Sho's you right.But that's also why the GOP put Michael Steele on to try and "add a little color" to the party of Lincoln. Identical reasoning (but smaller resources) put behind your man DeeVee to help LHL seek and recruit an enlarged melanic cybonic constituency - comprised of folks such as yourself.
Lyndon H. LaRouche is rightfully an object of derision among all but the fiddy-page book set - and- your boy Larooshifer and all-a-yall lil'imps.
HOW DO YOU account for those that come to these conclusions that you identify as Larouchian?
12 comments:
rotflmbao...,
^^ me too man. me too.
DeeVee 1/CNu 0
pure.comedy.gold...,
Not that I want in on y'alls little quarrel here, but you keep talking about man-breasts as though they are caused by eating animals that have been genetically modified (there's an entire thread probably on just how you know where the supply chain is from by looking at the package...but that's another story).
Instead of me explaining the fallacy of your claim, maybe you can just provide the mechanism that connects GM foods to gynecomastia.
DMG you are setting up DV to fail because you KNOW there isn't any research showing a link between man tits and GMO's. The reason is that there hasn't been enough time to see long term affects of the GMO's and I think such a study might significantly reduce the profits of the likes of Monsanto once results DO show a link exists.
I've seen anecdotal evidence that supports eating hormone injected meats DOES link to man tits. Although no studies so far...
Mahndisa,
Who? Me? :)
No, he set himself up to fail when he tried to make the connection.
Actually, there's no justification for the connection at all, just like most of the stuff on this site.
And you know what I think about anecdotal evidence.
Don't worry after they force you to take this stuff on Sunday. Evidence in the hands of our new Government will be "deemed" unnecessary for medicine.
I guess this is another LHL conspiracy.
Waxy,
Don't want to alarm you, but I think there's a hole in your tin-foil hat.
The good news is, it's easily fixed...unlike mental illness.
yeah dmg- Real cool. Instead of reading the bill and coming back with some more relevant information, you choose to keep me the tinfoil hat category. real brave bra.
One of my sons who is Special Needs can't be enrolled anymore. You are right - I am a nut. The US has made true eugenics more fashionable.
My boy is going be Ok, because of the support group people we have.
However, enjoy the screams of all of the other that will be lost. Hitler's Germany had the same plan also. It was also called eugenics. So sad.
Peace and blessings doc.
"SEC. 1177. EXTENSION OF AUTHORITY OF SPECIAL NEEDS PLANS TO RESTRICT ENROLLMENT.
(PLANS TO RESTRICT ENROLLMENT)
(a) IN GENERAL.—Section 1859(f)(1) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395w–28(f)(1)) is amended by striking ‘‘January 1, 2011’’ and inserting ‘‘January 1, 2013 (or January 1, 2016, in the case of a plan described in section 1177(b)(1) of the America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009)’’
.
(b) GRANDFATHERING OF CERTAIN PLANS.— (1) PLANS DESCRIBED.—For purposes of sec- tion 1859(f)(1) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395w–28(f)(1)), a plan described in this paragraph is a plan that had a contract with a State that had a State program to operate an integrated Medicaid-Medicare program that had been approved by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services as
of January 1, 2004.
(2) ANALYSIS; REPORT.—The Secretary of
Health and Human Services shall provide, through a contract with an independent health services eval- uation organization, for an analysis of the plans de- scribed in paragraph (1) with regard to the impact of such plans on cost, quality of care, patient satisfaction, and other subjects as specified by the Secretary. Not later than December 31, 2011, the Sec- retary shall submit to Congress a report on such analysis and shall include in such report such rec- ommendations with regard to the treatment of such plans as the Secretary deems appropriate."
-why don't you just read the bill?
HW, most people don't have time to read an over one thousand page bill. However, you should not try to elicit a rational response from DMG. Although he says he is a doctor, he mostly uses this site to vent his frustrations. He is not a policy wonk and would likely admit this to you. With that in mind, the links that you provided and the text you've outlined would make any normal person cringe.
Now you've pointed out the nasties. What is your suggestion for a PLAN OF ACTION?
Waxy,
You obviously didn't. You relied on a video with statements taken out of context with menacing music. Why should I bother engaging you? You are a joke.
Don't believe me? Take your minstrel show offline and try to have a sit down with someone in a position to make some moves.
See how quickly they excuse themselves. Shit, I'll bring the stopwatch.
Mahndisa,
Thanks but I don't need you to explain who I am, or why I'm here. I don't vent frustrations. I point out statements that have not been verified with facts....but I don't mind throwing blows.
Engage me with a serious question, and I'll answer in kind. Act a fool, you'll get slapped. It's fairly simple.
Wax has a special needs child...who could not get insurance prior to the passage of this bill...yet still he rails against it.
I personally think the bill was watered down, and did not do enough to cover every legal resident of this country. For over a year, I've tried to have a serious discussion (obviously not at this particular clown college...) about what changes should be made. Instead I got the same low-information crap Wax tried to pass off. Please don't tell me I don't know about this bill. I've been following it close enough for a very long time. I have a stake on both ends of this legislation. I'm more interested in people being covered than how much I'm going to make.
I see this bill as a start.
Post a Comment