I love that Jimmy Carter is saying that the "no" outburst was caused(or at least heavily influenced) by racism. I mean, partisan politics and acting like a little kid, sure, but racism?
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/09/15/carter.obama/index.html
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Rebuking Mr. Wilson
Rebuking Mr. WilsonFollow
publiusvarus wrote:
Democrats are p*ssies and chickensh*ts.
Funny stuff coming from Publis"OH NOES THE DEMS WOULDN'T LET US!
"varus 
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Elinda wrote:
Nobby wrote:
You invented filly-busters
Not really, we prefer debates, where the opposition question the validity of claims, not recital of party manifesto or the Mills & Boon best-seller.
The One and Only Poldaran wrote:
I love that Jimmy Carter is saying that the "no" outburst was caused(or at least heavily influenced) by racism. I mean, partisan politics and acting like a little kid, sure, but racism?
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/09/15/carter.obama/index.html
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/09/15/carter.obama/index.html
Do you seriously believe that no part of the fear and loathing directed toward Obama is race based?
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
Even the BBC says it is true:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8258011.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8258011.stm
Quote:
Former US President Jimmy Carter says much of the vitriol against President Barack Obama's health reforms and spending plans is "based on racism".
Mr Carter told a public meeting there was "an inherent feeling among many in this country that an African-American should not be president".
Republican lawmaker Joe Wilson was rebuked on Tuesday in a House vote.
He shouted "You lie!" while Mr Obama was delivering an address on healthcare to Congress last Wednesday.
The House resolution of disapproval described it as "a breach of decorum".
Mr Carter told a public meeting there was "an inherent feeling among many in this country that an African-American should not be president".
Republican lawmaker Joe Wilson was rebuked on Tuesday in a House vote.
He shouted "You lie!" while Mr Obama was delivering an address on healthcare to Congress last Wednesday.
The House resolution of disapproval described it as "a breach of decorum".
publiusvarus wrote:
Actually we're saying if you're going to penalize us you need to do the same to them.
No, what you're usually saying is "We would have done something about [issue] but THE BIG MEAN DEMS WOULDN'T LET US!!!!"
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
You're right. I never once addressed provisions that bar illegal (and some legal) immigrants from access federal health care.
Well, except for the times when I did.
Well, except for the times when I did.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
By the way, along the lines of that whole faux culture war thing we had yesterday, if someone interrupted Brown (or any PM, or any speaker) in the Commons, no one would give a ****. If they did, they'd probably die of chronic diarrhea. You just say "order" and move on. So I guess we are ruder than Americans. Who knew?
Quote:
By the way, along the lines of that whole faux culture war thing we had yesterday, if someone interrupted Brown (or any PM, or any speaker) in the Commons, no one would give a sh*t. If they did, they'd probably die of chronic diarrhea. You just say "order" and move on. So I guess we are ruder than Americans. Who knew?
People are usually too busy playing solitaire to interrupt.
Just as Planned.
publiusvarus wrote:
Jophed,
Good for Mr. Wilson. Obama was lying his as* off. Anyone else notice how all the Dems want to talk about is what he said rather than whether it was true or not? Dems are just p*ssed someone had the nerve to stand up and call the liar a liar. But like every good little goose stepping Democrat simply call Mr. Wilson a racist and move on.
Good for Mr. Wilson. Obama was lying his as* off. Anyone else notice how all the Dems want to talk about is what he said rather than whether it was true or not? Dems are just p*ssed someone had the nerve to stand up and call the liar a liar. But like every good little goose stepping Democrat simply call Mr. Wilson a racist and move on.
It was addressed. Obama said very plainly in the speech that illegal immigrants are not covered. Here:
http://edlabor.house.gov/documents/111/pdf/publications/AAHCA-BillText-071409.pdf wrote:
11 SEC. 242. AFFORDABLE CREDIT ELIGIBLE INDIVIDUAL. 12 (a) DEFINITION.— 13 (1) IN GENERAL.—For purposes of this divi 14 sion, the term ‘‘affordable credit eligible individual’’ 15 means, subject to subsection (b), an individual who 16 is lawfully present in a State in the United States 17 (other than as a nonimmigrant described in a sub 18 paragraph (excluding subparagraphs (K), (T), (U), 19 and (V)) of section 101(a)(15) of the Immigration 20 and Nationality Act)—
That's on page 132.
Now shut up about it, already.
Samira wrote:
The One and Only Poldaran wrote:
I love that Jimmy Carter is saying that the "no" outburst was caused(or at least heavily influenced) by racism. I mean, partisan politics and acting like a little kid, sure, but racism?
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/09/15/carter.obama/index.html
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/09/15/carter.obama/index.html
Do you seriously believe that no part of the fear and loathing directed toward Obama is race based?
Not at all. I'm just saying that maybe this Wilson guy was just acting like a spoiled kid and not a racist.
Kavekk wrote:
By the way, along the lines of that whole faux culture war thing we had yesterday, if someone interrupted Brown (or any PM, or any speaker) in the Commons, no one would give a sh*t. If they did, they'd probably die of chronic diarrhea. You just say "order" and move on. So I guess we are ruder than Americans. Who knew?
Donate. One day it could be your family.
An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo
An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo
Poldaran wrote:
Not at all. I'm just saying that maybe this Wilson guy was just acting like a spoiled kid and not a racist.
Fair enough.
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
#42REDACTED,
Posted: Sep 16 2009 at 9:43 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) There are no enforcement provisions in the bill, so the no illegal immigrant language is meaningless.
publiusvarus wrote:
There are no enforcement provisions in the bill, so the no illegal immigrant language is meaningless.
I have no idea what you mean. The government will not extend insurance to illegal immigrants. That's what you wanted, it's in there.
But it's no surprise you just found another way to whine about it.
Enforce what? Enforce not paying for something?
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
Samira wrote:
Enforce what? Enforce not paying for something?
Varrus is being impossibly dense, as always, but I think I understand his complaint. We know for a fact that some illegal immigrants currently receive government benefits for a variety of reasons, despite the fact that most of these benefit programs have requirements of citizenship for participation. It's not entirely unreasonable to believe the same thing might occur with any new (or extended) government benefits established by whatever health care reform bill ends up getting passed (if any).
However, the issue at hand here is one of fraud, not broken legislation. It's ridiculous to not pass a reform bill simply because the potential exists for fraud. That's the case with pretty much any legislation in existence.
One thing I'd like clarification on, though, is what existing regulations (or new ones) would apply to any new government benefit program where proof of citizenship or legal immigration is concerned.
That's a fair question. Just saying "it won't work" is not helpful.
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
BrownDuck wrote:
Samira wrote:
Enforce what? Enforce not paying for something?
Varrus is being impossibly dense, as always, but I think I understand his complaint. We know for a fact that some illegal immigrants currently receive government benefits for a variety of reasons, despite the fact that most of these benefit programs have requirements of citizenship for participation. It's not entirely unreasonable to believe the same thing might occur with any new (or extended) government benefits established by whatever health care reform bill ends up getting passed (if any).
However, the issue at hand here is one of fraud, not broken legislation. It's ridiculous to not pass a reform bill simply because the potential exists for fraud. That's the case with pretty much any legislation in existence.
One thing I'd like clarification on, though, is what existing regulations (or new ones) would apply to any new government benefit program where proof of citizenship or legal immigration is concerned.
Anyways, seems the argument is simply that this is another gov run program that could be abused...and yes, some of those who attempt to abuse it might be illegal aliens. The same can be said for any solution though. It's not as if people don't rip off private insurance companies.
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
Elinda wrote:
Anyways, seems the argument is simply that this is another gov run program that could be abused...and yes, some of those who attempt to abuse it might be illegal aliens. The same can be said for any solution though. It's not as if people don't rip off private insurance companies.
Attitudes like that merely enable the abuse, though. It stands to reason that if you're going to knowingly introduce a benefit program into the same environment that has been proven easily abused in the past, then you should at least give an honest effort to plug some of the holes. Simply saying "it will not be available for illegal immigrants" is not useful to anyone. It's nothing but rhetoric. I'd like to see what provisions are being considered to prevent any new program from being abused like the many that came before it.
Prior to the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005, for example, in many states it was perfectly acceptable to enroll someone in the medicaid program so long as they checked a box that said something to the effect of "I certify that I am a citizen of the U.S." and signed the bottom of the document. The DRA introduced stricture requirements for proof of citizenship to curb some of that abuse. That's what I'm asking about here.
BrownDuck wrote:
Elinda wrote:
Anyways, seems the argument is simply that this is another gov run program that could be abused...and yes, some of those who attempt to abuse it might be illegal aliens. The same can be said for any solution though. It's not as if people don't rip off private insurance companies.
Attitudes like that merely enable the abuse, though. It stands to reason that if you're going to knowingly introduce a benefit program into the same environment that has been proven easily abused in the past, then you should at least give an honest effort to plug some of the holes. Simply saying "it will not be available for illegal immigrants" is not useful to anyone. It's nothing but rhetoric. I'd like to see what provisions are being considered to prevent any new program from being abused like the many that came before it.
Prior to the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005, for example, in many states it was perfectly acceptable to enroll someone in the medicaid program so long as they checked a box that said something to the effect of "I certify that I am a citizen of the U.S." and signed the bottom of the document. The DRA introduced stricture requirements for proof of citizenship to curb some of that abuse. That's what I'm asking about here.
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
Quote:
It stands to reason that if you're going to knowingly introduce a benefit program into the same environment that has been proven easily abused in the past, then you should at least give an honest effort to plug some of the holes.
Sure
But it also stands to reason to create government programs which will create more good than harm, despite misgivings. Let's plug some loopholes sure, but that shouldn't be a necessary condition for getting reform passed.
Recent Visitors: 260
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (260)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Rebuking Mr. Wilson
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC