Indefensible.

[Dangerous_K]

Has a politician from Texas ever done a decent job on a national stage?

Jeez, hard to imagine what angle you're coming from.

Seems to me if you think W is doing a bad job, then you'd be a big fan of LBJ – free spender, full of bull****, set us up nicely for surrender in an unpopular war.

Wow, 3-for-3. Looks like LBJ and W have quite a bit in common. Of course, I don't think LBJ ever uttered the phrase BRING 'EM ON in reference to the VC guerrillas.

 

[pallister]

Too bad the rest of you couldn't be like HB and have words fail you.

BTW, given that being re-elected is more important than any bill or issue, I'm guessing the inevitable "Republicans hate children and want them to die" ads will lead to an eventual override of the veto.

 

[Fenian_Bastard]

Too bad the rest of you couldn't be like HB and have words fail you.

BTW, given that being re-elected is more important than any bill or issue, I'm guessing the inevitable "Republicans hate children and want them to die" ads will lead to an eventual override of the veto.

Yes, because opposition to this veto must needs be unprincipled.
Yeesh.

 

[slappy4428]

Too bad the rest of you couldn't be like HB and have words fail you.

BTW, given that being re-elected is more important than any bill or issue, I'm guessing the inevitable "Republicans hate children and want them to die" ads will lead to an eventual override of the veto.

OK, I'm listening. Defend the veto.

 

[Fenian_Bastard]

He doesn't have to.
"They all suck" is the operative philosophy.

 

[pallister]

I'm not trying to defend the veto, just pointing out what I think will happen. From here on out, the debate will not be about the issue or this particular bill; it will be focused on trying to make those who voted against the bill look as bad as possible. Simple Big-Time Politics 101. I tend to agree with Hatch, I believe it was, who said Bush got some bad advice. Any adviser who didn't see this "Bush hates children" mantra coming is a fool. I can understand concens about not wanting to take a step in the direction of nationalized health care, but this was the wrong spot to choose for fighting that battle.

And Fenian, you are the last person to imply that someone blindly takes one side over the other. You're partisan hackery is unmatched.

 

[IU90]

Bush/GOP: War, good; affordable health care for little children so mommys and daddys don't go bankrupt, bad.

Exactly. When it comes so many billions flushed down the toilet on outrageous no-bid contracts to Halliburton, Blackwater and their Ilk to clean toilets in Iraq, or on countless pork earmarks like a Republican congressman's bridge to nowhere in Alaska, this Admin says no problem, SPEND AWAY. But, when it comes to providing healthcare for children, suddenly its time to tighten the belt and be more fiscally conscious.

 

[Flying Headbutt]

Pal, honestly, after the way Republicans frame debates over issues, it should be expected and there shouldn't be a peep. Questioning patriotism, saying that Dems want people to get more abortions, things like that, it has a way of biting you in the ass when you vote against a bill to insure poor children through the private sector, in a program which everyone agreed had been working well.

 

[zeke12]

Hundreds of billions forked over on no-bid contracts for work no one does: Spending for freedom.

35 billion over five years to provide health care to children of parents who make too much to qualify for Medicaid but not enough to buy health insurance: Socialism.

It makes perfect sense. You just have to have a lobotomy.

 

[pallister]

Shouldn't be a peep? That's an open-minded approach to debating the issues.

Anyway, it's not as if the sweet, 'ol Democats are just responding to the mean 'ol Republicans because their hand was forced. Both sides operate the same way. Dems are just a little better at getting away with it.

 

[Fenian_Bastard]

I'm not trying to defend the veto, just pointing out what I think will happen. From here on out, the debate will not be about the issue or this particular bill; it will be focused on trying to make those who voted against the bill look as bad as possible. Simple Big-Time Politics 101. I tend to agree with Hatch, I believe it was, who said Bush got some bad advice. Any adviser who didn't see this "Bush hates children" mantra coming is a fool. I can understand concens about not wanting to take a step in the direction of nationalized health care, but this was the wrong spot to choose for fighting that battle.

And Fenian, you are the last person to imply that someone blindly takes one side over the other. You're partisan hackery is unmatched.

I didn't say you blindly took one side over the other one. I said you blindly imply that in political dispute the merits of an issue never matter. You;re not a freethinker. You're just a cynic. The people who voted against this bill are opposed to children having health care. Period. For ideological reasons, which you, yourself, seem to share.

 

[IU90]

Hundreds of billions forked over on no-bid contracts for work no one does: Spending for freedom.

35 billion over five years to provide health care to children of parents who make too much to qualify for Medicaid but not enough to buy health insurance: Socialism.

It makes perfect sense. You just have to have a lobotomy.

Thank you for making that point better, Zeke. I've truly grown to hate these cocksuckers. Hatred only enhanced by a shameful secret I will now share: I once voted for Bush over Gore in 00 for reasons that seem pretty damn stupid now. And I get the urge to gouge my eyes out with a rusted fork every time I remember that fact. If this **** doesn't end soon, I may actually do it.

 

[DanOregon]

This is an administration that has justified torture, differentiated between patriots and subversives depending on whether or not they wear an American flag lapel pin and had no problem spending billions, but raise taxes to pay the freight? Hell no.
I'm sure this administration could justify changing the American flag to Green, Purple and Orange with circles and x's on it and they'd still get 30 percent of the country to support it.

 

[old_tony]

I'm not trying to defend the veto, just pointing out what I think will happen. From here on out, the debate will not be about the issue or this particular bill; it will be focused on trying to make those who voted against the bill look as bad as possible. Simple Big-Time Politics 101. I tend to agree with Hatch, I believe it was, who said Bush got some bad advice. Any adviser who didn't see this "Bush hates children" mantra coming is a fool. I can understand concens about not wanting to take a step in the direction of nationalized health care, but this was the wrong spot to choose for fighting that battle.

And Fenian, you are the last person to imply that someone blindly takes one side over the other. You're partisan hackery is unmatched.

I didn't say you blindly took one side over the other one. I said you blindly imply that in political dispute the merits of an issue never matter. You;re not a freethinker. You're just a cynic. The people who voted against this bill are opposed to children having health care. Period. For ideological reasons, which you, yourself, seem to share.

Talk about blind implications!. Yeah, it couldn't possibly be a principle such as "government has no business paying for peoples' health care" -- which, I dare you to find in the Constitution.

The federal government is supposed to provide national defense. It is not supposed to buy everyone's health insurance. In fact, it is not supposed to buy ANYone's health insurance.

But what involvement the government already has in the health care system is responsible for a great majority of the runaway costs. Exacerbating that problem is hardly a solution.

 

[pallister]

The people who voted against this bill are opposed to children having health care. Period.

Fenian, despite our political differences, I always considered you to be intelligent. But the above statement makes you sound like a complete idiot. And an incredibly hateful one at that. You might want to step back from your role as anonymous online liberal superhero and come back down to Earth.

Is your hatred for all things Republican so great that you actually believe every congressmen who voted against this thought to himself, "I don't want children having health care, so I'm not supporting this bill." If so, that's one dark heart you have.

 

[Flying Headbutt]

Shouldn't be a peep? That's an open-minded approach to debating the issues.

Anyway, it's not as if the sweet, 'ol Democats are just responding to the mean 'ol Republicans because their hand was forced. Both sides operate the same way. Dems are just a little better at getting away with it.

Better at getting away with it?!?!?!?!! Yes, both sides operate the same way. But both sides get away with it beautifully, and often enough lately the GOP has gotten away with blatant lies that are repeated and then followed with a timid "but some people disagree" or something to that effect. One problem is that the press is too chicken**** to say someone out and out lied about something.

 

[cranberry]

I think the question you've gotta ask yourself as president is, "Is this bill fair to big tobacco and insurance companies?" It gets pretty simple after that.

 

[andyouare?]

I'm not trying to defend the veto, just pointing out what I think will happen. From here on out, the debate will not be about the issue or this particular bill; it will be focused on trying to make those who voted against the bill look as bad as possible. Simple Big-Time Politics 101. I tend to agree with Hatch, I believe it was, who said Bush got some bad advice. Any adviser who didn't see this "Bush hates children" mantra coming is a fool. I can understand concens about not wanting to take a step in the direction of nationalized health care, but this was the wrong spot to choose for fighting that battle.

And Fenian, you are the last person to imply that someone blindly takes one side over the other. You're partisan hackery is unmatched.

I didn't say you blindly took one side over the other one. I said you blindly imply that in political dispute the merits of an issue never matter. You;re not a freethinker. You're just a cynic. The people who voted against this bill are opposed to children having health care. Period. For ideological reasons, which you, yourself, seem to share.

Talk about blind implications!. Yeah, it couldn't possibly be a principle such as "government has no business paying for peoples' health care" -- which, I dare you to find in the Constitution.

The federal government is supposed to provide national defense. It is not supposed to buy everyone's health insurance. In fact, it is not supposed to buy ANYone's health insurance.

But what involvement the government already has in the health care system is responsible for a great majority of the runaway costs. Exacerbating that problem is hardly a solution.

So if a family is making too much for medicaid, and too little to afford proper health insurance, your resposnse is...too bad?

And according to your response, the govt. shouldn't buy health insurance for anybody. That means families that are dirt poor (for whatever reason) should not be able to get insurance.

That's cold.

 

[pallister]

FH, I won't disagree that when it comes to the shadiness of national politics, the press is often part of the problem.

 

[Dangerous_K]

The federal government is supposed to provide national defense. It is not supposed to buy everyone's health insurance. In fact, it is not supposed to buy ANYone's health insurance.

Tony, since you bring up the Constitution, where in the Constitution does it say that?