CHANGE!!!

Mockingbird · Mar 28, 2008

<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: Brad

Well,maybe not all republicans, but george W,MUST,,,,

</end quote></div>

No he doesn't. Get a clue.

I don't think anyone is stupid enough to actually believe Bush vetoed that bill because he hates children.

I don't get why you would post this joke, then say a bunch of partisan crud which places you right along with those guys up there changing their underwear with each other.

Mockingbird · Mar 28, 2008

<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: Brad

Well,maybe not all republicans, but george W,MUST,,,,

</end quote></div>

No he doesn't. Get a clue.

I don't think anyone is stupid enough to actually believe Bush vetoed that bill because he hates children.

I don't get why you would post this joke, then say a bunch of partisan crud which places you right along with those guys up there changing their underwear with each other.

Mockingbird · Mar 28, 2008

<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: Brad

Well,maybe not all republicans, but george W,MUST,,,,

</end quote></div>

No he doesn't. Get a clue.

I don't think anyone is stupid enough to actually believe Bush vetoed that bill because he hates children.

I don't get why you would post this joke, then say a bunch of partisan crud which places you right along with those guys up there changing their underwear with each other.

Mockingbird · Mar 28, 2008

<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: Brad

Well,maybe not all republicans, but george W,MUST,,,,

</end quote>

No he doesn't. Get a clue.

I don't think anyone is stupid enough to actually believe Bush vetoed that bill because he hates children.

I don't get why you would post this joke, then say a bunch of partisan crud which places you right along with those guys up there changing their underwear with each other.

Mockingbird · Mar 28, 2008

<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: Brad
 
 Well,maybe not all republicans, but george W,MUST,,,,
 
 </end quote>
 
 No he doesn't. Get a clue.
 
 I don't think anyone is stupid enough to actually believe Bush vetoed that bill because he hates children.
 
 I don't get why you would post this joke, then say a bunch of partisan crud which places you right along with those guys up there changing their underwear with each other.

kayleesgrandma · Mar 31, 2008

I thought your joke was funny untill your comments, then I realized you must have been talking about the Democrats, you know, the ones with the yellow stripe down their backs. Then I saw that you didn't have your facts straight about the bill either...

You left out a little something about the bill: it took the program too far from its original intent of helping the poor, and would entice people now covered in the private sector to switch to government coverage. Families who earn up to $80,000 with four children would qualify. That was not the intent of the program. Plus it more than doubled what was currently being used--which was not what was budgeted, and would have expanded the $5 billion-a-year program by an average of $7 billion a year over the next five years, for total funding of $60 billion over the period.

As usual, the Dems are so happy to spend OUR money. Origionally this bill also covered illegal immigrants, so the Dems had to fix that. This was especially aimed at Bush, because they knew he would have to veto it, since it was so over budget. It was meant to make him look bad.

Explain why a family of $80,000 should be getting government handouts...

Also, I'm not an advocate for smoking--but I think it is totally unfair to single out a segment of our population and keep raising their taxes. This bill would have raised the taxes on cigarettes by $1, again.

Tax and spend--that's a Dem for you, and if you are so worried about children than maybe you should ask your buddies to stop killing them in the womb!

kayleesgrandma · Mar 31, 2008

I thought your joke was funny untill your comments, then I realized you must have been talking about the Democrats, you know, the ones with the yellow stripe down their backs. Then I saw that you didn't have your facts straight about the bill either...

You left out a little something about the bill: it took the program too far from its original intent of helping the poor, and would entice people now covered in the private sector to switch to government coverage. Families who earn up to $80,000 with four children would qualify. That was not the intent of the program. Plus it more than doubled what was currently being used--which was not what was budgeted, and would have expanded the $5 billion-a-year program by an average of $7 billion a year over the next five years, for total funding of $60 billion over the period.

As usual, the Dems are so happy to spend OUR money. Origionally this bill also covered illegal immigrants, so the Dems had to fix that. This was especially aimed at Bush, because they knew he would have to veto it, since it was so over budget. It was meant to make him look bad.

Explain why a family of $80,000 should be getting government handouts...

Also, I'm not an advocate for smoking--but I think it is totally unfair to single out a segment of our population and keep raising their taxes. This bill would have raised the taxes on cigarettes by $1, again.

Tax and spend--that's a Dem for you, and if you are so worried about children than maybe you should ask your buddies to stop killing them in the womb!

kayleesgrandma · Mar 31, 2008

I thought your joke was funny untill your comments, then I realized you must have been talking about the Democrats, you know, the ones with the yellow stripe down their backs. Then I saw that you didn't have your facts straight about the bill either...

You left out a little something about the bill: it took the program too far from its original intent of helping the poor, and would entice people now covered in the private sector to switch to government coverage. Families who earn up to $80,000 with four children would qualify. That was not the intent of the program. Plus it more than doubled what was currently being used--which was not what was budgeted, and would have expanded the $5 billion-a-year program by an average of $7 billion a year over the next five years, for total funding of $60 billion over the period.

As usual, the Dems are so happy to spend OUR money. Origionally this bill also covered illegal immigrants, so the Dems had to fix that. This was especially aimed at Bush, because they knew he would have to veto it, since it was so over budget. It was meant to make him look bad.

Explain why a family of $80,000 should be getting government handouts...

Also, I'm not an advocate for smoking--but I think it is totally unfair to single out a segment of our population and keep raising their taxes. This bill would have raised the taxes on cigarettes by $1, again.

Tax and spend--that's a Dem for you, and if you are so worried about children than maybe you should ask your buddies to stop killing them in the womb!

kayleesgrandma · Mar 31, 2008

I thought your joke was funny untill your comments, then I realized you must have been talking about the Democrats, you know, the ones with the yellow stripe down their backs. Then I saw that you didn't have your facts straight about the bill either...

You left out a little something about the bill: it took the program too far from its original intent of helping the poor, and would entice people now covered in the private sector to switch to government coverage. Families who earn up to $80,000 with four children would qualify. That was not the intent of the program. Plus it more than doubled what was currently being used--which was not what was budgeted, and would have expanded the $5 billion-a-year program by an average of $7 billion a year over the next five years, for total funding of $60 billion over the period.

As usual, the Dems are so happy to spend OUR money. Origionally this bill also covered illegal immigrants, so the Dems had to fix that. This was especially aimed at Bush, because they knew he would have to veto it, since it was so over budget. It was meant to make him look bad.

Explain why a family of $80,000 should be getting government handouts...

Also, I'm not an advocate for smoking--but I think it is totally unfair to single out a segment of our population and keep raising their taxes. This bill would have raised the taxes on cigarettes by $1, again.

Tax and spend--that's a Dem for you, and if you are so worried about children than maybe you should ask your buddies to stop killing them in the womb!

kayleesgrandma · Mar 31, 2008

I thought your joke was funny untill your comments, then I realized you must have been talking about the Democrats, you know, the ones with the yellow stripe down their backs. Then I saw that you didn't have your facts straight about the bill either...
 
 You left out a little something about the bill: it took the program too far from its original intent of helping the poor, and would entice people now covered in the private sector to switch to government coverage. Families who earn up to $80,000 with four children would qualify. That was not the intent of the program. Plus it more than doubled what was currently being used--which was not what was budgeted, and would have expanded the $5 billion-a-year program by an average of $7 billion a year over the next five years, for total funding of $60 billion over the period.
 
 As usual, the Dems are so happy to spend OUR money. Origionally this bill also covered illegal immigrants, so the Dems had to fix that. This was especially aimed at Bush, because they knew he would have to veto it, since it was so over budget. It was meant to make him look bad.
 
 Explain why a family of $80,000 should be getting government handouts...
 
 Also, I'm not an advocate for smoking--but I think it is totally unfair to single out a segment of our population and keep raising their taxes. This bill would have raised the taxes on cigarettes by $1, again.
 
 Tax and spend--that's a Dem for you, and if you are so worried about children than maybe you should ask your buddies to stop killing them in the womb!

kayleesgrandma · Mar 31, 2008