Mass.acre!
in [Golf]
|
From: Carbon on 24 Jan 2010 16:19 On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 19:24:28 +0000, assimilate wrote: > On 24-Jan-2010, Carbon <nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote: >> >>> People are against it because they perceive it will do nothing to >>> reduce their own premiums. >> >> It's more complicated than that, tied in with Americans' fear and >> suspicion of each other (racism) and how expertly those biases are >> manipulated by big healthcare for its own benefit. > > you know carbs, the only thing more lame than blaming everything on > racism, is blaming everything on Bush. The healthcare lobby was able > to manipulate the bill because the Democrats were easily bought. Is the racism argument lame if it's true?
From: BAR on 24 Jan 2010 19:32 In article <4b5c7455$0$4846$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com>, nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com says... > >> That's hilarious. Presidents are as involved as they want to be. > >> Those who were largely unaware of was going on around them, like > >> Reagan and Wubya, took a lot of them. Those who cared about policy > >> and such, like Clinton and Obama, took fewer. The records are there > >> for all to see. Look 'em up. > > > > Show me their time cards where they recorded vacation time. > > http://www.factcheck.org/2010/01/president-obamas-vacation-days/ > > Obama took all or part of 26 days on vacation during his first year in > office, less than either one of the Bushes (especially Wubya), and > slightly more than Clinton and Carter. According to the cite, "of the 77 > total "vacation" trips the former president made to his Texas ranch > while in office, nine of them ? all or part of 69 days ? came during his > first year as president." Note that this only includes trips to Wubya's > "ranch," not to Camp David. According to the cite, Wubya also spent > close to three times as many days there as Obama did during his first > year. You still haven't showed Obama's time and attendance report. The President and Vice President are not subject to Time and Attendance because they are never on vacation. They may be in a location other than the White House. However, they still get the NIA each morning, they are still consulted on matters of national security each day as well as other legislative and executive matters. So, until you can show me Obama's "Time Card" where he put down hours in the vacation column you are just being argumentative without any basis in fact.
From: Carbon on 24 Jan 2010 19:41 On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 19:32:57 -0500, BAR wrote: > In article <4b5c7455$0$4846$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com>, > nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com says... >> >>>> That's hilarious. Presidents are as involved as they want to be. >>>> Those who were largely unaware of was going on around them, like >>>> Reagan and Wubya, took a lot of them. Those who cared about policy >>>> and such, like Clinton and Obama, took fewer. The records are there >>>> for all to see. Look 'em up. >>> >>> Show me their time cards where they recorded vacation time. >> >> http://www.factcheck.org/2010/01/president-obamas-vacation-days/ >> >> Obama took all or part of 26 days on vacation during his first year >> in office, less than either one of the Bushes (especially Wubya), and >> slightly more than Clinton and Carter. According to the cite, "of the >> 77 total "vacation" trips the former president made to his Texas >> ranch while in office, nine of them ? all or part of 69 days ? came >> during his first year as president." Note that this only includes >> trips to Wubya's "ranch," not to Camp David. According to the cite, >> Wubya also spent close to three times as many days there as Obama did >> during his first year. > > You still haven't showed Obama's time and attendance report. The > President and Vice President are not subject to Time and Attendance > because they are never on vacation. They may be in a location other > than the White House. However, they still get the NIA each morning, > they are still consulted on matters of national security each day as > well as other legislative and executive matters. > > So, until you can show me Obama's "Time Card" where he put down hours > in the vacation column you are just being argumentative without any > basis in fact. Playing the fool again, eh Bert?
From: dene on 24 Jan 2010 20:50 "Carbon" <nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message news:4b5c89c2$0$4874$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com... > On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 09:49:02 -0800, dene wrote: > > "Carbon" <nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message > > news:4b5c5a4b$0$4862$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com... > >> On Sat, 23 Jan 2010 23:42:25 -0800, dene wrote: > >>> "Howard Brazee" <howard(a)brazee.net> wrote in message > >>> news:m09ml5522i831lbtmohjqpc0abnompt37t(a)4ax.com... > >>> > >>>> I suspect a lot of people are against this plan because they don't > >>>> want to acknowledge that they are paying for the poor. > >>> > >>> People are against it because they perceive it will do nothing to > >>> reduce their own premiums. > >> > >> It's more complicated than that, tied in with Americans' fear and > >> suspicion of each other (racism) and how expertly those biases are > >> manipulated by big healthcare for its own benefit. > > > > Race has nothing to do with it. The bill will not directly reduce > > premiums and it robs from medicare. It's complicated, corrupt, and > > too encompassing. > > I'll accept that your arguments are rational, but by and large peoples' > decisions about such things are not guided by reason--as advertisers, > lobbyists and Fox News all know. I argue that some of those who stand to > benefit most from universal healthcare (lower income whites) are being > manipulated by vested interests who cynically appeal to sub rosa racism. I'm glad you acknowledge my arguments are rational but why is your argument based on race? What does race have to do with any of this? -Greg
From: dene on 24 Jan 2010 20:51
"Jack Hollis" <xsleeper(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:b26pl555ps4gkm2c7fqrilbn9tehq59nqa(a)4ax.com... > On Sat, 23 Jan 2010 23:42:25 -0800, "dene" <dene(a)remove.ipns.com> > wrote: > > >"Howard Brazee" <howard(a)brazee.net> wrote in message > >news:m09ml5522i831lbtmohjqpc0abnompt37t(a)4ax.com... > >> On Sat, 23 Jan 2010 03:35:46 GMT, assimilate(a)borg.org wrote: > > > >> I suspect a lot of people are against this plan because they don't > >> want to acknowledge that they are paying for the poor. > > > >People are against it because they perceive it will do nothing to reduce > >their own premiums. > > The reason people are against it is because they will end up paying > more than they're already paying for the poor. Bingo! -Greg |