Krauthammer on Obama-care. the coming VAT, etc
in [Motorcycles]
|
From: Twibil on 25 Mar 2010 23:27 On Mar 25, 6:10 pm, BryanUT <nestl...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > > > But alas, intelligent conservative discourse has been hijacked. Yup. And you're replying to one of the highjackers. He admittedly doesn't ride a bike, he has no interest in them, he's said repeatedly that he thinks bikers behave like idiots, and he only posts to Reeky on political threads -where he invariably takes the most nutjob-right position he can possibly express. In short; he's a self-appointed political operative who's taken it upon himself to spam Reeky in hopes of converting others to his brain- dead beliefs. It's the only reason he's here.
From: Twibil on 26 Mar 2010 03:13 On Mar 25, 11:19 pm, Robert Bolton <robertboltond...(a)gci.net> wrote: > > > >But alas, intelligent conservative discourse has been hijacked. I ask > >all the true conservatives to take their party back and offer > >something other than fear and obstructionism. Condemn those in your > >own party that offer no ideas, condemn those that threaten physical > >violence, ignore those chasing ratings on their talk show. > > I think there's spittle on the inside of my monitor. Funny thing about hijackers: in their opinions everything is always someone else's fault; never theirs. Any arguments to the contrary -no matter how accurate- only go to prove that the other guy is nuts.
From: Vito on 26 Mar 2010 16:33 "S'mee" <stevenkeith2(a)hotmail.com> wrote [ Sadly you and the un idiots are wrong...the weapons were there. I [ know they were there in 91' I know most were still there as late a [ 98-99. Sorry but on this one you and the socialist (another name for [ marxists)bastards are wrong...those weapons were likely still there [ untill at least 2001. Now if they got buried in the sands, shipped to [ syria or N. Korea I dunno. BUT they were still there...the Czech's [ proved they were there in 90-91. Nobody disputes that Saddam had WMDs thru the first Gulf War. He wasn't ordered to dispose of them until circa 1991. The question is when he got rid of them. He obviously did so at some point because we have found zip evidence of them after seven years of looking. I'm curious to know how you know they were still there in 98-99 or 2001.
From: 83LowRider on 26 Mar 2010 16:33 "saddlebag" wrote: > Too bad you have nothing rational to say about them. > Apparently you've convinced yourself that we can add 15,000,000 people > to the Medicaid roles for free, or near-free. The governors of every > state disagree with you. California says it will cost them $ 8 > billion. Arizona says they'll take a $ 4 billion hit. Just for a > couple of examples. Do you have a reference? ----------------- 14 states have already filed suit. http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/HealthCare/states-launch-legal-challenge-health-care-law/story?id=10178015 38 states total are expected to, and many such as VA, have already enacted laws, or are in the course of doing so, to ward off any national policy. With a supermajority, the dems could not pass this bill. Once Scott Brown was elected in Mass. they had to bribe many house members to circumvent the rules. Nebraska, Louisiana, Florida and even here in Tennessee, lawmakers were given millions in bribe monies for their vote. Pelosi has an 11% favorable rating, Reid is at 8. The election of Brown spoke very loudly on this subject when he took the former seat of Ted Kennedy. All this went ignored, along with the fact that virtually no one in the house or senate even read the bill. Add to that, the fact that the public was against the bill in its entirety and it still was FORCED thru. SS receieved 70 republican votes, Medicare got 81. The fact that not a single republican signed off on this shows that their constituents are against it. So the public didn't like it, the dems as a supermajority couldn't pass it, the republicans are against it, small business is against it, and yet you would tell us to stand aside and let Obama work his magic.
From: saddlebag on 26 Mar 2010 21:41
On Mar 26, 4:33 pm, "Vito" <v...(a)cfl.rr.com> wrote: > "S'mee" <stevenkei...(a)hotmail.com> wrote > [ Sadly you and the un idiots are wrong...the weapons were there. I > [ know they were there in 91' I know most were still there as late a > [ 98-99. Sorry but on this one you and the socialist (another name for > [ marxists)bastards are wrong...those weapons were likely still there > [ untill at least 2001. Now if they got buried in the sands, shipped to > [ syria or N. Korea I dunno. BUT they were still there...the Czech's > [ proved they were there in 90-91. > > Nobody disputes that Saddam had WMDs thru the first Gulf War. He wasn't > ordered to dispose of them until circa 1991. The question is when he got > rid of them. He obviously did so at some point because we have found zip > evidence of them after seven years of looking. I'm curious to know how you > know they were still there in 98-99 or 2001. He don't cause they wasn't. Sure Marines occasionally dug up a barrel or three of some ancient stuff that had long since gone inert. It was just slightly more dangerous than McDonald's meat patty. After all, a terrorist could roll a barrel at an American and cause some serious damage! |