Is that a serious question or just a reference?Quote:
Originally Posted by Synnen
Good reference, though.
|
Is that a serious question or just a reference?Quote:
Originally Posted by Synnen
Good reference, though.
Right here. I don't need an English lesson either.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Exit question: what do YOU think he means when he says he wants to bring about "fundamental change" in this country?
Reference--sorry, should have used quotes.Quote:
Originally Posted by ETWolverine
This is the second story on this trend I've reported here.
Fire away, let's hear the latest defense of Canada's model health care system.Quote:
In Canada, a move toward a private healthcare option
In British Columbia, private clinics and surgical centers are capitalizing on patients who might otherwise pay for faster treatment in the U.S. The courts will consider their legality next month.
By Kim Murphy
September 27, 2009
Reporting from Vancouver, Canada - When the pain in Christina Woodkey's legs became so severe that she could no long hike or cross-country ski, she went to her local health clinic. The Calgary, Canada, resident was told she'd need to see a hip specialist. Because the problem was not life-threatening, however, she'd have to wait about a year.
So wait she did.
In January, the hip doctor told her that a narrowing of the spine was compressing her nerves and causing the pain. She needed a back specialist. The appointment was set for Sept. 30. "When I was given that date, I asked when could I expect to have surgery," said Woodkey, 72. "They said it would be a year and a half after I had seen this doctor."
So this month, she drove across the border into Montana and got the $50,000 surgery done in two days.
"I don't have insurance. We're not allowed to have private health insurance in Canada," Woodkey said. "It's not going to be easy to come up with the money. But I'm happy to say the pain is almost all gone."
Whereas U.S. healthcare is predominantly a private system paid for by private insurers, things in Canada tend toward the other end of the spectrum: A universal, government-funded health system is only beginning to flirt with private-sector medicine.
Hoping to capitalize on patients who might otherwise go to the U.S. for speedier care, a network of technically illegal private clinics and surgical centers has sprung up in British Columbia, echoing a trend in Quebec. In October, the courts will be asked to decide whether the budding system should be sanctioned.
More than 70 private health providers in British Columbia now schedule simple surgeries and tests such as MRIs with waits as short as a week or two, compared with the months it takes for a public surgical suite to become available for nonessential operations.
"What we have in Canada is access to a government, state-mandated wait list," said Brian Day, a former Canadian Medical Assn. director who runs a private surgical center in Vancouver. "You cannot force a citizen in a free and democratic society to simply wait for healthcare, and outlaw their ability to extricate themselves from a wait list."
Yet the move into privatized care threatens to make the delays -- already long from the perennial shortage of doctors and rationing of facilities -- even longer, public healthcare advocates say. There will be fewer skilled healthcare workers in government hospitals as doctors and nurses are lured into better-paying private jobs, they say.
Oh them illegal back ally clinics. Sounds like the abortion debate .Quote:
Technically illegal private clinics and surgical centers
The Canadians I know are happy with it. I've certainly had some long waits under the US system. Despite severe back pain, I was not treated for 6 months, mostly because of intense bureaucratic stuff that I had to deal with while in pain. I don't know of any reputable back surgeon around here who could schedule a $50,000 surgery in two weeks.
But consider France. There's no reason to limit ourselves to Canada.
The French Lesson In Health Care
I'm not going to post the whole story because that would be a violation of copyright law.Quote:
Michael Moore's documentary Sicko trumpets France as one of the most effective providers of universal health care. His conclusions and fist-in-your-gut approach may drive some Americans up the wall. But whatever you think of Moore, the French system—a complex mix of private and public financing—offers valuable lessons for would-be health-care reformers in the U.S.
In Sicko, Moore lumps France in with the socialized systems of Britain, Canada, and Cuba. In fact, the French system is similar enough to the U.S. model that reforms based on France's experience might work in America. The French can choose their doctors and see any specialist they want. Doctors in France, many of whom are self- employed, are free to prescribe any care they deem medically necessary. "The French approach suggests it is possible to solve the problem of financing universal coverage... [without] reorganizing the entire system," says Victor G. Rodwin, professor of health policy and management at New York University.
Hello:
What I want to know, at THIS point in time, is Obama going to fight for the public option or is he going to cave to the insurance lobby?
His decision, in my view, will be the turning point in his administration. Indeed, I think it will be a turning point in American politics for a LONG time to come.
Now, I don't know WHICH side has the most votes, gall, constituents, money, patriotism, confidence, or any of those things. I just know that whichever side wins, will win BIG.
I said it before, and I'm going to say it again. If Obama is defeated at, yes HIS Waterloo, then Sarah Palin will be our next president, and guys like 450 and the Wolverine will be appointed to government. Scary thought..
If Obama WINS, the right wing, of the right wing will fall off a cliff, never to return as the country rights itself - or maybe that's DE-rights itself.
excon
Yes, they say they're happy, just like NK does, but this is the second Canadian province reported to have a surge in private clinics. The facts speak for themselves.Quote:
Originally Posted by asking
These Democrats aren't interested in modeling themselves after anyone, they're hellbent on reorganizing the entire system.Quote:
But consider France. There's no reason to limit ourselves to Canada.
He's more concerned about securing the Olympics for Chi-town... another exercise in vanity . If you listen to his pitch to the CBC this week he gave the same boilerplate address of generalities without mentioning the "public option" at all . Does that mean that he has no clear position on it ? Not at all. He is firmly in favor of socialized medicine . However ;much like his previous legislative history.. and his delaying action in Afghanistan , he is voting absent and allowing the Pelosi's of the world to do the dirty work.Quote:
is Obama going to fight for the public option or is he going to cave to the insurance lobby?
We have more pressing concerns than Palin as president, like a military dictatorship right here in the good 'ol USA according to Gore Vidal.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
US under Obama could slide into military dictatorship, says Gore Vidal
A dictatorship here at home is EXACTLY what economists want to happen, actually.
But it won't, for 2 reasons:
1. There is a HUGE difference between a socialist (which I would name Obama) and a dictator (just ask Argentina or Russian or Chile).
2. The middle class wouldn't stand for it.
Hello again:
We can sit here all day and talk about what the screaming mimi's said, but I'd rather talk about the REAL WORLD.
excon
1. I agree that Obama is not a dictator in the traditional sense. He is not capable of pushing a "hard tyranny". But he is definitely trying to push a "SOFT tyranny". And that would make him a "soft dictator". Who other than a dictator is capable of firing heads of private companies and replacing him with his own guy? Who other than a dictator is capable of limiting compensation paid by companies in violation of contract law? Who other than a dictator is capable of changing bankruptcy laws at whim to protect unions and hurt legal creditors... again in violation of contract law and bankruptcy law? All of these things have been done by Obama. Are they not the actions of a dictator... changing the rules at whim to favor his political agenda? Although Obama has not acted VIOLENTLY like many dictators do, what makes his actions any different from those of any other dictator? A non-violent dictator is still a dictator, Synnen.Quote:
Originally Posted by Synnen
2. How would the Middle Class stop it?
Elliot
1. If all of that is true, then why has absolutely NO ONE brought impeachment charges? The president is as subject to our laws as the rest of us are.
2. We strike. We protest. We rise up against tyranny. Unlike many of the OTHER countries that because dictatorships after an election --precisely why I brought up the 3 countries I did: they ELECTED their dictators, and it was peaceful until jobs started disappearing and the inflation became insane, because of pressure from the IMF and the US to auction off state owned resources/companies--but anyway, unlike those countries, most of our middle class is ARMED. Granted, it's not AK47s, but a rifle can kill you just as dead.
Should our country TRULY start becoming a dictatorship, people WILL rise up, and it WILL be a civil war.
Impeachment requires a supermajority vote of Congress.Quote:
Originally Posted by Synnen
And who controls Congress?
There's your answer.
Thank you, you just made my argument for the sanctity of gun rights and the 2nd Amendment. Off topic, I know, but I decided to take the opportunity where it presented itself.Quote:
2. We strike. We protest. We rise up against tyranny. Unlike many of the OTHER countries that because dictatorships after an election --precisely why I brought up the 3 countries I did: they ELECTED their dictators, and it was peaceful until jobs started disappearing and the inflation became insane, because of pressure from the IMF and the US to auction off state owned resources/companies--but anyway, unlike those countries, most of our middle class is ARMED. Granted, it's not AK47s, but a rifle can kill you just as dead.
Should our country TRULY start becoming a dictatorship, people WILL rise up, and it WILL be a civil war.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Synnen
Hello Synn:Quote:
Originally Posted by ETWolverine
It's because NONE of it IS true. It resides ONLY in the head of your friendly Wolverine...
You see how he dismisses you. I guess he figures you didn't take 2nd grade civics. Anyone who has, KNOWS that the minority party can bring up bills and/or resolutions for impeachment...
They CAN, and yet NONE of them have done so. Not, the Minority Leader Bohener, not whacko Michelle Bachmann, not ANY Republican... Why don't they?? It's because they believe Obama is a FINE AMERICAN even if opposed to them... Oh, they throw around WORDS, but they don't ACT on their words.
It's truly only the whacko's and right wing loons, like the birthers and some members of this board, who believe that. I guess we'll have to start calling them the impeachers...
excon
Hi Exy...Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Which item was untrue?
Did Obama NOT fire the head of GM?
Did Obama not cap compensation for executives of AIG, GM and Chrysler and several banks, despite there being contracts in place for those compensation levels?
Did he not violate the contracts between GM and it's secured creditors by paying them LAST in the bankruptcy proceedings instead of first, as they should have been paid per the security agreements? And did he not pay the unsecured UNIONS first instead of last, also in violation of the security agreements? Were these not violations of both contract law and bankruptcy law?
As a matter of fact, I think he did every single one of these things. All of them have been thoroughly documented too. He did 'em, they violated the law, and he's getting away with it. And you're happy enough letting him get away with it, because it backs up your political leanings.
So basically, excon, you're full of $h!t. And now EVERYONE knows it.
Elliot
Speaking of wackos, irresponsible rhetoric, fear mongering and utter disrespect from the floor of Congress...
Yeah, it's just the right-wing wackos making a circus out of this.Quote:
Rep. Alan Grayson (D-Fla.) warned Americans that "Republicans want you to die quickly" during an after-hours House floor speech Tuesday night.
His remarks, which drew angry and immediate calls for an apology from Republicans, were highlighted by a sign reading "The Republican Health Care Plan: Die Quickly."
This board is full of dysfunctional people.
Hello again, Wolverine.Quote:
Originally Posted by ETWolverine
Simple, really.
Synn asked why nobody has tried to impeach him. You said the reason is the Republicans don't control congress.
That's just flat out, UNTRUE, as I explained.
It's not even CLOSE the giving Synn an answer SHE deserves. But, you seem to have hooked me back into this stupid game of he said, she said.
I know you don't understand words. There ain't nothing I can DO about that. I'm out of here once again.
excon
Welcome to the club.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
I would just like to point out that a great way for partially fixing the existing system is to take the patent for life-saving drugs away from pharmaceudical companies IF the research for the drug was in any way, shape, or form funded by the taxpayers.
So... you can keep the profits as a company IF you do the research with your OWN money. If you use government GRANTS to do the research, then the GOVERNMENT owns the "patent"---or like the polio vaccine, and Jonas Salk, there should BE no patent for it.
Hello Synn:Quote:
Originally Posted by Synnen
You're coming along nicely. That's a wonderful idea. However, in terms of medical care, I have a belief that NO ONE should profit from anyone else's misery...
Really, Synn... Imagine the world gets hit with a really bad epidemic... ONE company has the patent on the ONLY vaccine that can save the world... THAT company, of course, wants to PROFIT from its patent.
Do you think the patent WILL be respected? Do you think it SHOULD be respected?
excon
PS> Will somebody please tell the Wolverine that I qualified my response above with the WORDS "in terms of medical care"... I'm sure he'll say that I said NO ONE should make ANY profits EVER. But, you'll direct him to the WORDS, won't you, as though that'll make a difference?? Hah!
No... I actually agree with you Ex that companies should NOT have the exclusive rights to life-saving medical equipment or pharmaceudicals.
If there's a shot out there that can save lives--it should be used to do so, not to profit on human misery.
HOWEVER--the way to go about that is to abolish the patent system on medications, not to make it so that the companies (notice the plural there) making them can't afford to do so.
Right now, I believe that no company WILL find a cure for, say, cancer or AIDS, because it's more profitable to TREAT those diseases.
Get rid of the PATENT issue, and all of a sudden those companies have to compete with each other again, and that will lead to lower costs.
Excellent idea.Quote:
Originally Posted by Synnen
I'm not sure about getting rid of patents though. Does this apply to all patents? Without patents, who is going to put the time, money, r and d to come up with new ideas, technologies, products? Maybe reduce the number of years a patent is enforced?
G&P
Your words, excon:
Well, the fact is that ALL of it is true.Quote:
It's because NONE of it IS true. It resides ONLY in the head of your friendly Wolverine...
Obama did all those things. All of them were violations of contract and bankruptcy law.
So... all of them are TRUE.
Aren't they?! Yep, they are.
And based on that fact, Obama SHOULD be impeached. He broke the law and violated contractual agreements. But he won't be. Not because he didn't break the law, which he demonstrably did (even you can't deny that fact... it's been reported all over the newspapers), but because nobody would be able to get such an impeachment proceeding to go anywhere. After all, he only broke the law to screw over corporations and rich folks, so that's OK, right? Impeachment would be a political dead end because the Dems control Congress and nobody cares that a bunchg of corporations and rich folks got screwed.
That means that YOU were wrong in your statement that "none of it is true." Because it turns out that ALL of it is true.
Now admit it and move on.
But you can't. You never can.
Wrong on health care.
Wrong on the role of government.
Wrong on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Wrong about Bush being a Dufus.
And wrong in saying that I was incorrect on the facts.
And NEVER able to admit it.
Elliot
Not ALL patents--but can you imagine where we'd be today if the polio vaccine, or the smallpox vaccine, or the MMR every child gets was under PATENT, and only ONE company could make them--and could charge whatever they wanted for them?Quote:
Originally Posted by inthebox
And LOTS of people have come up with new ideas for the simple reason of making life better/easier, with no thought to the money involved.
Frankly, the government needs to stop outsourcing the military before it starts taking back medicine, in my opinion. But--if you're looking for a place to improve the current system, then stopping major pharmaceudical companies from taking government grants paid for with taxpayer money from PATENTING those drugs instead of supplying them to the public that paid for their research would be a good place to start.
Good luck discovering all those new drugs in the basement labs of the universities.
You are right about drugs discovered using grant $$ but surely you are not saying that a pharmaceutical company that incurred all the expenses with no guarantee of return should not get some exclusive use of the product on the hope of a return of their investment ,and profit on the side ? Venture capitalists will find better uses of their resources me thinks .
Synnen,Quote:
Originally Posted by Synnen
There's this thing called "licensing" wherein a holder of a patent can allow other companies to make, promote, use or manufacture the patented item. That means that there can be more than one manufacturer for a product, as long as the patent-holder is properly compensated as per any licensing agreements between the parties.
That means that there is rarely a reason for a vaccine to be held back from production by more than one company.
Furthermore, drug patents tend to be relatively short-lived compared to other intellectual properties.
Sorry, but I don't buy your argument against patents for drugs.
Do you know how much it costs to develop a new drug?
Here's a rough breakdown:
Animal (screening) in rats—about 1–2 years, cost about $500k/year.
Animal screening in monkeys—about 2–5 years, cost $2 million a year.
Phase I in humans is strictly toxicology: 2 years, $10–20 million a year.
If it doesn't kill anybody, then move to Phase II testing for effectiveness: up to 10 years, cost $100+ million/year.
If statistics suggest a beneficial effect, then on to Phase III to determine effective dosage, side effects, other benefits and "off-label" uses: 5–10 years at another. $100+ million a year.
Over the entire term of testing, that's roughly $2 Billion for the cost of the development of ONE DRUG. And for every drug that makes it to market, there are literally HUNDREDS of drugs that fail at some point during their tests, each of which costs MORE money. But those failures are a necessary part of the development process... without those failures, new developments wouldn't happen.
Without patents, how are drug companies to recoup the costs of developing these drugs? If we don't allow the company that spent all that money to make it all back with some profit added, they aren't going to develop any other new drugs. Because companies are not in the business of spending $2 billion to not make any of it back. They would rather exit the business of developing drugs than stay in it for a $2 billion a pop loss.
Would you spend $2 billion if there was no mechanism for you to recoup that money? I'm guessing you wouldn't.
THAT is the reason that patents on intellectual properties exist... to allow companies to make back the money they spent on all those drugs that they managed to develop AND the costs of all the ones that FAILED as well. Because no matter how benevolent, kind, charitable, and compassionate people are, there comes a point when they decide that they can no longer afford to spend money and never see any of it come back to them. There's a point at which they go broke and can't afford to develop more meds.
Patents are a very necessary economic part of the development of new products. As is profit, and for much the same reason.
Elliot
You've heard the line that every American deserves the same type of health care that members of Congress receive, this is the kind of health care they receive. "And, for the most part, nobody asked what your insurance was," if the member needed to be treated at say, Johns Hopkins.
No wonder they (including the President) won't commit to using the plans they're proposing for us.Quote:
This fall while members of Congress toil in the U.S. Capitol, working to decide how or even whether to reform the country's health care system, one floor below them an elaborate Navy medical clinic -- described by those who have seen it as something akin to a modern community hospital -- will be standing by, on-call and ready to provide Congress with some of the country's best and most efficient government-run health care.
Formally called the Office of the Attending Physician, the clinic -- and at least six satellite offices -- bills its mission as one of emergency preparedness and public health. Each day, it stands ready to handle medical emergencies, biological attacks and the occasional fainting tourist visiting Capitol Hill.
Officially, the office acknowledges these types of services, including providing physicals to Capitol police officers and offering flu shots to congressional staffers. But what is rarely discussed outside the halls of Congress is the office's other role -- providing a wealth of primary care medical services to senators, representatives and Supreme Court justices.
Through interviews with former employees and members of Congress, as well as extensive document searches, ABC News has learned new details about the services offered by the Office of Attending Physician to members of Congress over the past few years, from regular visits by a consulting chiropractor to on-site physical therapy.
"A member walked in and was generally walked right back into a physician's office. They get good care. They are not rushed. They are examined thoroughly," said Eduardo Balbona, an internist in Jacksonville, Fa. who worked as a staff physician in the OAP from 1993 to 1995.
"You have time to spend to get to know your patients and think about them and really think about how you preserve their health going forward," Balbona said. "We're not there to put on Band-Aids. We were there to make sure that everything possible that could be done [is done] to preserve that member of Congress."
Meanwhile, the reports of the public option being dead may be premature. Two reports, one from Human Events and one from Heritage, suggest Senate Democrats plan on ramming it through next week by attaching it "to a House-passed non-healthcare bill." Obviously they've forgotten the month of August and don't care what their constituents want.
Following up on my earlier post on this pathetic Jerk named Alan Grayson (D-FL), who said the Republican Health care plan is "don't get sick" and "die quickly." Grayson of course not only refuses to apologize for his vitriol but now calls Republicans "foot-dragging, knuckle-dragging neanderthals."
Pelosi, another one of the most pathetic jerks in congressional history, who teared up over the possibility of violence stemming from the health care debate rhetoric, who censured Joe Wilson AFTER he apologized the President, and who personally impugned American citizens as Nazis, says there's no need for Grayson to apologize.
I suppose it's easy to hold your own to a higher standard when you have no standards, anything is a step up, right?Quote:
"If anybody's going apologize, everybody should apologize," Pelosi told reporters at her weekly press conference. "We are holding Democrats to a higher standard than their own members."
Well Grayson did apologize, but not to those he insulted. He apologized to the dead, all those gazillions of Americans that die every year because they don't have health insurance.
His outright fabrications and insults to Republicans aside, you'd think a Jewish guy would have some grasp of and respect for the term "holocaust." When did we start systematically murdering millions of Americans? Or should I just ask am I the only one here that finds extremely hypocritical that a member of the party that wholeheartedly endorses a practice that has killed over 49 million innocent children since 1973 would dare link Republicans to an imagined health care holocaust?Quote:
"I call upon the Democratic members of the House, I call upon the Republican members of the House, I call upon all of us to do our jobs for the sake of America, for the sake of those dying people and their families. "I apologize to the dead and their families that we haven't voted sooner to end this holocaust in America."
How in God's name can any of you ever trust these Democrats with your lives? How can you give them even an ounce of credibility?
Congratulations to Alan Grayson for telling it like it is and fighting fire with fire. He is of course correct. Watch the whole Situation Room where he sets all the panelists in their place. We need more like him.
Here's the video: YouTube - Rep Alan Grayson: Republicans Are "Knuckle-Dragging Neanderthals"
How can you not only defend but celebrate this pathetic, lying jerk? His point is they can't get anything done because Republicans are dragging their feet.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
He's a pathetic, lying, sack of cow excrement and you think he's "telling it like it is?" HELLO! Not only has Obama not met with Republicans on this since May, but Democrats don't need a single Republican to pass their legislation and 56 percent of Americans are opposed to their proposals. That's telling it like it is.
You and all your republican friends here are the lying sacks of excrements.
Democrats wants to do this in a bi-partisan way and you oppose that?
Also " A New York Times/CBS poll found that 65% of respondents want a public health care option, while only 26% opposed such a plan"
So tell us, NK, what overtures have the Dems made to work with the Reps on health care?Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
And as it turns out, Grayson's description of the "Republican plan" is actually more fitting for the Dems plan.
The Dem's big fix for cutting the cost of health care is "preventive medicine"... in other words "don't get sick".
And if we do get sick, the Dem's big solution is to have old people sign DNRs, DNIs and Living Wills that tell doctors not to administer care... in other words, "die quickly".
It's all right there in HR 3200.
So in fact, Grayson was describing HIS health care plan, not ours.
Elliot
How do you get away here with so many personal attacks against other AMHD members?Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
What overtures have they made, huh? Tell us. If they want a bipartisan approach why do they keep trying to ram it through under the radar?Quote:
Democrats wants to do this in a bi-partisan way and you oppose that?
That's obviously a very confused sampling, 30% think Obamacare will make Medicare worse while only 15% think it will make it better, yet they want a Medicare type option? And 59% don't understand the plans at all. That's a real smart group of folks they sampled there.Quote:
Also " A New York Times/CBS poll found that 65% of respondents want a public health care option, while only 26% opposed such a plan" [LEFT]
Hello:
He interprets the Republican plan as "don't get sick". It certainly as close to the truth as the Republican interpretation of the Democrats wanting to kill granny.
By the way, what is the Republican bill number?? What is it again?? You can't find it?? You say they don't HAVE a bill. Really? The Republicans haven't introduced their OWN health care bill?? I thought they had a plan.. They COULD introduce a bill, can't they?? I mean, there's no LAW that says the minority party can't introduce legislation.
Hmmmm... Don't get sick is looking much like the truth.
excon
I agree with Excon. I am not aware of any republican plan to reform health care. My impression is that they want everything to stay the way it is. That was the whole point of the summer town hall shoutings, yes? Don't change anything, don't talk about this issue. Just shout down anyone who wants to discuss how we could make things better. A large majority of Americans want reform.
You really believe the Democrats?
The Dems are rejecting every plan, every proposal, every amendment Republicans are putting forth. Harry Reid, when confronted with a bill to allow re-importation of drugs from Canada said it was an "inopportune time" to consider lowering prescription drug costs while the health care debate is taking place. After censuring Joe Wilson and re-wording the bill to correct what he accused Obama of lying about, they've now rejected a Republican amendment to require photo ID's for health benefits leaving the doors wide open for giving coverage to illegals anyway.Quote:
Rep. Tom Price, the Georgia Republican who heads the House GOP Study Committee, came to President Obama's speech Wednesday night itching to make a point. Price, who also happens to be an orthopedic surgeon, has often heard the president accuse Republicans of criticizing Democratic health care proposals while having no plans of their own. He expected Obama to do the same Wednesday night.
"We knew the president would at some point say something like, 'and the other side has no ideas,' " Price says. So Price and his Republican colleagues brought with them copies of the more than 30 health care reform bills they have proposed in the House this year.
Obama didn't directly accuse Republicans of not having a plan. But he did say he would welcome "serious" health care proposals. "My door is always open," Obama said.
That's when Price held up the sheaf of papers he was carrying -- a copy of H.R. 3400, the Empowering Patients First Act, which Price and the Republican Study Committee proposed in July. Other GOP lawmakers held up their own bills. Some raised a list of all the health care bills -- there are more than 30 -- proposed by members of the Study Committee.
Why use the props? "To say in a quiet and respectful way, 'Here are our ideas,' " Price says. "To say to the president, 'You're not being honest with the American people when you say that there haven't been ideas put forward, and that you've listened to them, because you haven't.' "
These Dems have ZERO credibility and Grayson is now their celebrated poster child for that.
Or just ignore the facts and lie through their teeth. See my last post.Quote:
Originally Posted by asking
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:02 PM. |