A Look At Sarah Palin

[Captain Relativity]

Philboid Studge wrote

Why not the US highway system while we're at it? I wonder if she ever leaves the house. I'm thinking she free-rides on all manner of federally funded programs, then bitches about awful they are. Here she is, after all, on the Internets, which we wouldn't have at all if it weren't for Big Gummint spending.

She did mention the Postal Service, which is a bit odd since it works rather well. I wish health care had such a 'failed' system! Funny too that she thinks Cash for Clunkers has failed, when it probably saved Ford.

She didn't mention the "socialized" police departments or fire departments either. Shouldn't these services also be private Blackwater-style for-profit businesses, I wonder?

[Irreligious]

When the auto dealers complete their paperwork and it's reviewed, they'll receive their cash. How else do you expect the program to work? Give 'em the money up front?

The Cash for Clunkers program has been in effect for only about a week or so, and it's proven to be wildly popular-- much more than was anticipated-- which is why the Congress is seeking to infuse the program with more cash.

[Kate]

I hope they do! First Born is looking to cash in on The Beloved Hoopty Jeep and buy a Soul.

I love her.

Irreligious wrote

When the auto dealers complete their paperwork and it's reviewed, they'll receive their cash. How else do you expect the program to work? Give 'em the money up front?

The Cash for Clunkers program has been in effect for only about a week or so, and it's proven to be wildly popular-- much more than was anticipated-- which is why the Congress is seeking to infuse the program with more cash.

Wrong. 100% wrong. The program blew through 1 billion dollars in 4 days. What don't you understand? That is the amount that an idiotic Congress thought would be enough. They were wildly off and now 2 billion more tax payer dollars are going down the rabbit hole after it. And for what? Do you have even the slightest idea-- just a faint one-- of how long these new cars would have to be driven to offset the fuel that was used to produce them? And for a savings of 4 mpg? It is absurd. It is commie math that thinks that this is a legitimate use of tax payer money. It is preposterous.

The car dealers are very uncertain that they will be paid-- they can't get through to the gov't web site to put in their claims and, of course, with 133 pages of rules and regulations to follow, they could be kept dancing on their hind legs, submitting proof that they followed all the rules for a very long time to come.

This from the same Congress that claimed that taxes wouldn't go up or quality go down to pay for socialized medicine-- a thing that isn't humanly possible. The CBO let the cat out of the bag on that one-- it will cost 1.6 trillion dollars and the Treasury Sec'y and Tax Cheat announced less than a week ago, that yes, taxes will likely go up.

How do you avoid seeing any of this? How?

[Kate]

[Philboid Studge]

Lily wrote

How do you avoid seeing any of this? How?

We read credible news outlets for one thing. You should give it a shot!

(Who has proposed 'socialized medicine'??)

[Kate]

[dogpet]

Kate wrote

I hope they do! First Born is looking to cash in on The Beloved Hoopty Jeep and buy a Soul.

I love her.

The Soul has to be one of the ugliest things ever.

Philboid Studge wrote

We read credible news outlets for one thing. You should give it a shot!

(Who has proposed 'socialized medicine'??)

Congress. Read the bill. Obama. Hear it from his own lips:

http://www.breitbart.tv/uncovered-vi...ate-insurance/

You don't read credible news outlets. That is the problem. You read the useful idiots who were in the tank for Obama from the beginning and have told us nothing but lies about him and his "ideas" ever since. Of course, you are one of them or, at least, a wannabe, so I guess it is understandable.

[Philboid Studge]

Lily wrote

Congress. Read the bill. Obama. Hear it from his own lips:

http://www.breitbart.tv/uncovered-vi...ate-insurance/

You don't read credible news outlets. That is the problem. You read the useful idiots who were in the tank for Obama from the beginning and have told us nothing but lies about him and his "ideas" ever since. Of course, you are one of them or, at least, a wannabe, so I guess it is understandable.

You lovable idiot! You think that single payer = "socialized medicine" right?

That is too funny. Why anyone in here takes you seriously is beyond me.

(Breitbart is a credible news outlet? )

Philboid Studge wrote

You lovable idiot! You think that single payer = "socialized medicine" right?

That is too funny. Why anyone in here takes you seriously is beyond me.

(Breitbart is a credible news outlet? )

You really are a stooge for the lefty establishment aren't you?

Yes. A single payer, especially when that payer is the government, that will regulate what care you receive, how much of it and for how long, is socialized medicine.

Yes, Breitbart is a credible news outlet-- particularly when it publishes the smoking gun, as it were. How much more credible can anything be than a video that records Obammy's own words about his goals? Hmmm? And why, I wonder, doesn't the lefty, dying, lying media you love so much, report these things, hmmm? Too busy dining at select house parties with Washington Post honchos?

Get a clue. You don't even have to buy one. They are all around you for free, which ought to satisfy a gimme, gimme, gimme lefty like you.

[ghoulslime]

Philboid Studge wrote

You lovable idiot! You think that single payer = "socialized medicine" right?

That is too funny. Why anyone in here takes you seriously is beyond me.

(Breitbart is a credible news outlet? )

Someone takes her seriously? Seriously?

I think she might be talking about the Colbert Report as a credible news outlet.

[nkb]

Just to bring this discussion back the the thread in which it was initiated:

In response to my repeated requests to back up her assertions that the current health care bill contains language that could pressure seniors to consider committing suicide (assisted or otherwise), and forces them to undergo end-of-life counseling:

Lily wrote

Because it always gives me pleasure to demonstrate how imbecilic, how knee-jerk and how really dense you are, you shall have your way! You are, unfortunately, too thick to understand how thoroughly you have been pwned each and every time. It doesn't ruin my pleasure though.
#708

In post 708, Lily wrote

Where in any post of mine did I say that the bill mentions suicide? I did not say that. As always you assumed and made an ass out of yourself. The bill does make clear that the elderly are going to be under considerable pressure, not to use up resources. Just exactly how do you think mandatory counselling is going to be received-- nobody needs the government to tell them to make end-of-life directives. So why are the elderly going to forced to accept counselling every few years to steer them away from using up resources? What is the point of creating a new bureaucracy to "counsel" the elderly? Instead of paying for that, why not put the money towards health care?
Here it is from the Insufferable Socialist himself:
Here is testimony before the finance committee that lays out just how inconvenient the elderly are when it comes to saving money on health care:
"The speaker, Professor Stuart Altman of Brandeis University, tells the committee that resources get wasted in the American health-care system, especially for one segment of the population. Professor Altman says he’s reluctant to mention it, but why waste money on in-depth treatment for people who won’t live long anyway? Better to warehouse them and save the resources for the young:"

I agree, you did not say the word "suicide". So what? You quoted, and bolded, a NY state legislator's letter to Henry Waxman, specifically making that claim:

Quoting a letter from a NY legislator, Lily wrote

It is egregious to consider that any senior citizen who resides in New York State or anywhere in the United States of America should be placed in a situation where he or she would feel pressured to save the government money by dying a little sooner than he or she otherwise would, be required to be counseled about the supposed benefits of killing oneself, or be encouraged to sign any end of life directives that they would not otherwise sign.

I've highlighted the 3 specific claims being made by this guy, that you felt needed to be bolded in your post. Nowhere, I repeat, nowhere in this bill is any of this supported. I have asked you time and time again (I've lost count) to show us where, and you have refused.

Lily wrote

...I had to repeat it all for you in simpler ways in 718

In post 718, Lily wrote

I never used the word suicide, did I? Don't let that small matter stop a good, off-topic interruption.

As explained above, completely irrelevant.

Lily wrote

...and then I had to explain it all over again (naturally) to Irreligious in 723.

In post 723, Lily wrote

I am so clever!! I did not use the word suicide anywhere. Now you claim that nkb wants me to justify this guy's assertion that people *might* be placed in such a situation. But why do I have to justify his expression of a possibility that is very clearly reasonable in light of what the bill says? (Are you two under the impression that bills don't get *interpreted* to mean things beyond what is actually stated?)
Throughout the passage the writer uses, *might*, *should* and *would* not "may", "shall" or "will". In grammar *might*, *would*, *should* are all examples of modal verbs which express lack of certainty, or express possibility. You can look up "conditional mood" grammar for much more information.

For someone who hates Bill Clinton so much, why are you trying to emulate him?

Let's grant you that Senator Diaz was not expressing certainty in his letter. Now, show us where this possibility exists for his and your interpretation.

Lily wrote

You still won't get it and will huff and puff, screw up your face and wail just like a toddler who doesn't get her way. That will give me the giggles.

Giggle away, as I have no power over your perception of reality. But, in between the giggling, for once, back up what you posted.

[ILOVEJESUS]

Irreligious wrote

Your assessment of what you think I am advocating and what you claim you have been advancing over the last few pages of this thread is complete bullshit.

Don't try to pretty up your ugly views now, because you do not have the talent for that.

You literally referred to those who are currently priced out of the market for a basic health insurance policy as fools and blamed them for their predicament. What more is there to say to you, you fatuous, self-entitled cow?

So, take your tax dollars and shove 'em up your cooch, Diamond Lil. Other folks here pay taxes, too, and, fortunately, we are not all as greedy, selfish and loathsome as you.

I am . You aint having my tax dough.

[Kate]