Wednesday's CBS Evening News trumpeted two liberal efforts to expand government power, leading by heralding “landmark legislation” to have the FDA regulate cigarettes followed by a story slanted in favor of, as reporter Thalia Assuras described it, an “historic expansion of health care coverage for children” of the “working poor.” Assuras, however, ignored such inconvenient facts as how a family of four with an income as high as $82,600 could get on the taxpayers' dole. Katie Couric had teased her top story: “Tonight, landmark legislation that supporters say could save millions of lives. Congress takes a step toward regulating everything about cigarettes for the first time ever.”
Next, Couric introduced a look at “getting medical coverage for the millions of American children who don't have it.” Assuras touted how a proposed expansion of the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) “boosts funding by $50 billion over five years, almost doubling the number of uninsured kids covered from the current six million children to about 11 million.” Sinking to the all too common media technique of exploiting a victim to push a liberal policy, Assuras cited “children like seven-year-old Pilar Edwards whose ear ache was so severe her mother brought her to this mobile medical clinic where she could get help even though Pilar is uninsured.” Assuras did pass along how critics contend “the legislation is a slippery slope toward a universal health care plan,” but against two negative soundbites, viewers heard from four advocates as Assuras concluded with a Senator's charge that “it would be a travesty if the President vetoed this legislation,” followed by these final words from Assuras: “With kids caught in the middle.” More like taxpayers.
The Heritage Foundation on Wednesday released a critique of the bill, “The House SCHIP Bill: Cutting Medicare, Undercutting Private Coverage, and Expanding Dependency.” An excerpt from the August 1 report by Cheryl Smith and Robert E. Moffit, Ph.D.:
The Children's Health and Medicare Protection Act (H.R. 3162), greatly expands dependency of millions of Americans on government health care, undermines private health plans, reduces choice for Medicare beneficiaries, and saddles taxpayers with a permanent new entitlement....Crowds Out Private Health Coverage. The House bill undermines private insurance. Rather than designing subsidies in an innovative way to encourage private health insurance among families, the bill's sponsors displace it. Recent studies indicate that people with private insurance will likely drop eligible dependents in favor of welfare-style health coverage—a phenomenon economists refer to as "crowd out." According to CBO estimates, the House bill would move nearly 1.9 million people off private insurance and onto taxpayer-supported health care.
The legislation embodies a bias against private health coverage and in favor of government coverage. For example, in addition to regular SCHIP payments, the bill would offer "bonus payments" to states for SCHIP and Medicaid enrollment over specified "baseline" levels. As enrollment above designated levels increases, the bonuses get exponentially larger....
Expands Government Health Coverage to Middle-Income Adults and Fosters Greater Dependency on Government. The authors of the House bill repudiate the original intent of the program: SCHIP is no longer limited to low-income persons or to children. House sponsors achieve this expansion by simply redefining both "low-income" and "children." Under the bill, eligibility for government coverage would be extended to families with incomes up to 400 percent above the federal poverty level (FPL)—$82,600 for a family of four—hardly considered low-income by any reasonable standard. The House policy is transparently absurd: 89 percent of all children between 300 percent and 400 percent of the FPL are enrolled in private health insurance; 77 percent of all children between 200 percent and 300 percent of the FPL are enrolled in private health insurance; and 50 percent of all children between 100 percent and 200 percent of the FPL are enrolled in private health insurance....
Increases Government Spending. The CBO estimates that the House bill, if enacted, would effect a major change in direct government spending of more than $58 billion over 10 years....
The MRC's Brad Wilmouth corrected the closed-captioning against the video to provide this transcript of the August 1 CBS Evening News story on the efforts to expand federal payments for health insurance:
KATIE COURIC: And there's a battle brewing on Capitol Hill over another serious health issue: Getting medical coverage for the millions of American children who don't have it. The House is about to approve the biggest expansion of benefits ever. But, as we hear from Thalia Assuras, the fight is only just beginning.DENNIS HASTERT, on the House floor: It's Hillarycare all over again.
THALIA ASSURAS: Fundamental differences on an historic expansion of health care coverage for children clashed today.
SENATOR HILLARY CLINTON (D-NY): There should be no debating the moral crisis of nine million children without health care.
ASSURAS: At issue, two competing bills to re-authorize the State Children's Health Insurance Program, or SCHIP, that will also substantially increase funding. SCHIP targets the working poor who earn too much for Medicaid but can't afford private insurance. The House plan boosts funding by $50 billion over five years, almost doubling the number of uninsured kids covered from the current six million children to about 11 million.
The Senate bill proposes 35 billion dollars, adding about three million more children -- children like seven-year-old Pilar Edwards whose ear ache was so severe her mother brought her to this mobile medical clinic where she could get help even though Pilar is uninsured.
UNIDENTIFIED MOTHER: If I didn't have this place to bring her, my child would not be seen.
ASSURAS: Clinic director Doctor Rhonique Harris warns lack of health insurance is putting kids at risk.
Dr. RHONIQUE HARRIS, Children's Health Fund: For a lot of children who are uninsured, a lot of chronic diseases go farther than they need to go.
ASSURAS: President Bush and his allies contend the bills go too far. They say the legislation is a slippery slope toward a universal health care plan. And the President is threatening a veto.
GEORGE W. BUSH: I'll resist Congress's attempt to federalize medicine.
ASSURAS: Mr. Bush has actually proposed a $5 billion funding increase, but that's his limit, and it won't expand coverage. So expect a showdown with the President.
REP. JOHN DINGELL (D-MI): I'm willing to make a fight on this issue if the President wants it.
SENATOR OLYMPIA SNOWE (R-ME): It would be a travesty if the President vetoed this legislation.
ASSURAS: With kids caught in the middle. Thalia Assuras, CBS News, Washington.
—Brent Baker is Vice President for Research and Publications at the Media Research Center





The Senate bill proposes 35 billion dollars, adding about three million more children -- children like seven-year-old Pilar Edwards whose ear ache was so severe her mother brought her to this mobile medical clinic where she could get help even though Pilar is uninsured.
ASSURAS: Mr. Bush has actually proposed a $5 billion funding increase, but that's his limit, and it won't expand coverage. So expect a showdown with the President.














Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Socialist Healthcare and
August 1, 2007 - 19:58 ET by VT Con ManSocialist Healthcare and Hillarycare have no traction, so now its Childrens Healthcare...you can't be against healthcare for the children?!?!?!!
Evil conservatives
Did anyone mention that
August 1, 2007 - 20:15 ET by motherbeltDid anyone mention that they want to expand the SCHIP program to cover kids in families with incomes up to $82,000 a year? So you could earn that much and get "free" health care for your kids. If this isn't creeping socialism, I surely don't know what is.
I especially love the "With kids stuck in the middle." Right. Shame on anyone who would deny free health care to kids with parents who earn $82,000 a year. Now liberals can add "why don't you want kids to have health care?" to their pantheon of disgusting questions which also includes "Why do you hate Mexicans?"
SENATOR HILLARY CLINTON (D-NY): There should be no debating the moral crisis of nine million children without health care.
Excuse me, Mrs. Clinton, if a couple earns $75,000-$80,000 a year and doesn't purchase health insurance for their kids, exactly whose moral crisis IS that???????
Come on, Mother. How
August 1, 2007 - 20:43 ET by Sonny LykosCome on, Mother. How can these parents afford health care for their kids after buying a Beamer (or 2), 3-4 TVs, a cell phone for everyone, a sub-prime mortgage, Starbucks coffee a couple times a day, lunches out each day. You're asking far too much of them.
Your forgot to add the following:
August 2, 2007 - 06:14 ET by ThisnThatSo you see, there simply isn't any room for the $200/month extra insurance premium for full-family coverage on your private health plan. The Government (meaning myself) has to pick up the tab, according to the Socialist Party of America (Democrats) and their spokemen (MSM).
The function of the gov't
August 1, 2007 - 20:08 ET by rbosqueThe function of the gov't is to "promote the general welfare", not provide it. This is incremental socialism.
Okay, so why don't we just
August 1, 2007 - 20:15 ET by WhoIsJohnGaltOkay, so why don't we just go and provide free food for all Americans? We all need it, right? It should be a right as an American!!
Isn't that the logic for universal healthcare?
I don't wanna pay for anyone else's healthcare!!!
My standard response to
August 1, 2007 - 20:18 ET by motherbeltMy standard response to those who advocated free drugs for seniors was: If you think you shouldn't have to buy your aging mother's medicine, what on earth makes you think I should?
Great reply! I'll have
August 1, 2007 - 20:45 ET by Sonny LykosGreat reply! I'll have to remember, that besides telling those people I pay $1786/month for my BC & BS.
To paraphrase P.J. O'Rourke
August 1, 2007 - 22:46 ET by Scout FinchIf you think healthcare is expensive now, wait until it's free!
You just used a word
August 1, 2007 - 20:21 ET by GregEYou just used a word liberals don't have in their dictionary --- logic.
How very drole...
August 1, 2007 - 20:30 ET by balboaHow very drole...
Please use a word that
August 1, 2007 - 20:45 ET by GregESince the word "drole" doesn't exist, I don't know whether to thank you for a compliment or ignore an insult.
When attempting to be in some form an elitist, above others by the attempted use of uncommonly used words, it will assist your self-promotion a bit more toward what you envision if you will use words that exist in the language of choice.
You get the point.
August 1, 2007 - 21:11 ET by balboaYou get the point.
Bal (Blonde also)
August 1, 2007 - 21:47 ET byHere's The Point
Supreme Court, National Security, Borders, Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.
}}}----> Thanks, Oblio
August 1, 2007 - 22:49 ET by Cool ArrowCan we play Triangle toss now?
- Arrow
Bal, The proper term
August 1, 2007 - 20:36 ET by BlondeBal,
The proper term would be "droll".
Wake up. If you care to be the little libtard here, could you at least learn how to spell?
Spare me stupidity.
Look who suddenly became a
August 1, 2007 - 21:08 ET by balboaLook who suddenly became a spelling cop.
I apologize for the spelling error. The sentiment still remains. And if my comment is "lib-tarded," then the GregE's is "re-tarded."
Bal, My intent is never
August 1, 2007 - 21:15 ET by BlondeBal,
My intent is never to be the spelling cop.
But I do prefer calling a thing by it's proper name.
Even if that is up-setting for you.
I'm a fan of spelling and
August 1, 2007 - 21:21 ET by balboaI'm a fan of spelling and grammar, too. But every once in a while I have to call out a post as obtuse as GregE's. Just gets under my skin sometimes.
Glad to hear it, bal
August 1, 2007 - 21:31 ET by RJFrankly, I think it was more true than not....
But if it got under your skin, then it obviously accomplished at least one of its purposes. ;^>
}}}----> Spelling and grammar
August 1, 2007 - 21:32 ET by Cool ArrowUR gr8!!
Okay, Bal. What is so
August 1, 2007 - 21:33 ET by BlondeOkay, Bal.
What is so supremely "OBTUSE" about Greg's post that has your cheeks colored red?
I'm curious.
What is that offensive that you'd call it out?
Retarded
August 1, 2007 - 21:16 ET by drillanwrIn seven and a half years of raising and loving my beautiful Down Syndrome child I have come to realize too many people take that word for granted.
And "libtard"?
August 1, 2007 - 21:19 ET by balboaAnd "libtard"?
I wouldn't know ... I never
August 1, 2007 - 21:30 ET by drillanwrI wouldn't know ... I never had a "lib-tard" child ... But I suspect, never having used the word myself, those who do, and in your general direction, are perhaps commenting on your ideology and powers of political reasoning. For the record, liberal ideology and politics is a choice, and is curable.
However, thank you so much for your undivided and focused attention and understanding to my observation of society's use of a word that automatically brings to mind images of people, such as my daughter, in a perverse and negative manner.
But don't walk a mile in my shoes until you've walked 12 inches in hers.
I don't doubt that the word
August 1, 2007 - 21:41 ET by balboaI don't doubt that the word "retarded" means more to you than it does to someone such as myself. Obviously I didn't mean your daughter or anyone with her condition, but was turning the "libtard" phrase back toward a Republican, creating Re-tard--Could have gone with con-tard I guess. I'm not a fan of the libtard phrase but after hearing it over and over again, you occasionally poke back.
Understood ... And I
August 1, 2007 - 21:58 ET by drillanwrUnderstood ... And I possibly accept your re(publican)-tard explaination about 1% ... okay, 2% ... but you knew what you were doing.
However, I would bet you money that you will automatically recall this little exchange the next time you use, or attempt to use, the word again, and may think twice about using it. You won't be able to help it. Why? Because in my time on this site I have read your posts and know you have a conscience.
People such as Al Gore, however, are lacking in such humanity:
October 28, 1994: Mr. Gore attacked supporters of Oliver North's U.S. Senate bid as "the extreme right wing, the extra chromosome right wing." The extra chromosome is the source of Down's Syndrome. http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=309
First off drill, more power
August 2, 2007 - 11:08 ET by BeowulfFirst off drill, more power to you for your support of your child. I honestly don't know that I would have what it takes to do what you've done for years.
Secondly, thanks for the entertainment you provided for making balboa dance around like a monkey on a hot-plate. He wrote "re-tard", then when called on it, changed it to "Re-tard" as a newly created word. Yeah, OKAY...
While any -tard references are pretty insensitive, at least the lib- reference is, as you put it, curable. It's also an affliction that is chosen.
Anyway, the liberal two-step was fun to see.
The Closed Mind Erects Strong Barriers
Bal, I was the one who
August 1, 2007 - 22:05 ET by BlondeBal,
I was the one who raised the question here...
Flail around to your heart's content.
Whatever.
The liberal agenda just amuses, here.
Keep it up, it's rather funny.
"Flail on, my favorite son!" Whatever, whatever is normally done ....I don't know the words to THAT song!
I'm flailing! FLAILING!!!
August 1, 2007 - 22:10 ET by balboaI'm flailing! FLAILING!!! Weeeeeee!!!
As long as I amuse you, Blonde, I can feel some sense of satisfaction, knowing the "conservative agenda" sleeps in merriment.
}}}----> Way to go Hillary
August 1, 2007 - 22:10 ET by Cool ArrowDance around your insensitive choice of words, point the finger all around, but make sure you don't apologize.
I'm not dancing around
August 1, 2007 - 22:14 ET by balboaI'm not dancing around anything.
}}}----> A spin
August 1, 2007 - 22:22 ET by Cool ArrowA spin by any other name is still a pirouette.
drillanwr
August 1, 2007 - 21:47 ET by RJJust thought I'd add a couple of upbeat stories here....
Are you a fan of the comic strip out of Canada called "For Better or For Worse?" They often run a series on the subject and do it quite well.
Also, our Scout Troop (100+ Scouts) welcomes Special Needs Scouts. They are full members of the Troop and participate in all our events, including camping. Words like "retard" are never heard, and they get great support from our guys that includes working with them in Special Olympics, etc.
Grew up with For Better or
August 1, 2007 - 21:50 ET by balboaGrew up with For Better or Worse. It's amazing how the characters have grown. Many of those strips were on our refrigerator when I was growing up.
I've got one on my fridge
August 1, 2007 - 21:58 ET by RJI've got one on my fridge that I put up five years ago. When I read it, I still laugh out loud.
Thanks
August 1, 2007 - 22:10 ET by drillanwrDon't get the newspaper, but found a site with the comic strip archived.
bal and RJ, you might be surprised to hear I saw that ridiculous movie "The Ringer" and LMAO! Folks with "special needs" family members don't lose their sense of humor ... We just see the absurdity in "normal" people. Movies such as "The Ringer" beautifully point that out.
}}}----> Overhead
August 1, 2007 - 21:35 ET by Cool ArrowWent right over your head didn't it?
John Galt
August 1, 2007 - 20:21 ET by mandrakeDo you intend to build your own roads, bridges and water filtration plants all by yourself as well? Let me know how that works out!
No, nor do I intend to build
August 1, 2007 - 21:52 ET by mulerider24No, nor do I intend to build my own missile defense shield around my house. The issue is not whether the government should supply certain public services, but where the line is drawn and how those tax revenues are best applied. The basic question being asked is "Can the government provide a more efficient and/or cheaper form of heath care than the private sector?" I'm convinced they cannot.
What idiot promotes using
August 1, 2007 - 20:27 ET by GregEWhat idiot promotes using something that is banned all over the place (though a legal substance) to pay for programs of any type? What idiots? Liberals.
Let's see. Promote the banning of smoking in every place possible, while promoting programs paid for by the purchase of smoking products and increasing the taxes on those smoking products.
Liberals aren't fooling anyone. They know as well as any of us that once a government program is implemented and a large number of people are dependent on it, that program will never go away and will only grow. So, less smoking means less money for that program, BUT hey, we gotta have the program right? So let's implement taxation in other places to pay for the program that over time becomes underfunded due to the push to eliminate the source of it's funding.
Liberalism is a mental disease.
Funny how the Democrats in
August 1, 2007 - 20:46 ET by dervishFunny how the Democrats in Congress stake out a position and refuse to compromise it, but it's always the President and/or Republicans who are made out to be intransigent.
To the Democrats,
August 1, 2007 - 20:48 ET by GregETo the Democrats, compromise means bowing to their way of thinking and giving in completely. We are not be fooled by their use of that word.
I found this story on
August 1, 2007 - 20:46 ET by drillanwrI found this story on Drudge this morning and alerted NB to it, but they probably haven't gotten that far through their email yet:
(NOT the original link I got on Drudge ... It's not on his page anymore)
http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/07/31/hey-moms-no-more-baby-formula-in-the-hospital-gift-bag/
http://wcbstv.com/local/local_story_212165519.html
Anyhow, I gave birth to three children. The first I nursed for 6 months, formula the next 4 months, whole milk by age 10 months. The second baby nursed for 2 months, formula for 8 months, whole milk by age 10 months. And the third child nursed for 12 months ... refusing to have ANYTHING to do with a bottle (at 12 months Cold Turkey gained a whole new meaning).
Guess what? IT WAS MY CHOICE! People who are pushing so hard for this whole universal healthcare system in this country just DO NOT know what they are hoping for.
All you need to do is look to New York City to see the socialist/fascist prototype being crafted for this country.
Katie Couric is a freedom-hating government-loving socialist.
August 1, 2007 - 20:47 ET by Dave RLet's all just hope Katie the mindless wonder will join the libtwit exodus to Canada mentioned elsewhere on this site.
Katie Couric is a prime example of the fact that income is not always commensurate with intelligence.
Help Fred defeat everybody.
We haven't seen anything
August 1, 2007 - 20:51 ET by GregEWe haven't seen anything expensive in the world of healthcare when compared to the expense it will be if it becomes "free."
Ok, I'm going to go WAY out
August 1, 2007 - 20:53 ET by mandrakeOk, I'm going to go WAY out on a limb here and be the crazy skunk in the attic.
I'm fairly happy with the Canadian health care system. I've raised three children. There have been times when I was out of work and could not have gotten health insurance. But This was Canada, so I never had to worry. Yea when I was working I paid a lot of taxes..but I figured it all balanced out in the end. And yes I did spend alot of time in doctors waiting rooms...but I just looked at it as quality time with the kids.
Now I'm in deep doo doo :)
Mandrake:
August 1, 2007 - 20:59 ET by dervishFair enough. And if the Democrats want to raise universal health care on the floor of Congress and debate it before the voters, again, fair enough. If a majority of Americans want it, let 'er rip.
But obviously, the Dems don't think that will fly, so they're trying a misdirection play -- doing one thing and pretending it's something else.
dervish,
August 1, 2007 - 21:06 ET by Dave RI have a better idea. If the libs want to live under a socialized medicine regime, then let them move to Canada, with one caveat:
When they really do get sick, and waiting for the Canadian healthcare system will surely mean their demise, they cannot come back here to get the care in less than a week they may have to wait months, if not years for, in Canada.
Help Fred defeat everybody.
Mandrake, Not really...to
August 1, 2007 - 21:02 ET by BlondeMandrake,
Not really...to each his own.
If your a Cannunk, and find this to be acceptable....so be it.
As an American, I want my health insurance...and I want it now. I am a productive member of my society...so my employer provides a very, very attractive health insurance benefit.
If I were to break my leg tomorrow...I'd be able to have it fixed the next day. The free market rules. I could choose from numerous doc's who would fix my knee perfectly.
The socialist model of medicine would have me wait for months and months (painfully, I might add)...
So as far as I'm concerned.
I hope you understand that I'm in no way denigrating the system that's in place in Canada. It's just not for me.
I want to be the health care consumer who can pay for whatever it is that I need. Which means I can get WHAT I NEED......when I need it.
Perfect system...yes?
Blonde
August 1, 2007 - 21:13 ET by mandrakeWhere did this weird notion come from that in Canada you have to wait for weeks to fix a broken bone???
My wife recently broke her wrist playing badminton.. the cast was on within 5 hrs.
Where does this nonsense come from!!!
Mandrake, Nice
August 1, 2007 - 21:29 ET by BlondeMandrake,
Nice question!
Seriously...I'm not trying to diss you here.
The debate rages amongst the socialists and capitalists here....and of course, we here (the conserves) try to slam how the anecdotal evidence of how the Canadian system of healthcare works..
I suppose I projected a bit on the Canadian system...but I know for a fact that the Brit system requires huge waiting lines for the simplest of healthcare solutions.
I totally respect your posts here, Mandrake...and if you as a Canadian can alleviate our fever paranoia over socialized medicine...please help. But I must tell you that we are totally divided on it....those of us who are conservatives see it as a folly....and the commies here see it as a salvation.
BTW....as a total aside...I love your comments here as a Canadian. :)
Blonde
August 1, 2007 - 21:36 ET by mandrakeThanks for the kind words. I do enjoy reading this site. But will admit that sometimes I do get distressed by the...what's the term..oh yea "culture war" going on down south. Hope you get a leader in 2008 that can bring things together. :)
Thanks, mandrake, We need
August 1, 2007 - 21:45 ET by BlondeThanks, mandrake,
We need a "leader" more than anything else.
I'd do it myself, if I could tolerate the media (LOL..no way).
The "culture wars" are vicious...and won't get any better, any time soon.
You Canadians are the BEST friends, and greatest NEIGHBORS.
And when the idjits here disparage my POV....just remember...I am right, and they are wrong.
}}}----> Culture war nothing new
August 1, 2007 - 21:59 ET by Cool ArrowRemember the fable of the grasshopper and the ant? It applies more today than ever.
The fable doesn't seem to end the same though, as it's now a swarm of grasshoppers demanding food in the Winter from the ants who worked all Summer. It's a Constitutional right to fleece the industrious today.
More info
August 2, 2007 - 10:38 ET by Unsanemandrake - Here is some more info on the joys of "free" health care. According to some posts on this genius website, your province isn't doing so hot on pampering people with things they really ought to get on their own.
http://rightontheleftcoast.blogspot.com
If you think we are bad, you haven't seen Darren's takes on "free" health care.
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
On "Free" health care
August 2, 2007 - 10:44 ET by UnsaneFrom Darren at http://rightontheleftcoast.blogspot.com :
“Private health insurance is forbidden in Canada – except in Quebec, where the High Court ruled that too many people are dying while waiting and must be allowed to get private health insurance. Another case (found at http://www.buffalonews.com/home/story/129344.html) is pending in Toronto.” (Italics mine.) And some spoiled Socialist whiny children want THIS for our country? No thanks.
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
If that system works for
August 1, 2007 - 21:29 ET by mulerider24If that system works for you, then so be it. I would happen to disagree that it all balances out, but that's an economic issue saved for another day.
But what about the other side of the coin? I haven't been to the doctor in over 5 years and only go to the dentist for my semi-annual check-ups. I realize we're on drastically different life paths, but why would I be forced to pay a huge annual premium (taxes) for services I don't need? I'm already paying into a system I won't receive any benefit from (social security) so why add another one?
Wait a minute - $50 billion?
August 1, 2007 - 21:12 ET by Gary HallWhy in the world is it expected to cost $50 billion, over 5 years, if Government run health care is cheaper than private. If this is 100% coverage for an additional 5 million children for 5 years, then we are looking at $167/mo per child. That is more than a good private insurance plan costs per child.
Obviously you've never taken
August 1, 2007 - 21:32 ET by mulerider24Obviously you've never taken government accounting. Your math is too clean and void of any $20,000 toilet seats or $200 lollipops.
Reagan on Socialized Medicine
August 1, 2007 - 21:52 ET by reasonsjesterMark Levin's radioshow recently provided an excellent soundbite of Ronald Reagan commenting on socialized medicine way back in 1961. As part of the AMA-sponsored Operation Coffee Cup, albums with The Great Communicator were released nationwide to persuade Americans that socialized medicine was simply a fore for socialists who wanted to commandeer the government and begin controlling the American people. I provide a link here to my blog for more in depth discussion: and a link to the audio: http://pointvcounter... .
"The press is impotent when it abandons itself to falsehood."
--Thomas Jefferson
I noticed that periodically
August 1, 2007 - 23:03 ET by jdhawkI noticed that periodically you newsbusters keep showing a picture of this lady with a deer in the head lights look. Who is she? And, why do you keep showing her picture over and over?
So you get to know her and
August 1, 2007 - 23:06 ET by drillanwrSo you get to know her and recognize her. Hitting her with your vehicle could total it ... and it's highly doubtful your insurance covers that. Unless, of course, you have "Progressive" ... not that caveman hating insurance company.
Perky
August 1, 2007 - 23:09 ET by Free StinkerI thought it was a "know your enemy" kind of thing . . . ;-)
Fred Thompson and Ann Coulter walk into a bar. The bar is instantly destroyed because that much awesome cannot be contained in one building.
her name is ---
August 1, 2007 - 23:10 ET by misterbillher name is --- Nsane Policy. She makes incisions for the house of ill repute!
misterbill, ahh, exactly what sort of "incision" is it?
August 1, 2007 - 23:14 ET by Dave RWe aren't talking about the rooster-to-a-hen incision, are we?
:-O
Help Fred defeat everybody.
Dave R--u is a mind reader.
August 1, 2007 - 23:29 ET by misterbillDave R--u is a mind reader.
And just to be corny as can be--
She has a capon when doing it!!!
A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government.
Author:
misterbill,
August 2, 2007 - 00:07 ET by Dave RLMAO-Well, that piece of crucial apparel should no doubt facilitate her "flight" to the Great White North with the rest of the dimtwit libtards who are (thankfully) fleeing freedom and prosperity for a nanny-state more to their liking (not to mention getting them the hell out of our hair).
The sooner the better, I say.
BTW-I smoked one of those a while back. Darned good BBQ that bird made.
Help Fred defeat everybody.
Thank you, jdhawk, I've
August 1, 2007 - 23:46 ET by AJThank you, jdhawk, I've noticed it too but have lacked the words to describe it. LMAO!
New Democrat slogan: "In
August 1, 2007 - 23:51 ET by AJNew Democrat slogan: "In America, you don't take care of government, government take care of YOU!"