else you are the one who refuses to respond to me but you are a typical right-winger so I expect no less.
ReplyDeleteAh, now you're basically just spitting my arguments back at me. So let's see, you're rubber and I'm glue...
ReplyDeleteI wouldn't call you a typical left-winger. You are acting the way a typical person does when he/she has no argument.