Then I aplogize an he's wrong
Printable View
Then I aplogize an he's wrong
I've never heard charity as referring to political parties.Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleGrizzly
The State of Israel is not giving to charity, giving to things like Israeli hospitals is (and should be).Quote:
I would hardly call giving Israel money charity (or at least no more than giving Hamas money is charity)
This is an American-only statistic for now.Quote:
Is this money adjusted for different wealth between countries ?
It is adjusted as a percentage.Quote:
Amount of millionaires and billionaires ?
Sure, and Churches give a lot of money to the poor as well. You're also forgetting that the Christian left is as big as the Christian right, if not as vocal.Quote:
Also im sure alot of religious donations go towards keeping churches going and recruiting new members...
Long story short, the right gives significantly more than the left, in America, based on percentages.
Almost as if according to the Pelosi/Hoyer/Reid/Emmanuel playbook, the healthcare debate in the Org has dropped to the same silent levels elsewhere in society (last post was 6 weeks ago?) What better time to launch the final version of the bill and schedule a rush vote on it?
So, despite promises of posting the material 72 hours prior to a scheduled vote online, Nancy Pelosi finally authorized web publication of HR 3962 (the so-called Affordable Health Care for America Act) in the middle of the night last night.
Due to dissmenination from the staffs of various House members committees, certain information is already known. For example checking in the bill, you can see that all Americans will now be required to belong to a "qualified plan" or contribute 2.5% of their salary to a mandated federal health insurance program. Failure to do so will incur tax liabilities for all uncovered members, and if the IRS determines it to be willful (at their discretion, with no burden of evidence), the offender(s) can be fined $250,000 and jailed for up to 5 years.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.3962:
Despite being over 1990 pages (8.5" x 11" or A4) when printed out, and only having been released to the public late last night, the vote is tentatively scheduled for later today.
Rumored (and undenied) provisions include: -coverage for elective abortions by all qualified plans; -linguistic & cultural sensitivity counselers at border stations across the southwest. Note: I have NOT had time to investegate these claims, but they come from Lou Dobbs, not Glenn Beck. (At least, Lou Dobbs is my source on them, I have no earthly idea what kind of hay Glenn Beck or Rush are making with this).
:wall: This is exactly what I feared.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HR 3962
Oh dear. What an abortion of legislation.
I would comment on that, but I was taught Americans prefer I don't by my linguistic & cultural sensitivity counseller.Quote:
Originally Posted by Strike For The South
Well, after last week it's clear that they need to rush to get this passed before the midterm elections next year.
Pelosi is such a tool...
Open yer wallet, Strike. They're gonna get some cash out of you (and your 18-25 brothers), one way or another.Quote:
Originally Posted by Strike For The South
Fix this when you get elected, OK?
So, the bill passed, 220-215. One Republican, John Cao, a freshman from a Democratic district in New Orleans crossed the line to vote for it, 39 Democrats risked Nancy's wrath by voting against it. Their political lives are now not worth a plug nickle, as MoveOn.Org is already actively seeking primary challengers to unseat them.
Last minute changes:
-Conservative Democrats, led by Rep. Stupack inserted a clause into the rules committe that blocked the language that would have required insurance companies (public options or private plans) to provide coverage for elective abortion. The language on this ammendment was included in the final bill, as was a reinstatement of the "conscience clause", a law that prevents facilities from requiring doctors and nurses from performing elective abortions if it runs against their morals. Democratic House leaders are vowing to have Stupack's ammendment stripped from the final bill in the reconciliaiton bill with the Senate, or by line-item veto in the White House, returning a requirement to fund all elective abortions and removing the legal protections for the "conscience clause".
-An ammendment which would have blocked the ability for undocumented workers to participate in the healthcare exchange was removed in order to secure the bill's support by the Hispanic Caucus. Undocumented workers will now be allowed to participate in the government sponsored health care exchanges (the House bill did not have a public option, but the senate one does).
-Nancy Pelosi took a victory lap by introducing a bill and seeing it passed, on a 219-216 vote, that required Republican House members to wear a button depicting a castrated elephant, with the words "We LOST" under it, for the remainder of the 111th Congress (through January, 2011). It will now be a Class A misdemeanor, punishable by a $50K fine and 90 days in jail for a member of the House Republican Caucus to come to the House floor without the button prominately displayed on a lapel.
(Just kidding on that last one).
Seriously, whether you're for Nancy's bill (I'm not talking about actual Health Care Reform) or against it, I'm curious what any of the rest of you have heard about the final version.
Or does anybody even know?
Can anyone tell me if it's true that insurance is now mandated but nothing has been done to cap premiums? Every source I've read today gives me teh impression that the bill is just a giant handout to the reigning corporate oligarchy.
Yes and no...Quote:
Originally Posted by jabarto
Insurance companies got kicked in the goonies....
-They're not allowed to deny coverage for any pre-existing conditions.
-They're not allowed to drop coverage for people while in the midst of being treated for a chronic illness, even if they stop paying their premiums.
-They're now required to charge the same premium to anyone, regardless of their health status.
-Their anti-trust exemptions have been revoked, which means they're not longer allowed to negotiate fixed pricing targets with hospitals and doctors, who are now free to charge whatever they want.
-They are now subject to regular congressional sub-committee review panels.
But, no price caps on premiums were introduced. They just have to charge everyone the same rate. If they had done as you suggest, forcing mandatory premium maximums onto them, in light of all the coverage requirements I listed above, no health insurance company could have survived.
Just out of curiosity, do you know how insurance actually works? :inquisitive:
I misspoke, I didn't mean literal caps, more like controls. You know, something to keep the prices reasonable so that the bill isn't just a blank check to the insurance industries.Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Corleone
The bill that just passed the House is anything but a blank check to the insurance companies.
Seriously, do you understand how insurance (of any form) works? Insurance companies collect premiums from a large pool of insured, on the assumption that the majority of them will have no claims, or that their claims will be less than their total in premiums.
SCANDALOUS!!! SCOURGE THOSE CAPITALIST PIGS!!!!
Wait... how about the minority that I didn't mention above? Well, for them, their health (or for that matter, liability) bills might come to 3x, 5x, 10x, maybe more than what they paid in premiums.
People pay (and grumble, granted) health care premiums not because they expect to come out even on the deal, they do it because "what if...". If my costs incurred exceed my means to pay, I'm covered.
If you force the insurance companies to take a haircut on premiums, and simultaneously force them to up their coverage on everyone, you don't have an insurance scheme, you have a wealth transfer.
I'm no apologist for the insurance industry. They've done a lot of malevolent things to gain what I would say is a well-deserved nasty reputation. But don't kid yourself into thinking that money comes out of thin air. An insurance company isn't a cookie jar. If you try to force it to be one, it will simply divest of its health care holdings, and you and I will be paying the health care costs for an Orange County divorcee who believes she needs a 4th reconstructive nose job and breast implants.
If you really want to "reform" health care, you need another oversight committe looking at not-for-profit hosptials that turn 28% profit numbers and doctors that order 3 MRI's to make the loan payment on their sailboat.
And putting an end to WhoCanISue.Com, a website dedicated to helping people who don't even have a case sue anybody, anywhere, any time with no downside risk, wouldn't hurt either. Lemur likes to point to the actual legal cost of lawsuits (most of which get settled btw, specifically to keep the legal costs down) and say "It's not that bad, let the ambulance chasers have their fun", but it goes well beyond that. Doctors and hospitals, who need no encouragement on the matter, end up ordering many more diagnostic tests then even they deem sane, just to keep the slathering lawyers at bay.
You're blowing this all out of proportion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Corleone
All I did was ask if the clause that mandated you to own health insurance made it in to the final bill (I honestly didn't know) and if so, was anything done to control costs. Because if not, than the insurances companies can charge whatever they want and if you can't pay it you get fined, hence the "blank check" analogy.
By the way, I'm not opposed to the core of the bill that got passed. On the surface, the bill sounds a lot like the Corleone plan I unveiled 2 months ago (require coverage of everyone, subsidize those that cannot afford it). Requiring universal coverage is the one thing that you can do to make certain insurance companies can keep up with all the other demands, and also is the best way to provide coverage for all Americans.
I'm just disgusted with a 1992 page bill getting released 24 hours before its voted on so that a dozens of other items, that have nothing to do with "reforming health care costs" can get rolled into it.
It should be noted that this was already law since the 1960s (From memory...) and that the vote simply reaffirmed the existing law.Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Corleone
Good God, we're getting :daisy: in the :daisy: with a :daisy: pipe.
Jail time for those who don't but the insurance Pelosi deems necessary! Huge debt incurred. Taxes raised. A great deal of government control of insurance of the practice of medicine. Mandates and idiotic rules destined to raise rates. No ability to buy interstate insurance. Individual insurance still taxed. And the best possible result is a slightly higher percentage of people with insurance.
This isn't about healthcare; it's about control.
CR
You know that the interstate insurance thing is there for a reason, right? If it were an option, the companies would all relocate to the state that allows them to shaft consumers the most.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
Also, what exactly is the problem with government control of medicine? It works in every othe rcountry that's tried it.
Not that I'm not disputing most of the rest of what you said , mind you...
Oh Don! We knew you were just kidding on this one - we all know the bill was passed 220-215, not 219-216.Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Corleone
So, I'm not exactly sure what Democrats were trying to do in terms of limiting health care costs in this bill, as they seemed to go the other way, every time.
One of the biggest reasons health care in America is so expensive is because the decision makers either don't know the true cost (the patients) or have a vested interest in running the cost up (doctors & hospitals). Industry experts (from industry and academia), have hailed high deductible plans with savings accounts as one of the single best and most innovative ways to curb spiraling health care costs..... give the patient a little skin in the game before they sign up for a series of expensive diagnostics even the doctor admits they don't really need.
But the bill passed last night completely guts the health care savings accounts (capping them at $2500 and removing the ability to use them to pay for medication), which will steer people away from high deductible plans and move them back to traditional PPO/HMO plans.
Stranger yet, no lobbying constituency asked for this. This was a bone the Democrats tossed to themselves, unless that was the price the AMA secretly expressed in private for support of the bill (as they benefit from patients moving back to "let somebody else pay" models).
For a group that claims they want to control health care costs, it's hard to see their sincerity based on items like this... :dizzy2:
I can see the clinics on Indian reservations, probably long overdue (though the procedural purist in me who loathes omnibus bills would argue it should be a seperate bill), the mandated industry-funded effectivity studies I could see other way...Quote:
Originally Posted by NY Times
But veterinary scholarships?????:furious3::furious3::furious3:
Our Lizard Overlords require priority. :wink:Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Corleone
Hurray! 56% more of America can now afford Healthcare, it isn't privileged to just 40% of the population anymore.
Also, I link this - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8247534.stm
This is disgusting, anyone who rejected Healthcare reform should not be allowed to get Healthcare or be charged outlandish prices. Seriously, anyone who is against reform don't even value the lives of people, and are barbarians. I am so glad I has the NHS, and to those in the America who scoffed at it, I rather have it than yours and I am laughing at the bank while I am not dying of some illness which was wiped out in the United Kingdom back in the 1940's which is still rampant in America today.
This costs a trillion dollars. Not even the government can afford it anymore.
'Shaft' the consumers? I want to buy insurance from a company in a state with few mandates because it will be cheaper.Quote:
Originally Posted by jabarto
And Beskar, calm down for crying out loud. It's not helping people by requiring them under the law to have insurance and throwing them in jail if they don't.
CR
Aren't Indian reservations there own countries? I guess you run back to daddy when things get to tough.
What are the chances this passes in the senate?
At this point I almost wish they would raise taxes at least to put an end to the guise of something for nothing.
No, it costs a trillion dollars PLUS, and the estimate is being provided by the good ole U.S.G., and they've never had an issue with underestimating....:dizzy2:Quote:
Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars
The cost will exceed two trillion if this version is enacted.
However, politics being what it is, the Senate version will not be quite as sweeping. The conference Bill will be somewhere in between, but trending toward the Senate version a bit (this process is pretty normal).
Jab'
Insurance companies don't actually have to relocate. They merely have to be given the opportunity to compete for business in a given state within the guidelines of that state's regulations. That is exactly what happens with property, car, and life insurance at the current time.
Beskar:
Relax, the USA will follow down the path laid out by Britain. It will be slower and a bit more haltingly at first -- after all we've 280+ millions and 3000+ mile distances involved, PLUS, we have to figure out how to pay for the 20-30 millions from Mexico who will use our system as well -- but we'll be where you are soon enough.
I think you misunderstand. I wasn't saying that the legislation requires them to move, I'm saying they would *choose* to move to the state that allows them the greatest amount of power. The same thing happened with the credit card companies moving to Delaware.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
TU MENTIRA:smash:Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
For the record, I am releaxed. Though, if I wasn't after all this time, I would need seriously mental health check. :smash:
I don't understand this line of reasoning. At its most radical, the Dem proposal would put maybe five million people into a government sponsored insurance exchange. The much-dreaded "public option." And yet somehow this means we're going to become like Great Britain, where every medical professional is an employee of the state, where a truly socialist system of healthcare is entrenched?Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
I don't mean to say slippery slope, but man, that is a very friction-free incline you're standing on. The proposals, as they stand, are disappointingly modest, especially if we want to carve real cost efficiencies from the half-rabbit half-antelope system we currently have.
I really, truly wish the Repubs had been more involved in crafting the bill, rather than screaming "Socialism!" from the gallery. If both parties would just work together in good faith ... ah, who am I kidding?
Have the parties ever worked together in good faith? I always thought it was quid pro quo, which the Republicans could have done; they were practically getting handed the ball for shaping HCR, when the Dems didn't really need to, and they failed miserably. What happened to the days when the Republicans would have jumped all over the opportunity to make themselves look coherent?Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
Um, the House bill included the option to throw people in jail for not buying insurance - not buying insurance for yourself is to be a crime.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
And complete government control over what insurance companies must offer and charge.
And forcing people through regulation into using the government option.
And control over what Doctors can prescribe in the way of treatments.
And forcing insurance companies to except everyone, including the people who waited until they got sick until buying insurance, and charging everyone the same price.
I think you are severely understating the scope.
If they had wanted to insure five million people, they could have put together some subsidy for people who can't afford insurance. And if they wanted competition and cost cutting, allow people to buy out of state insurance and allow companies to charge people doing unhealthy things more. And government price fixing always (@&$(s things up.
But they don't care about reform; it's about control, by having the government force itself into another huge facet of people's lives.
CR
:yes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
linkQuote:
Originally Posted by WSJ
To anyone who thinks that a public option wouldn't encourage people to abandon private insurance.... how many seniors turn down Medicare? :idea:
And how many seniors are agitating to get rid of Medicare? On the one hand, folks argue that the government is incapable of doing anything right. On the other hand, they argue that any public option will crush insurance companies. The two perspectives seem to be mutually exclusive.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
Much more concerned about cost containment. What is healthcare now, 18% of GDP? Something obscene like that? If we accept that massive deregulation is a political non-starter ('cause it is), and that a radical experiment with all-private-sector medical care for all and sundry ain't gonna happen ('cause it ain't), then ... what? Yes, the Heritage Foundation and the Club for Growth would like to see an all-private healthcare system, but that is precisely as likely to happen as Fred Thompson becoming President. Maybe less likely.
Some sort of reform is necessary. And unfortunately, the Repubs blew their chance to influence it, by adopting the classical middle-eastern negotiating tactic of, "Give me everything I want or I won't talk to you." Which sucks, 'cause the Repubs could have bent this bill in a better direction. So now we have .. what? A choice between doing nothing, and nursing along our super-expensive gold-plated jackalope system, or the Dem bill? Why does neither option fill me with joy?
I hope every hardcore ideologue, both left and right, wakes up tomorrow with a massive fungal rash. Chasing ideological perfection is the enemy of practical problem-solving. And it's beyond absurd to insist that our healthcare system is not a problem.
Every time I see someone bring this up, I ask, "Why is this bad? The insurance companies aren't providing the services they're being paid for. They're less then worthless and need to have been thrown out a long time ago. Or are you seriously arguing for corporate welfare?"Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
I have yet to get anything resembling an answer. :juggle2:
Yes, I love this. The party that runs on the platform of "government is inefficient" is worried about government efficiency usurping private companies?Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
This is utter Rubbish, and the mind boggels as to how the American media continues to press this. My Dentist is private, for example. I go once a year, pay up front and even my parents (who have horrific teeth) consider it cheap and worthwile.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
Your system is totally broken, but it isn't to do with the public/private issue.
In his defense, isn't the NHS somewhat unusual amongst UHC systems in the degree to which it's run by the government?Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
It isn't actually ran by the government, only its budget is pretty much ran by the government, and it has a minister incharge of looking at general figures.Quote:
Originally Posted by jabarto
The day to day running of healthcare is done regionally. It is pretty much configured as a federal state would be.
As a model it would work in the States:Quote:
Originally Posted by Beskar
The DOH - Central planning / bean counting
Strategic Health Authorities - in America probably at State level. Oversight and punishment
Primary Care Trusts - smaller areas. In charge of bean counting and job preservation
GPs / hospitals beneath the PCT, and the only ones who deal with patients.
~:smoking:
Would that be covered under the public option? :inquisitive:Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
I think thats the point. All the lefties would get treatment for free and without hassle while the Wrongies have to suffer it, or pay $10,000 for treatment.Quote:
Originally Posted by drone
And how is a huge, over trillion dollar government entitlement program going to solve that? :wall: You see the abyss we're headed to with social security and medicare and your solution for healthcare costs is another huge government entitlement program? :dizzy2:Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
Yeah, it is, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't even remind people that it's a lot more likely to help than the government (and some other reforms, like what I mentioned in the last post, and limits on insurance companies kicking people out). I'd prefer nothing to the creation of a hue program that would be nigh on impossible to get right.Quote:
If we accept that massive deregulation is a political non-starter ('cause it is)
CR
Could be worse, could be Medicare Part D, which is by far the most fiscally irresponsible abomination passed in my lifetime.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
Here's a surprisingly clear-headed column on the subject today:
So your article, interesting one, btw, expounds at length on what the House Bill did not do. Would you care to offer what, in 1992 pages of legislation (beyond what I've mentioned already) the House bill actually does?
Just curious, but not enough to start a separate thread, what everyone thinks the odds of the Stupack ammendment are in the Senate, and in the reconcilation bill? In Massachusetts, local chatter has it pegged as "worth voting against health-care reform", ala Martha Cokely (Ted Kennedy's most likely successor), believe it or not.
Will Democrats allow their dream of universal coverage to be tied to the dream of an elective abortion public funding provision? Would you personally vote for the bill, regardless of your thoughts on abortion (or public funding for it)? Even if you believe in public funding of elective abortion, would you let the perfect be the enemy of the good? Most of the people running for Ted Kennedy's seat say emphatically "YES!"
Gah, getting some sort of healthcare reform is far more important than abortion. As I have said in previous threads, pro- and anti-abortion absolutists are going to be at loggerheads until technology renders the debate moot.
From what little I've read, the Stupak Amendment is a perfectly acceptable compromise if it gets reform moving.
Jon Stewart busts Faux News trying to artificially inflate the anti-healthcare bill rallies..
And these people call them selfs journalists.
Clinton's advice to the Dems in the Senate is tactically sound. They should simply put the House bill on the floor, unaltered, and vote it in. Then there would be no conference or further debate, just a signature by Obama and one very large camel's nose stuffed into the tent.
Fortunately, they'll never do it and the Senate might let it die.
What's mutually exclusive? Do you consider Medicare "done right"? Of course seniors like it. If the federal government flew by your house every month and dropped a bushel of cash on your lawn would you agitate to get rid of it? If you liked it, would that make it successful program? Medicare is oppressively expensive and is going to grow to ruinous proportions of the budget.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
Reform may be necessary, but that doesn't mean that any proposed reform is therefore necessary. Sometimes no reform is better than bad reform...Quote:
Some sort of reform is necessary. And unfortunately, the Repubs blew their chance to influence it, by adopting the classical middle-eastern negotiating tactic of, "Give me everything I want or I won't talk to you." Which sucks, 'cause the Repubs could have bent this bill in a better direction. So now we have .. what? A choice between doing nothing, and nursing along our super-expensive gold-plated jackalope system, or the Dem bill? Why does neither option fill me with joy?
"It could be worse" isn't really much of an endorsement. I think anyone here would admit that Medicare Part D was a turd. In fact, I believe most every conservative here was opposed to it when it was passed. One interesting similarity between PartD and current reform though is how it's being sold. We were told PartD would actually save money, because thanks to all the wonderful pills seniors would be getting, they would need less expensive medical procedures. Of course, it's track record since and even the available data at the time showed that was false. With current reforms, we're being told that it will save money due to its emphasis on preventative care. Once again available data does not support this claim. Another similarity we'll see, if this passes, is that it's costs will wildly exceed the projected costs. Among it's arsenal of obfuscation, the current bill lists it's 10yr costs by beginning to charge us for the coverage before it's available. If you look at the costs starting when the plans are actually implemented, the costs balloon.Quote:
Could be worse, could be Medicare Part D, which is by far the most fiscally irresponsible abomination passed in my lifetime.
Did Medicare Part D stink? Yep. Are most Republicans playing politics with the current reform effort? Yep. But none of that adds up to us needing to pass the proposed reforms. The current deficit, and the deficits for the foreseeable future already blow away the worst Bush deficits several times over (I'm not assigning blame here, just stating the fact). It's hard to see how we can afford to be toying with a raft of expensive new government programs when we have no idea to pay for what we've got already.
Let's hope. :sweatdrop:Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PSKH6Gw1TC8&NR=1Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
Just a heads up, the Senate is going to vote on the healthcare plan after this weekend. Here's an overiview of what it will entail - http://www.pnhp.org/news/2009/novemb...d-bill-in-bold
As you probably gathered from the link, I'm hoping to god it will fail. My big issue of forcing people to buy crappy insurance with no controls on premiums is still unresolved.
http://businesspublicpolicy.com/wp-c...9/10/oecd2.jpg
The health system is utterly rubbish!
It's not worked for years! It costs a fortune with poor outcomes...
http://economicobjectorvism.files.wo...oecd_graph.jpg
You spend as puch public money as some countries, then add twice again!
http://media.artdiamondblog.com/imag...CostsGraph.jpg
Oh, and the speed its getting worse is accelerating...
~:smoking:
It keeps getting worse...
http://www.politico.com/livepulse/12..._.html?showall
The next time I see someone clamoring for the ability to by insurance across state lines, I'm going to slap them. Not only will it acomplish absolutely nothing - if not make the situation worse - it's a big slap in the face to state's rights, somehting I thought the right was really big on.Quote:
Moderate Sens. Landrieu, Olympia Snowe and Blanche Lincoln have an amendment to...remove states' ability to opt-out from a nationwide private insurance plan.
Merci beaucoup! :laugh4::laugh4: Tres drole! Je pense tres vrai aussi, mais je suis un "Grand Ancien Partie" person. :clown:Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
Welp, the public option is officially dead.
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories...12-08-20-16-43
To be fair, it probably would have been absolute crap even had it made it.
Spin! Spin! Spin!
Meet the Republican Spinmeister:
Quote:
Your new 28-page memo, “The Language of Health Care,” was sent to Republicans in Congress and recommends that they speak about health care reform in ominous phrases. For instance, you suggest that they refer to “a Washington takeover.”
“Takeover” is a word that grabs attention.
Is it a correct description of the president’s plans for reform?
We don’t know what he is proposing. We want to avoid “a Washington takeover.”
But that’s not at issue. What the Democrats want is for everyone to be able to choose between their old, private health-insurance plan and an all-new, public health-insurance option.
I’m not a policy person. I’m a language person.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/24/ma...wwln-q4-t.html
The thing is, it makes anyone looking towards America think Republicans are the slimiest :daisy:-eating monkeys with a vested interested against the people of America.
In America, they don't know what politics is except from what they hear on Fox news.
All in all, it is a waste.
Not everyone, just the European equivalents of this:Quote:
Originally Posted by Beskar
The Democrats are easily just as useless in this whole debate.Quote:
In America, they don't know what politics is except from what they hear on Fox news.