- Englewood animal shelter has caring workers
- Resist the DREAM
- McCallin: loose cannon
- A DIFFERING VIEW/Farm Bill’s goal is to put affordable food on the table
- Environmental saviors
- Judge has a backbone
- Trick or treating etiquette
- Homelessness in Colorado
- Politics never meant to be a career option
- Term limits the answer for Congress
Bush has failed our children
This letter has not been edited.
One that elects scum like Bush! However if your one one the CEOs of weapons contractors....Hes your man!
Posted by TJ on November 1, 2007 02:26 PMSince when is GW responsible for our children? Is GW responsible for every person in the US?
Or is what you are really saying is that the american taxpayer is responsible for your children and your life?
The only failure that GW has been responsible for is restraining the flow of taxpayer dollars to every person who thinks they are owed a living!
The Bush veto of the expansion of childrens health insurance was a good step in showing some fiscal restraint for a change!
Dont like my view on this? Sounds so cold and uncaring?
Please feel free to call me whatever names you can think of. You will feel better after you get it out of your system!
Posted by Feed-Up with Pork on November 1, 2007 02:29 PM
Since when is W responsible for anything that would help people in the U.S.? His main concern is proping up his corporate buddies with intrusions into the lands of others at the expense of our grand children.
Posted by on November 1, 2007 02:45 PMGW is only responsible for the Iraqis, he doesnt give a damn about American kids. Why arent you outaraged by the Corporate welfare that the Republicans pass out? Lucrative no-bid war contracts to Cheney's and Bush's buddies, making them filthy rich from taxpayer dollars and American lives.
Hey I know, we can pay for the Kids Medical Insurance by using the same Money tree that bush is funding the war from. No Tax dollars feed the war ( still cant figure that one out) so lets just pretend no tax dollars fund the Med Ins. bill.
Why is anything that involves war considered good spending and anything that benefits the american people called 'pork'?
Bush hasn't failed the children, their parents have. Don't have kids if you can't take care of and provide for them.
Posted by on November 1, 2007 03:12 PMBush has failed all of us.
Posted by Obvious on November 1, 2007 03:27 PMThe only justification I hear for this socialized health care program, is the money being spent on the war. Why is that? Could it be that this is just a bad bill and no one can defend it honestly. No one wants to pay for this SCHIP, we want those evil smokers to. Here is a fact 54% of the smokers in this country earn less than $40,000, so you want people making less than $40,000 a year to pay for the children of families making $60,000 or $80,000. How much sense that make? In order to fund this socialized program you will need an additional 22 million people to take up smoking, does this make sense to you?
There are so many loopholes in this piece of garbage bill it stinks to high heaven, sorry forgot about you anti religious fanatics.
Posted by jgd777 on November 1, 2007 03:27 PMObvious
Sure Bush is an idiot but is he also responsible for changing your diapers also.
What are you? Some sort of socialist moocher. So many cry babies blaming Bush for everything and under the sun that is wrong with America. There is enoung blame to go around in both political parties.
Nobody wants to give me a Porsche! It's got to be Bushes fault!
If you are lucky enough to have health insurance, you pay more for that than any socialized medical plan would cost you in taxes. You can whine all you want about diaper changes but you pay for everyone elses' healthcare, plus a bunch for advertising, administrating and profit to an insurance company that doesn't even give you a bandage if you cut your pinky.
Posted by Stan B on November 1, 2007 04:29 PMBULLSCHIP!
1--25-year olds are not children
2--$83,000 a year households are not poor
3--Moving folks from a private health plan to a taxpayer financed plan is not progress
The only people who can fail children are the children's parents! SCHIP is a Trojan Horse for socialized medicine--KEEP IT DEAD!
BULLSCHIP is BULLSCHIP!
GW has done more than harm the children; he has harmed and continues to harm the honor and good standing of this country. His administration is a breathtaking failure, corrupt in almost all ways. I thought there could be no one worse than Reagan, but I was wrong. Bush is far worse, a dangerous fool. We will be years recovering from his profound ineptitude.
Posted by A joyous pile of progressive liberal left socialist horse shit on November 1, 2007 04:34 PM4;39,
All you need is a jar of Vaseline so the insurance companies can keep putting it to you, sucker.
Posted by Stan B on November 1, 2007 04:56 PMHank Hank Hank,
How many times do I have to explain to you that the higher SCHIP eligible incomes that you keep holding up as proof that SCHIP is a bad bill are in states like New York, where an 83,000 dollar income is worth considerably less than other states due to the higher cost of living. It really is quite simple, but apparently not for you...
Do you ever do your own thinking or is it strictly cut and paste?
Posted by on November 1, 2007 05:34 PMThat was me..
Posted by Charles B on November 1, 2007 05:38 PMandy,you liberal idiot.If we don't take care of the terrorist now these middle class kids will be drafted and probably get killed if a liberal is in charge in a war before there 25 birthday.
Posted by Keith on November 1, 2007 06:39 PMStan B. said:
"If you are lucky enough to have health insurance, you pay more for that than any socialized medical plan would cost you in taxes."
Nonsense. High taxes have far reaching consequences. Look at France, the winner of WHO's bogus health care study, they have a 9.5% unemployment rate. A couple of years ago, the French unemployed were so angry that they rioted for days. They burned hundreds of cars in the streets and caused millions of dollars in damages. Compare that to a low 4.6% unemployment rate here. It is no accident that France has double the unemployment rate that the US has. France pays a high cost for their high taxes.
"You can whine all you want about diaper changes but you pay for everyone elses' healthcare, plus a bunch for advertising, administrating and profit to an insurance company that doesn't even give you a bandage if you cut your pinky."
First of all, why would you even expect an insurance company to pay for a cut on your little pinky finger? That's part of the reason insurance is so expensive. Insurance is for unexpected calamity, not pinky cuts.
Second, isn't a bit ironic that we are attempting to fund a socialized health care program for the poor that depends on the poor maintaining a smoking habit? Also, there is a maxim that says if you want less of something, tax it. If we increase taxes on smokers, and they respond by smoking less, where will we get the funds to maintain the program?
Third, where the hell is the authorization in the Constitution for a national children's health care program? I have read the Constitution numerous times: the sections, the articles, the clauses, the amendments; I can't find a reference to children's health care anywhere. Why is there no SCHIP amendment to the Constitution? I also looked for constitutional authority for Social Security. Nothing. Does the Constitution matter to liberals?
Posted by John II on November 1, 2007 07:02 PMFed up with Pork
Since when is GW responsible for our children? Is GW responsible for every person in the US?
YES HE MOST CERTAINLY IS!
Every great leader has said directly or indirectly through their actions, "Children are our most valuable resource." Now can you guess why?
And as far as the adults, yes he is responsible for us too. If you think otherwise, study some of France's history. They had one ruler after another more interested in themselves and the upper class (the minority) than the common man. The end result? Study for yourself.
Please before you open your mouth again, educate yourself.
Posted by Harry on November 1, 2007 07:18 PMYup, this country is turning more socialist-communist every day. Gimme somebody else’s. I have the right to yours. Government should pay for my. Bad Bush wouldn’t feed, teach, shelter, dress, doctor, and buy Nike for my kids, damn that Bush. He ignores the plight of millions of children for free iPods and lifetime music downloads. How dares he, even the constitution guarantees that, how else can you explain the “pursuit of happiness”?
Posted by Uno on November 1, 2007 08:05 PMNo. The people who voted for Bush, twice, and kept the GOP in control of both houses of Congress for six of the seven years of his incompetent presidency have failed America's children...and adults.
Posted by on November 1, 2007 08:14 PMIt's incredible that 11% of our people in this country are total fu--ing idiots.
Not that incredible at all, as your post makes quite clear.
Posted by on November 1, 2007 08:40 PMIt is not Bush who has failed. It is the school system. Reading such poorly informed morons on here it is a wonder that we even get out of bed in the morning with out the government saying it is ok.
Time to take responsibility for ones on.
As for the $83,000 only being in states like New York. read the proposal again it is across the board.
Posted by on November 1, 2007 10:05 PMOur children???? How about our Country ??
How about the American Citizen??
Obvious
Sure Bush is an idiot but is he also responsible for changing your diapers also.
What are you? Some sort of socialist moocher. So many cry babies blaming Bush for everything and under the sun that is wrong with America. There is enoung blame to go around in both political parties.
Nobody wants to give me a Porsche! It's got to be Bushes fault!
No douchebag, I was talking about starting a bogus war without being honest. The War in Iraq is a tragedy. It will be Bush's legacy along with torturing people.
Posted by Obvious on November 2, 2007 07:31 AMyep stan da baby b my insurance company really put is to me when I need medical attention. doctors office visit is 20 and they pay the rest. go to the chiropractor again 20 and when I talk to the head doctor about how all you idiots who want to get some free health care again 20 bucks and I am done. now days the head doc pays me as he will be out of a job with your socialized med as they dont pay for mental health.
so stanny when you grow up and have a family maybe you will find ii in your heart to take care of your children the way I do and the insurance for the four of us is all of 529 a month. Oh I forgot to tell you about the dentist as cleanings and xrays are free and other visits are 20 bucks and if you need fillings or crowns they will pay 80%.
the vision coverage is good also and so is the prescription plan and it pays for birth control pills too.
maybe you need the vaseline to help get your head out of your butt and see what is in the real world for a change.
Posted by on November 2, 2007 07:33 AMIt's incredible that 11% of our people in this country are total fu--ing idiots.
Posted by Keith
Bush got more than 11% of the vote. There are a lot more idiots than just 11%. Anyone who voted for Bush should get up and slap themselves silly. You probably should not vote anymore.
Posted by on November 2, 2007 07:35 AMI would vote for Bush again if he wasnt term limited. He has done a great job, and I DO support invading Iraq...it was long overdue. But then again, I'm not one of those who expects the government to take care of me. If people cant afford to raise a child, dont have one! Get a job, and quit relying on everyone else to care care of your pathetic life!
Posted by on November 2, 2007 07:55 AMIt's incredible that 11% of our people in this country are total fu--ing idiots.
Posted by Keith
Bush got more than 11% of the vote. There are a lot more idiots than just 11%. Anyone who voted for Bush should get up and slap themselves silly. You probably should not vote anymore.
Posted by on November 2, 2007 07:35 AM
Ever notice that 99% of all statistics are just made up?
Posted by Harry on November 2, 2007 08:52 AMYep! I can see it now. A lib Democrat gets elected. The year is 2000. Sept 11 2001 rolls around. The attack. Our response, "Just let it be. We probably just hurt their feelings. Let's apologize now before it gets worse."
2002 rolls around. Rumors of WMDs exist with possible evidence of Saddam financing (in part) Al Qaeda. But the rumors and evidence aren't conclusive so the decision in 2003 is NOT to attack Iraq.
2004 comes and goes the lib Dem pres is reelected. He's doing such a fine job.
2005 Iraq launches an attack against Israel with the help of Iran. Oh wait what do you know? Al Qaeda is right in the middle and the threat, now a viable threat, of WMDs being used against Israel is now breathing down our necks and we are being chastised now by the world community for not doing anything about back in 2003.
2006 Pres is impeached.
Fine world that would have been. Yep Bush has done a lousy job.
The point, Bush was damned either way. Any President would have been. Bush took the least of two potential evils.
Posted by Harry on November 2, 2007 09:09 AMAnonymous poster, I wish you'd post your name.
"I'm not one of those who expects the government to take care of me"
I'll bet you want the government to take care of you when you turn 65. I'll also bet you want the government to build roads, deal with epidemics, set speed standards, provide public transportation, deport your illegal aliens, set public school standards (oh wait, you're probably against public education because it is the greatest socialized system in America and only white middle class people should be educated anyway). I could go on and on with what government does for you that you take for granted, federal, state and city. Without government, "I'll do it myself", total chaos and social darwinism reign.
Posted by on November 2, 2007 09:44 AMAnonymous poster, I wish you'd post your name, (Nov. 2 7:55a.m.)
"I'm not one of those who expects the government to take care of me"
I'll bet you want the government to take care of you when you turn 65. I'll also bet you want the government to build roads, deal with epidemics, set speed standards, provide public transportation, deport your illegal aliens, set public school standards (oh wait, you're probably against public education because it is the greatest socialized system in America and only white middle class people should be educated anyway). I could go on and on with what government does for you that you take for granted, federal, state and city. Without government, "I'll do it myself", total chaos and social darwinism reign.
Posted by observer on November 2, 2007 09:46 AMTypical scare tactics of socialism: You can't possibly want to do it yourself. You can't possibly want to be on your own.
Yes, we do. All I want from the federal government is what it is constitutionally authorized to provide as per Article I, Section 8.
American Socialism must be crushed.
Posted by on November 2, 2007 10:27 AMMy plan worked! My comments sent many of you into a tirade of comments against what I said. Do you feel better after you unloaded on me?
This whole discussion comes down to one group of people believing that the Feds and the POTUS owe you a living on the backs of the workers and the other group that wants to take care of themselves and provide charity to others individually.
The failure in this country begins with the American people who dont care enough to vote or take responsibility for their own actions.
Both parties are feeding you their slop people! Take out the political slop from both sides out of this, read the bill, and use the constitution to decide weather this bill is right or wrong!
Posted by Feed-Up with Pork on November 2, 2007 10:29 AMobserver
There is a huge difference between, providing for the general welfare and income redistribution. Social Security is not a handout, people paid dearly for funds they might receive at retirement. Roads are built for all taxpayers to use, Deporting illegals benefits everyone in this country.
This SCHIP bill is a simple Robin Hood bill, take from the rich and give to the poor. However by taxing the smokers, 54% of which are making less than $40,000 a year, to pay for the healthcare of children in families making $60,000 to $80,000 a year is nothing more than highway robbery.
Any program that is paid for by the majority and benefits the majority it is for the "general welfare", such as our public school system, roads, the military, border security, preventing epidemics and I could go on and on.
Establishing a safety net for citizens who might have run into some temporary setbacks in their lives is an excellent idea and would be approved by the majority of the people in this country. However this "nanny state" that you want to establish is totally unacceptable.
Posted by jgd777 on November 2, 2007 10:40 AMLetter writer Andrew Steinberg is typical of a Democrat hiding behind women and children.They are using the children to try and stop the war.Bush would have sign a bill to help the poor children but the Democrats wanted an issue so they covered children that were not poor.They knew that Bush would veto such a bill but wanted to bring up the war spending in hopes of helping their terrorists friends.This time at least the Democrats were not hiding behind the women's skirts but using poor children to help the terrorists.
Posted by An American on November 2, 2007 11:52 AMKeith- Its not the Democrats in Congress that have an 11% approval rating. Its Congress that has an 11% approval rating, which, last time I checked, is made up of Republicans as well (about 51-49 or 52-48).
Posted by BO on November 2, 2007 12:01 PMSo it would be paid for with a dwidling tobaccoo consumer. Let me see when the tabaccoo companies settled with the states in court that money was supposed to go to healthcare and education here in Colorado and elswhere in the nation. Instead the money was raided to pay for and prop up other failing social programs.
Also since when is a person 18 yrs to 25 yrs of age considered a child. No all the current hype is for a social medicine program that has proven to be a failure in every country that has one. Before people start saying that I am wrong I 1) work in the healthcare industry, 2) have experience first hand with the Canadian, Great Britian, German, and French healthcare systems, and 3) have read the U.S. Constitution, the Colorado State Constitution, and the founding father's notes and thoughts on government. I simple can not find where in any of the writings that it is the responsibility of the taxpayer to pay for another's healthcare.
So it would be paid for with a dwidling tobaccoo consumer. Let me see when the tabaccoo companies settled with the states in court that money was supposed to go to healthcare and education here in Colorado and elswhere in the nation. Instead the money was raided to pay for and prop up other failing social programs.
Also since when is a person 18 yrs to 25 yrs of age considered a child. No all the current hype is for a social medicine program that has proven to be a failure in every country that has one. Before people start saying that I am wrong I 1) work in the healthcare industry, 2) have experience first hand with the Canadian, Great Britian, German, and French healthcare systems, and 3) have read the U.S. Constitution, the Colorado State Constitution, and the founding father's notes and thoughts on government. I simple can not find where in any of the writings that it is the responsibility of the taxpayer to pay for another's healthcare, in fact the exact opposite exist in the belief it is an individual responsibility not government.
So it would be paid for with a dwidling tobaccoo consumer. Let me see when the tabaccoo companies settled with the states in court that money was supposed to go to healthcare and education here in Colorado and elswhere in the nation. Instead the money was raided to pay for and prop up other failing social programs.
Also since when is a person 18 yrs to 25 yrs of age considered a child. No all the current hype is for a social medicine program that has proven to be a failure in every country that has one. Before people start saying that I am wrong I 1) work in the healthcare industry, 2) have experience first hand with the Canadian, Great Britian, German, and French healthcare systems, and 3) have read the U.S. Constitution, the Colorado State Constitution, and the founding father's notes and thoughts on government. I simple can not find where in any of the writings that it is the responsibility of the taxpayer to pay for another's healthcare, in fact the exact opposite exist in the belief it is an individual responsibility not government.
So it would be paid for with a dwidling tobaccoo consumer. Let me see when the tabaccoo companies settled with the states in court that money was supposed to go to healthcare and education here in Colorado and elswhere in the nation. Instead the money was raided to pay for and prop up other failing social programs.
Also since when is a person 18 yrs to 25 yrs of age considered a child. No all the current hype is for a social medicine program that has proven to be a failure in every country that has one. Before people start saying that I am wrong I 1) work in the healthcare industry, 2) have experience first hand with the Canadian, Great Britian, German, and French healthcare systems, and 3) have read the U.S. Constitution, the Colorado State Constitution, and the founding father's notes and thoughts on government. I simple can not find where in any of the writings that it is the responsibility of the taxpayer to pay for another's healthcare, in fact the exact opposite exist in the belief it is an individual responsibility not government.
So it would be paid for with a dwidling tobaccoo consumer. Let me see when the tabaccoo companies settled with the states in court that money was supposed to go to healthcare and education here in Colorado and elswhere in the nation. Instead the money was raided to pay for and prop up other failing social programs.
Also since when is a person 18 yrs to 25 yrs of age considered a child. No all the current hype is for a social medicine program that has proven to be a failure in every country that has one. Before people start saying that I am wrong I 1) work in the healthcare industry, 2) have experience first hand with the Canadian, Great Britian, German, and French healthcare systems, and 3) have read the U.S. Constitution, the Colorado State Constitution, and the founding father's notes and thoughts on government. I simple can not find where in any of the writings that it is the responsibility of the taxpayer to pay for another's healthcare, in fact the exact opposite exist in the belief it is an individual responsibility not government.
BO & Keith: and the reason Congress has such a small approval rating is that nothing is getting done becase of the party split and not having a majority l;arge enough to over-ride veoes or beat blanket Republican voting. The Dems proprose legislation that they ran on and were elected on, and then the Republicans stop it or filibuster it to death. Thus what we have in this country now is a powerless Congress combined with a power-crazed president. A very unhealthy combination.
Posted by on November 2, 2007 12:56 PM@ Scott
Besides being a total moron who can't just post once, if you work in the "healthcare industry", you would know that dependents have long, long been covered up to the age of 24--as long as they are unmarried, financial dependent upon the parents for support and enrolled in some type of school.
Furthermore, there is no age limit for dependent coverage for people with disabilities as long as they are not able to provide for themselves.
Your ignorance of the laws of this state are the reason that people hold such a dim view of those in the "healthcare industry" .
Posted by Thank God I'm Not as Stupid as Scott on November 2, 2007 12:56 PMjdg777
I'm not advocating a "nanny state", whatever that is (it sounds derogatory). I'm simply saying that the John Wayne behavior of the nineteenth century will not work today. Every man for himself and the old "pull yourself up by the bootstrings" works in a country of 100 million where plentiful opportunities existed for anyone bold enough to take risks and work hard. Today, with over 300 million people and most opportunities going to the Chinese and Indians, a person can work his/her tail off at Walmart or Big O and still not be able to afford a one bedroom appartment to live in. They most certainly cannot afford $500 health insurance premiums monthly (with 10,000 deductible). So when anyone advocates "taking care of yourself" , I just see a mentality stuck in the nineteenth (actually through WW2) century. Being down on your luck is not temporary, anymore, you will have to get used to a major drop in our standard of living becuse of the large population and manufacturing going overseas.
Posted by observer on November 2, 2007 01:13 PMStan B.
Don't know if you will come back to this or not, but under a "Universal" program, my total out of pocket would increase from a MAX of $3,276/yr (I am a sole proprietor of my business so this comes out of my pocket 100%), to, even with a 6.5% increase in income taxes to $7,670, more than TWICE what I pay currently. And that is only 6.5%.
I know that this topic is for SCHIP, but you referenced "any socialized medical plan..."" If we use what the tax rate is in Canada (even the lowest figure which is offered by Ontario Government in it's advertising campaign as 11%), now I would be paying $12,980. And if I use the high number of taxes, the figure used by the Ottawa Government of 35%, now I am paying $41,300, for "free health care!!!"
No matter what the number, I am getting the "crappy" end of the stick in this deal! Universal Health Care? HELL NO!
Posted by Dan2 on November 2, 2007 03:01 PMobserver,
You may be willing to sit back and accept lowering our standard of living, however there are other people in this country who will continue to fight to keep it. We will start by driving out the illegals and bringing the working wages back to a point where we can make a decent living again. We will also fight to keep the economy growing, which can not happen when you keep putting more and more people on the welfare rolls.
There are still unlimited opportunities in this country, but why would anyone want to take the risk? Once they achieve a degree of success the government steps in and says 'Wow you are rich now, so you have to give me most of your money'. What the hell kind of incentive is that? Maybe if we let the people actually making the money, the right to keep that money, more people would be willing to take that risk.
But that is just how I feel, how about you?
Posted by jgd777 on November 2, 2007 03:09 PMjgd777
If you say there are unlimited opportunities and I say there aren't, then it must just be a matter of faith on your part because I can't turn over any products without finding "made in China" on the bottom. You know, only about 20% of the country is college educated, and they compete with the Indians who can provide three shifts of work at the same price as one of our shifts. The rest have to compete with the Chinese who can manufacture everything we do for a lot less money and just as well. The saddest thing was going up to Georgetown the other day and going into a local specialty store where half the items sold were made in China. The owner said she had no choice if she wanted to stay in business. How exactly do you pay Americans great wages that maintain the current standard of living unless we simply close the borders and do not allow our citizens to buy cheaper overseas products? We aren't self sufficient, you know, even if we were to manufacture everything we consumed, we'd still have to buy oil from overseas and with the value of our money dropping daily, it costs a hell of a lot.
Posted by observer on November 2, 2007 03:28 PMjgd777
If you say there are unlimited opportunities and I say there aren't, then it must just be a matter of faith on your part because I can't turn over any products without finding "made in China" on the bottom. You know, only about 20% of the country is college educated, and they compete with the Indians who can provide three shifts of work at the same price as one of our shifts. The rest have to compete with the Chinese who can manufacture everything we do for a lot less money and just as well. The saddest thing was going up to Georgetown the other day and going into a local specialty store where half the items sold were made in China. The owner said she had no choice if she wanted to stay in business. How exactly do you pay Americans great wages that maintain the current standard of living unless we simply close the borders and do not allow our citizens to buy cheaper overseas products? We aren't self sufficient, you know, even if we were to manufacture everything we consumed, we'd still have to buy oil from overseas and with the value of our money dropping daily, it costs a hell of a lot.
Posted by on November 2, 2007 03:28 PMobserver,
You are confusing your arguments. I agree that we import too much from China. But, what does that have to do with opportunity in this country?
Workers have always had to adapt to a changing marketplace. New technologies eliminate old jobs and create new ones every year.
If you are worried about creating opportunity in this country, you do so by reducing regulation, reducing government control, reducing taxes; not by increasing them.
You want to compete with China and India? Eliminate the corporate income tax. Lower the capital gains tax. Watch how many companies move their headquarters to the US.
Posted by John II on November 2, 2007 04:17 PM3;28, (with your attitude I wouldn't put my name on the post either)
Not sure if you have been reading any news articles lately, but have you noticed the people of this country are starting to realize "made in China" and being cheap is not always the best items to buy. Can you say lead poisoning?
One of the reason people are buying cheap "made in China" products is because their wages do not allow them to buy anything else. increase their wages and I guarantee many of them will buy better quality products made in the US.
Here is a unique idea, why don't we try to educate our own citizens in our universities instead of all of the students from foreign countries. Maybe we could increase our numbers to 30% or maybe 40%. We could start by getting our high school students ready for college instead of this "feel good" attitude to education.
And I will repeat, start giving our own citizens the motivation of succeeding instead of telling them it is okay to sit back and live off society.
By letting the people making the money, keep more of their money, may generate the motivation for others to earn money.
If the majority of the people in the US today were living during the times of the pioneers, the US would only extend as far as the Mississippi river.
Posted by jgd777 on November 2, 2007 04:20 PMIn order to 'fail' there has to be an expectation of 'success'. Only the idiots who voted for Bush can find that he 'failed' them. The rest of us KNEW he was not going to do anything to help, but everything to hurt.
Posted by Sheila on November 2, 2007 04:31 PMsheila,I can't have a educated conversation with a total idiot who is uncapable to consume knowledge,sorry.Now I have to leave to drink an ecredible wine.Bye ,bye.
Posted by Keith on November 2, 2007 09:41 PMSheila and the rest of the welfare "queens" do not like Bush because he did not give them free stuff.As to the posters that are saying that Congress has an approval rating of 11% the blame will go to the leadership.The Democrats are now in control!!
Posted by An American on November 3, 2007 07:37 AMAn unAmerican: lol!!! Yer so funny. I am not sure what you mean by 'welfare queen', but assuming you think I collect welfare: oh, dear how wrong you are. Even when I was entitled to get some government assistance, I not once collected. Oh, by rights I could have. But I didn't. That has nothing, however to do with the subject at hand. I hate bush because he's a dangerous man. On par with some of history's other maniacs who, after they got to power, were still revered by the masses they had fooled. The same masses that had propelled them into power. But... after awhile, people will start to awaken. The same will happen with this idiot.
KISSES!!!
Posted by Sheila on November 3, 2007 05:15 PMSheila,
If you haven't noticed, your vote, or anybody else's, does not count when it comes to the presidency. The only votes that count are the electoral college. If you do some study on the the Electoral College you might find out some interesting facts. So before you call your neighbor an idiot, unless they are part of the electoral college, doubtful, then nobody can be accused of anything as far as voting in any one president.
Posted by Harry on November 3, 2007 05:17 PMSheila,you seem to think Bush is an "idiot" but he beat the Democrat party two times in elections and defeated the mainstream media that wanted a Democrat president.What does that mean the Democrat party and your friends the mainstream media are super idiots?If you have not achieved anything near being President of the US does that mean you have the IQ of a vegetable?
Posted by An American on November 3, 2007 11:48 PMShelia,Bush defeated Kerry and Gore in elections if he is an idiot does that mean that they have the IQ of "Mr. Potato Head".
Posted by An American on November 3, 2007 11:56 PMWhen you realize that W simply refused to work with Congress on the children's healthcare bill if negotiations didn't also include his sweeping tax proposals...you begin to understand the outright travesty that this process has become.
It's pathetic when you get down to it.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/05/washington/05health.html
I don't know whether to despise Keith or feel sorry for him; Keith is so limited in his vocabulary; it is a vocabulary I have been active in dissuading from being used so as never to compel the moderator to cancel this blog out of disgust.
Posted by JVB on November 5, 2007 12:18 PM