PDA

View Full Version : Mike Rogers' statement on HC...



sack316
11-12-2009, 04:30 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G44NCvNDLfc

This guy must be crazy. It just makes too much sense.

Sack

Qtec
11-12-2009, 07:49 AM
So he is saying that "if we insure everybody the rest of us might have to wait a little longer for treatment, so lets not do it.".

Bet he is a Christian.

Q

Gayle in MD
11-12-2009, 08:41 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So he is saying that "if we insure everybody the rest of us might have to wait a little longer for treatment, so lets not do it.".

Bet he is a Christian.

Q </div></div>

No doubt!

sack316
11-12-2009, 12:47 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So he is saying that "if we insure everybody the rest of us might have to wait a little longer for treatment, so lets not do it.".</div></div>

If that's what you got out of it, so be it. I posted this as it seemed to be one of the more rational and well thought out arguments, in hopes of some valid discussion about the issues presented. Shoulda known better /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif

I took it more as a "Why does it have to be one extreme or the other?" argument.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Bet he is a Christian.</div></div>

Yep, Methodist. Just like Hillary Clinton /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/shocked.gif

Sack

Gayle in MD
11-15-2009, 01:31 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sack316</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So he is saying that "if we insure everybody the rest of us might have to wait a little longer for treatment, so lets not do it.".</div></div>

If that's what you got out of it, so be it. I posted this as it seemed to be one of the more rational and well thought out arguments, in hopes of some valid discussion about the issues presented. Shoulda known better /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif

I took it more as a "Why does it have to be one extreme or the other?" argument.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Bet he is a Christian.</div></div>

Yep, Methodist. Just like Hillary Clinton /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/shocked.gif

Sack

</div></div>

The difference between the Democratic platform, is what tells the story.

Our party does not seek to dictate according to our own religious beliefs.

Hillary Clinton does not seek to dictate according to her personal beliefs. She is pro choice.

The RNC just had to admit that their own HC plan covered elective abortions.

More proof of their hypocracy, and/or their lack of awareness regarding their own RNC health plan.

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/laugh.gif

Republicans OTOH, have used every trick in the book to subvert the Constitution, and the Bill Of Rights, seeking to legislate their personal views on abortion, and dictate to everyone else, as they flame their ill radial base to kill innocent people, who are abiding by the laws of our country, and who have different views from their own views on religion and abortion.

The congressional Budget Office already stated that the Republican plan cost more, covered fewer.

IOW, Republicans block progress, with no viable plan of heir own...

G.

G.

llotter
11-15-2009, 03:14 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So he is saying that "if we insure everybody the rest of us might have to wait a little longer for treatment, so lets not do it.".

Bet he is a Christian.

Q </div></div>

There is a Commandment that says, 'Thou Shalt Not Steal.' That should apply to the politician, who seem to have the crazy notion that all money belongs to them to spend as they please and just be grateful if they let you keep some for yourself, as well as everyone else. In fact, HC is no where in the Constitution.

wolfdancer
11-15-2009, 04:28 PM
Gee, I googled "Mr. Rogers", and was directed to this site:
there goes the neighborhood (http://pbskids.org/rogers/)
and then later on this site:
Mr Rogers (http://rogerswatch.blogspot.com/)
I have to confess, the first one was more inspirational, then the second.
But I could be wrong.....seeing as how I don't read Steve's posts all of the time.
Mr. Rogers is:
....... PacMan ??

Who wudda guessed, a Republican milking the system???????

Qtec
11-15-2009, 09:33 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">There is a Commandment that says, 'Thou Shalt Not Steal.' <u>That should apply to the politician,</u> </div></div>
It does. Jefferson got 13 years![ Most of them are doing it as well , just no so crudely.] follow the money (http://tpmtv.talkingpointsmemo.com/?id=3902949)

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">In fact, HC is no where in the Constitution. </div></div>

Neither does it mention crack cocaine or meth-amphetamine so why are they both illegal? A clue.......

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Section 8 - Powers of Congress

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts <u>and provide for the common Defence and <span style='font-size: 14pt'>general Welfare of the United States </span></u></div></div>

When they say the ' Welfare of the United States ' that must ,at least, include the people, the citizens of the USA, don't you think? Its the people who make a country what it is.
Without people, there is no country , therefore the people are the most important asset a country has, so the Govt has to make sure that for the <span style='font-size: 14pt'>general Welfare of the United States </span> they [ The People] are fit enough to defend the nation when called for. Ensuring the citizens have access to PROPER HC MUST be a priority.


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">H1N1 Widespread in 46 States as Vaccines Lag

Published: October 24, 2009

WASHINGTON President Obama has declared the swine flu outbreak a national emergency, </div></div>

WHY? Where does it say in the USCON.......etc etc blah blah blah.....
Didn't hear the GOP complaining about this side of Socialism!!!!!!! link (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/25/us/politics/25flu.html)



Q

BTW, it does say,
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Amendment 4 - Search and Seizure. Ratified 12/15/1791.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. </div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The NSA warrantless surveillance controversy concerns surveillance of persons within the United States incident to the collection of foreign intelligence by the U.S. National Security Agency (NSA) as part of the war on terror. Under this program, referred to by the Bush administration as the "terrorist surveillance program",[1] part of the broader President's Surveillance Program, the NSA is authorized by executive order to monitor phone calls, e-mails, Internet activity, text messaging, and other communication involving any party believed by the NSA to be outside the U.S., even if the other end of the communication lies within the U.S., <span style='font-size: 20pt'>without warrants. </span></div></div>

Oh my! All the USCON guys will be loading their guns right now in response to this outrageous attack on the USCON. Call out the militia.

wolfdancer
11-15-2009, 09:57 PM
I can only imagine from your post, what was contained in his post.
And "it ain't in the constitution"....unreal as a comment on HC.
i'm glad that you are dealing with it, gladder still, for the most part, I'll be ignoring his posts.