 |
|
| Science Forum Index » Economy Forum » Article: After all the fuss, govt health plan to... |
|
Page 2 of 3 Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 Next |
|
| Author |
Message |
| Michael Coburn... |
 Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 2:10 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 00:20:39 -0600, r wiley wrote:
[quote]"Mason C" <masoncXXX at (no spam) XXXfrontal-lobe.info> wrote in message
news:tbdse5hutmmdjbbrvdc3nrhd1lrnb46o5k at (no spam) 4ax.com...
On Sun, 1 Nov 2009 16:04:30 -0600, "r wiley" <rawiley at (no spam) southslope.net
wrote:
"Mason C" <masoncXXX at (no spam) XXXfrontal-lobe.info> wrote in message
news:o37qe518j5huctk4s3mfu6n2p29igol9i3 at (no spam) 4ax.com...
On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 19:24:04 -0500, "r wiley"
rawiley at (no spam) southslope.net> wrote:
"C.Tudor" <charlestudor at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4aeccd5f$0$28761$bd467cd0 at (no spam) news.dslextreme.com...
After all the fuss, govt health plan to cover few
Note in the article that there is a high probability that the current
"public option" of ObamaCare will produce a benefit to the Insurance
Industry.
Email your elected officials and ask them how much money they've
accepted from the Insurance Industry during the last five years:
--Anyone can make their opinion known:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/CONTACT/
http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm
http://www.house.gov/house/MemberWWW_by_State.shtml ---
The "public option" is a scam. It provides the insurance companies
with a dumping ground for people likely to need expensive care. Anyone
serious about universal health care should be backing HR676, Enhanced
Universal Medicare. It covers the uninsured, and solves Medicare's
problem, that is, that people currently on Medicare are subject to the
infirmities of age. To avoid going insolvent, Medicare must be
expanded to include the young who are generally healthy.
That is what Obama claimed to support in 2003, and what he claimed
would happen whan Democrats "took back" the White House, the House of
Representatives, and the Senate.
But the Democrats have not taken back the Senate. The Senate
Republicans can stop any bill they do not like and certainly any bill
that might help Obama.
The "war against terror" should focus on the Senate, not on
Afghanistan.
I am absolutely certain of two things.
1. Democrats have taken the senate.
2. You are a liar.
rw
The Senate Republicans can stop any bill they do not like and
certainly any
bill that might help Obama. The Democrats do not have the Senate.
"you are a liar" is the logical argument of a fool. go away
"You are a liar" is not an argument. It is a statement of indisputable
fact. Look back up the thread. You lied that the Democrats have not
taken the Senate. That is not an error. You know better. You lied. In
2003 when Obama said the Republican Senate was part of the problem,
there were 51 Republicans in the Senate. The 2009 Senate contains 59
self proclaimed Democrats.
[/quote]
The Senate contains 58 Democrats, two independents, and 40 Lock step
screech monkeys called Republicans.
[quote]The 2009 Senate contains one Democrat Senator who calls himself an
independant and a Socialist Senator who calls himself an Independant.
Both ostensible "Independants" voted with the Democrat caucus on Senate
heirarchy and committee assignments.
rw
[/quote]
Bernie Sanders may caucus and vote with the Democrats but Joe LIEberman
certainly does not vote with the Democrats and is currently supporting
the Republican lock step screech monkeys. In additionn to this
undeniable absolute fact, the Democratic party is a lot more "democratic"
than the Republican. Lock step monolithic butt kissing is just not the
order of the day in the Democratic party. That is why the current
cloture rule is a rule that only benefits the Republican party and serves
no real purpose for the Democrats. Prior to 1975 cloture took 67 votes.
The Democrats (who were real democrats) reduced it to 60. It is time to
do away with it or reduce it to 55.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/9/17/783228/-Reconciliation-Is-Not-
Necessary
--
"Those are my opinions and you can't have em" -- Bart Simpson |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Michael Coburn... |
| Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 2:13 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Sun, 01 Nov 2009 18:16:27 -0600, No_He_Can_Not wrote:
[quote]r wiley wrote:
"C.Tudor" <charlestudor at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4aeccd5f$0$28761$bd467cd0 at (no spam) news.dslextreme.com...
After all the fuss, govt health plan to cover few
Note in the article that there is a high probability that the current
"public option" of ObamaCare will produce a benefit to the Insurance
Industry.
Email your elected officials and ask them how much money they've
accepted from the Insurance Industry during the last five years:
--Anyone can make their opinion known:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/CONTACT/
http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm
http://www.house.gov/house/MemberWWW_by_State.shtml ---
The "public option" is a scam. It provides the insurance companies
with a dumping ground for people likely to need expensive care. Anyone
serious about universal health care should be backing HR676, Enhanced
Universal Medicare. It covers the uninsured, and solves Medicare's
problem, that is, that people currently on Medicare are subject to the
infirmities of age. To avoid going insolvent, Medicare must be
expanded to include the young who are generally healthy.
That is what Obama claimed to support in 2003, and what he claimed
would happen whan Democrats "took back" the White House, the House of
Representatives, and the Senate.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpAyan1fXCE
rw
Why not just use the rest of that stimulus money that is not being spent
to cove all the people that have no insurance? It would be good use of
it.
[/quote]
The point has merit but for the fact that such a scheme would just be a
hand out to the health insurance weasels. There can be no injection of
money that does not have controls that prevent thievery. Hence, a strong
public option.
[quote]Less than 40 billion a year would cover all uninsured. This is not
about health care it is about obama getting revenge for his Islamic
brothers and the poor black slaves . Where are these slaves ? I've seen
his brothers on the news all time bombing everyone but seen no slaves at
all.
[/quote]
And the Obama hate stupidity continues unabated.
--
"Those are my opinions and you can't have em" -- Bart Simpson |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Mason C... |
| Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 3:08 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 00:20:39 -0600, "r wiley" <rawiley at (no spam) southslope.net> wrote:
[quote]
"Mason C" <masoncXXX at (no spam) XXXfrontal-lobe.info> wrote in message news:tbdse5hutmmdjbbrvdc3nrhd1lrnb46o5k at (no spam) 4ax.com...
On Sun, 1 Nov 2009 16:04:30 -0600, "r wiley" <rawiley at (no spam) southslope.net> wrote:
"Mason C" <masoncXXX at (no spam) XXXfrontal-lobe.info> wrote in message news:o37qe518j5huctk4s3mfu6n2p29igol9i3 at (no spam) 4ax.com...
On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 19:24:04 -0500, "r wiley" <rawiley at (no spam) southslope.net> wrote:
"C.Tudor" <charlestudor at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote in message news:4aeccd5f$0$28761$bd467cd0 at (no spam) news.dslextreme.com...
After all the fuss, govt health plan to cover few
Note in the article that there is a high probability that the current "public option" of ObamaCare will produce a benefit to the
Insurance Industry.
Email your elected officials and ask them how much money they've accepted from the Insurance Industry during the last five
years:
--Anyone can make their opinion known:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/CONTACT/
http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm
http://www.house.gov/house/MemberWWW_by_State.shtml
---
The "public option" is a scam. It provides the insurance companies with
a dumping ground for people likely to need expensive care. Anyone
serious about universal health care should be backing HR676, Enhanced
Universal Medicare. It covers the uninsured, and solves Medicare's
problem, that is, that people currently on Medicare are subject to the
infirmities of age. To avoid going insolvent, Medicare must be expanded
to include the young who are generally healthy.
That is what Obama claimed to support in 2003, and what he claimed
would happen whan Democrats "took back" the White House, the
House of Representatives, and the Senate.
But the Democrats have not taken back the Senate. The Senate
Republicans can stop any bill they do not like and certainly any
bill that might help Obama.
The "war against terror" should focus on the Senate, not on
Afghanistan.
I am absolutely certain of two things.
1. Democrats have taken the senate.
2. You are a liar.
rw
The Senate Republicans can stop any bill they do not like and certainly any
bill that might help Obama. The Democrats do not have the Senate.
"you are a liar" is the logical argument of a fool. go away
"You are a liar" is not an argument. It is a statement of indisputable fact. Look
back up the thread. You lied that the Democrats have not taken the Senate.
That is not an error. You know better. You lied. In 2003 when Obama said
the Republican Senate was part of the problem, there were 51 Republicans in
the Senate. The 2009 Senate contains 59 self proclaimed Democrats.
[/quote]
And it takes 60 to pass a bill. The Democrats have not taken the Senate. They
do not have the votes to pass any bill the Republicans reject.
[quote]
The 2009 Senate contains one Democrat Senator who calls himself an independant
and a Socialist Senator who calls himself an Independant. Both ostensible "Independants"
voted with the Democrat caucus on Senate heirarchy and committee assignments.
rw
Voting with the caucus is meaningless. Only votes on the floor of the Senate.[/quote]
The Democrats do not have enough votes there to pass a bill the Republicans
reject. The Democrats have NOT "taken the Senate."
Wake up and smell the roses. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Poetic Justice... |
| Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 3:30 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
AZDuffman wrote:
[quote]On Nov 2, 2:10 pm, Michael Coburn <mik... at (no spam) verizon.net> wrote:
The Senate contains 58 Democrats, two independents, and 40 Lock step
screech monkeys called Republicans.
Halarious! When the Dems vote together this loser calls it "party
unity."
Whats more is that the Republicans have a BI-Partisan opposition to the[/quote]
Health care bill. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| John Galt... |
| Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 4:08 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Poetic Justice wrote:
[quote]AZDuffman wrote:
On Nov 2, 2:10 pm, Michael Coburn <mik... at (no spam) verizon.net> wrote:
The Senate contains 58 Democrats, two independents, and 40 Lock step
screech monkeys called Republicans.
Halarious! When the Dems vote together this loser calls it "party
unity."
Whats more is that the Republicans have a BI-Partisan opposition to the
Health care bill.
[/quote]
Suddenly, economic common sense has become a vice, shared by all
Republicans and a few sane Democrats.
No problem here. The fact that a few misfit extremists interpret it
wrongly is of no consequence.
JG |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| r wiley... |
| Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 5:51 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Mason C" <masoncXXX at (no spam) XXXfrontal-lobe.info> wrote in message news:rqeue59o1a9o33m3pst1egbsa6pgocl3ih at (no spam) 4ax.com...
[quote]
Voting with the caucus is meaningless. Only votes on the floor of the Senate.
The Democrats do not have enough votes there to pass a bill the Republicans
reject. The Democrats have NOT "taken the Senate."
Wake up and smell the roses.
[/quote]
By that pseudo logic the Republicans didn't control the Senate from 1994-2006.
rw |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Mason C... |
| Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 6:24 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 16:51:14 -0600, "r wiley" <rawiley at (no spam) southslope.net> wrote:
[quote]
"Mason C" <masoncXXX at (no spam) XXXfrontal-lobe.info> wrote in message news:rqeue59o1a9o33m3pst1egbsa6pgocl3ih at (no spam) 4ax.com...
Voting with the caucus is meaningless. Only votes on the floor of the Senate.
The Democrats do not have enough votes there to pass a bill the Republicans
reject. The Democrats have NOT "taken the Senate."
Wake up and smell the roses.
By that pseudo logic the Republicans didn't control the Senate from 1994-2006.
rw
True. But the Democrats are diverse and not as ideologically bound as the[/quote]
Replicans. Some of them actually have the best interests of the country at
heart. They do not unify in trying to destroy the Republicans. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| r wiley... |
| Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 6:58 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Michael Coburn" <mikcob at (no spam) verizon.net> wrote in message news:hcnaq902i11 at (no spam) news4.newsguy.com...
[quote]On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 00:20:39 -0600, r wiley wrote:
"Mason C" <masoncXXX at (no spam) XXXfrontal-lobe.info> wrote in message
news:tbdse5hutmmdjbbrvdc3nrhd1lrnb46o5k at (no spam) 4ax.com...
On Sun, 1 Nov 2009 16:04:30 -0600, "r wiley" <rawiley at (no spam) southslope.net
wrote:
"Mason C" <masoncXXX at (no spam) XXXfrontal-lobe.info> wrote in message
news:o37qe518j5huctk4s3mfu6n2p29igol9i3 at (no spam) 4ax.com...
On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 19:24:04 -0500, "r wiley"
rawiley at (no spam) southslope.net> wrote:
"C.Tudor" <charlestudor at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4aeccd5f$0$28761$bd467cd0 at (no spam) news.dslextreme.com...
After all the fuss, govt health plan to cover few
Note in the article that there is a high probability that the current
"public option" of ObamaCare will produce a benefit to the Insurance
Industry.
Email your elected officials and ask them how much money they've
accepted from the Insurance Industry during the last five years:
--Anyone can make their opinion known:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/CONTACT/
http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm
http://www.house.gov/house/MemberWWW_by_State.shtml ---
The "public option" is a scam. It provides the insurance companies
with a dumping ground for people likely to need expensive care. Anyone
serious about universal health care should be backing HR676, Enhanced
Universal Medicare. It covers the uninsured, and solves Medicare's
problem, that is, that people currently on Medicare are subject to the
infirmities of age. To avoid going insolvent, Medicare must be
expanded to include the young who are generally healthy.
That is what Obama claimed to support in 2003, and what he claimed
would happen whan Democrats "took back" the White House, the House of
Representatives, and the Senate.
But the Democrats have not taken back the Senate. The Senate
Republicans can stop any bill they do not like and certainly any bill
that might help Obama.
The "war against terror" should focus on the Senate, not on
Afghanistan.
I am absolutely certain of two things.
1. Democrats have taken the senate.
2. You are a liar.
rw
The Senate Republicans can stop any bill they do not like and
certainly any
bill that might help Obama. The Democrats do not have the Senate.
"you are a liar" is the logical argument of a fool. go away
"You are a liar" is not an argument. It is a statement of indisputable
fact. Look back up the thread. You lied that the Democrats have not
taken the Senate. That is not an error. You know better. You lied. In
2003 when Obama said the Republican Senate was part of the problem,
there were 51 Republicans in the Senate. The 2009 Senate contains 59
self proclaimed Democrats.
The Senate contains 58 Democrats, two independents, and 40 Lock step
screech monkeys called Republicans.
The 2009 Senate contains one Democrat Senator who calls himself an
independant and a Socialist Senator who calls himself an Independant.
Both ostensible "Independants" voted with the Democrat caucus on Senate
heirarchy and committee assignments.
rw
Bernie Sanders may caucus and vote with the Democrats but Joe LIEberman
certainly does not vote with the Democrats and is currently supporting
the Republican lock step screech monkeys. In additionn to this
undeniable absolute fact, the Democratic party is a lot more "democratic"
than the Republican. Lock step monolithic butt kissing is just not the
order of the day in the Democratic party. That is why the current
cloture rule is a rule that only benefits the Republican party and serves
no real purpose for the Democrats. Prior to 1975 cloture took 67 votes.
The Democrats (who were real democrats) reduced it to 60. It is time to
do away with it or reduce it to 55.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/9/17/783228/-Reconciliation-Is-Not-
Necessary
[/quote]
The radical leftist ADA gives Lieberman a career score of 74%, his 2007 score
was 70%. For comparison in 2007 Barack Obama, Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton
scored 75%. A cockroach couldn't live on that difference.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-love/how-liberal-is-obama_b_137840.html
rw |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| All the Tea in China Blue... |
| Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 11:31 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
In article <Q4Gdndiad85BuXPXnZ2dnUVZ_vqdnZ2d at (no spam) giganews.com>,
No_He_Can_Not <nohecannot at (no spam) mail.com> wrote:
[quote]Why not just use the rest of that stimulus money that is not being spent
to cove all the people that have no insurance? It would be good use of
[/quote]
How would the stimulate consumption?
--
Damn the living - It's a lovely life. I'm whoever you want me to be.
Silver silverware - Where is the love? At least I can stay in character.
Oval swimming pool - Where is the love? Annoying Usenet one post at a time.
Damn the living - It's a lovely life. We support you, Sarah. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Michael Coburn... |
| Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 1:52 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 10:38:01 -0800, AZDuffman wrote:
[quote]Americans don't want it anyways!
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/
obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll[/quote]
Rasmussen continues to be the out-liar pollster. They are apparently
still oversampling the racist southern hillbillies.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/polls/
Rasmussen sticks out very clearly. It is the Faux News of the pollsters.
--
"Those are my opinions and you can't have em" -- Bart Simpson |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Michael Coburn... |
| Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 1:58 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 09:18:24 -0800, AZDuffman wrote:
[quote]On Nov 2, 1:24Â am, Michael Coburn <mik... at (no spam) verizon.net> wrote:
It is _YOU_ who seem to misunderstand:
The Democratic votes in the Senate number 58. Â That is the total votes
with "D" beside their name. Â Joe LIEberman is _NOT_ a Democrat. Â It
takes 60 votes to get past the brain dead locked step Republican
fascists unless the Democrats _CHANGE_ how the Senate works.
Remember folks, THIS is the "bi-partisanship" that liberals offer.
[/quote]
I am _NOT_ bipartisan in any way and I _am_ a true liberal and have NEVER
desired any sort of bipartisanship with the fascist pig Republicans.
[quote]Somehow I don't remember this guy crying so much when the democrat party
was filibustering Bush's judicial nominees.
[/quote]
Cite??? Show us... You are a lying pig as always. Alito is on the
bench.
--
"Those are my opinions and you can't have em" -- Bart Simpson |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Michael Coburn... |
| Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 2:00 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 19:41:10 +0100, John Galt wrote:
[quote]AZDuffman wrote:
On Nov 2, 1:24 am, Michael Coburn <mik... at (no spam) verizon.net> wrote:
It is _YOU_ who seem to misunderstand:
The Democratic votes in the Senate number 58. That is the total votes
with "D" beside their name. Joe LIEberman is _NOT_ a Democrat. It
takes 60 votes to get past the brain dead locked step Republican
fascists unless the Democrats _CHANGE_ how the Senate works.
Remember folks, THIS is the "bi-partisanship" that liberals offer.
Somehow I don't remember this guy crying so much when the democrat
party was filibustering Bush's judicial nominees.
Quite. If the Demosocialists can't get to 60, even with their margins,
it's the fault of the legislation, not with the process.
[/quote]
Nope. It simply should not take 60. LIEberman is a Republican that
happens to caucus with the Democrats.
--
"Those are my opinions and you can't have em" -- Bart Simpson |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| AZDuffman... |
| Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 7:19 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 3, 1:58 am, Michael Coburn <mik... at (no spam) verizon.net> wrote:
[quote]On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 09:18:24 -0800, AZDuffman wrote:
On Nov 2, 1:24 am, Michael Coburn <mik... at (no spam) verizon.net> wrote:
It is _YOU_ who seem to misunderstand:
The Democratic votes in the Senate number 58. That is the total votes
with "D" beside their name. Joe LIEberman is _NOT_ a Democrat. It
takes 60 votes to get past the brain dead locked step Republican
fascists unless the Democrats _CHANGE_ how the Senate works.
Remember folks, THIS is the "bi-partisanship" that liberals offer.
I am _NOT_ bipartisan in any way and I _am_ a true liberal and have NEVER
desired any sort of bipartisanship with the fascist pig Republicans.
[/quote]
You are indeed a true liberal, unable to get thru one post without
lies, rage, and foul language.
[quote]Somehow I don't remember this guy crying so much when the democrat party
was filibustering Bush's judicial nominees.
Cite??? Show us... You are a lying pig as always. Alito is on the
bench.
[/quote]
Here it is-straight from a liberal news network no less:
http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/05/19/filibuster.fight/index.html |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| AZDuffman... |
| Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 7:20 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 3, 1:52 am, Michael Coburn <mik... at (no spam) verizon.net> wrote:
[quote]On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 10:38:01 -0800, AZDuffman wrote:
Americans don't want it anyways!
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/
obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll
Rasmussen continues to be the out-liar pollster. They are apparently
still oversampling the racist southern hillbillies.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/polls/
Rasmussen sticks out very clearly. It is the Faux News of the pollsters.
[/quote]
In other words, it provides accurate information liberals don't like.
Rasmussen = most accurate in last election. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Nickname unavailable... |
| Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 11:10 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 3, 2:38 pm, Michael Coburn <mik... at (no spam) verizon.net> wrote:
[quote]On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 09:19:52 -0800, AZDuffman wrote:
On Nov 3, 1:58 am, Michael Coburn <mik... at (no spam) verizon.net> wrote:
On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 09:18:24 -0800, AZDuffman wrote:
On Nov 2, 1:24 am, Michael Coburn <mik... at (no spam) verizon.net> wrote:
It is _YOU_ who seem to misunderstand:
The Democratic votes in the Senate number 58. That is the total
votes with "D" beside their name. Joe LIEberman is _NOT_ a
Democrat. It takes 60 votes to get past the brain dead locked step
Republican fascists unless the Democrats _CHANGE_ how the Senate
works.
Remember folks, THIS is the "bi-partisanship" that liberals offer.
I am _NOT_ bipartisan in any way and I _am_ a true liberal and have
NEVER desired any sort of bipartisanship with the fascist pig
Republicans.
You are indeed a true liberal, unable to get thru one post without lies,
rage, and foul language.
Somehow I don't remember this guy crying so much when the democrat
party was filibustering Bush's judicial nominees.
Cite??? Show us... You are a lying pig as always. Alito is on the
bench.
Here it is-straight from a liberal news network no less:
http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/05/19/filibuster.fight/index.html
As it turns out, I would support a Constitutional amendment that required
67 votes (3/3rds) majority to place justices on the Supreme court and
3/5ths foe all other federal appointments to the bench. That is the ONLY
valid use of cloture IMHO. But we see that the Democrats did not use
cloture even in the case you cite. The threat of cloture would not have
been sustained. The Democrats are simply not monolithic enough to use
such a tool.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/9/17/783228/-Reconciliation-Is-Not-
Necessary
--
"Those are my opinions and you can't have em" -- Bart Simpson
[/quote]
you do not understand, to a republican, nothing they say is a lie,
its simply a means onto a end. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Sat Dec 12, 2009 3:26 am
|
|