Posted by
Republiservative on Tuesday, October 16, 2007 1:41:10 PM
These days, it seems some in Congress are content to allow the activity of dreaming up sentiment after sentiment Bills alone to somehow be the litmus test of what they have in mind and who are the ogres to face in opposition on election day.
Sure, there may some Socialist-LIKE conversions that need to be permanently ensconced for the non-elected masses, but such sovereigns and those who cavort to their whimsy and are lucky enough to become annointed thereby promise we'll have a great culture notwithstanding.
For example, we need no vehicles, jobs, farms, equity...all that worrisome if free trade stuff that probably would lead to a war elites would even be bugged by, anyway; is education important when you can vie ala "Jackass" or "HBO Real Sex" or "American Idol" or play lotteries or win at casinos? Come on, just let ol' Uncle Sam keep a-borrowing to fill in the gaps, and let officials decide who's critical to playing musical chairs and not...anybody who votes against genocide, likes gays, likes minorities, likes women, hates the USA lapel pin flag or flag, berates and reduces our military, and says Qaeda are just freedom fighters can't have the stony hearts they say Conservatives opposing them have, right? I mean, come on...litmus test SCHIP shows it's GOT to be the word "Child" they hate, not possibly ANYTHING in the vetoed text under the title.
Goofy bills like Franks do seem to need be taken only as ephemera to the comprehensive Socialist-like society Bush opponents appear to be building themsleves while constantly searching for others to blame, as such society ever advances. Too bad Franks and his Congressional intimates can't use, say, nationwide requirement of voter trails as a current litmus test.
To me, it's a factual nullity if Franks or anyone else is not put out by gays, unless a Franks or someone wants to add special priviliges for saying you're gay to avoid social responsibility(ies) or to receive greater benefits than anyone else...I'd say the same if anyone tried to protect ME in any such Father State manner, especially since orientation just means who you like to sleep with, not some more motive item making it more "worthy" for you to have justice only if a Franks or such sovereign deigns it "critical"...like with workforces, inter alia, already.
As to the more meaty subject of SCHIP as litmus test, MoveOn sent another email PSA today saying the GOP hates children, and only children...tiny ones, by MoveOn ad photos...will be hurt; to that PSA I replied:
"George Soros is a good friend of the Clintons, and occupies his life with amassing billions to do little more than bad mouth Democrat opponents without any necessary regrad for facts (even Senator Feingold, D-WI, has as motto "facts don't matter"). While it's enthralling Dems don't want to say why they lack this or that money on their own (failed jobs/business policies at local level, ban tax base items, e.g.), oh gee...we just HAVE to act Socialist and make now people under 25 "children", as well as redefine poverty as $82K per year, cut insurance and healthcare jobs by eliminating any use of same any more, and press to get every last person the same. That alone is a non-compelling argument to me, as is shamelessly holding up Katrina/Rita supplements FOR YEARS just for such mass public healthcare opportunity (or never at least proposing one); or shamelessly holding up cancer victims the same; or telling us that even if a bill said "crush all persons who think they have rights or equity simple" BUT had the word "CHILD" or "Children" in it, it MUST be passed, and no matter the job, rights, or national debt losses...oh, and don't make Helvidius Priscus report to ANY President now or later, as my God can't you see Priscus is good with money whenever left alone after getting it? I continue to support President Bush' veto of SCHIP as same was at time of veto, and remind his opponents that my wife and I, like everyone else, despite our own needs always try to work socially for the best good of the whole of which we are only a tiny, tiny part." [End of citation]