Gallup: More Say Health Care Not Gov’t.'s Role
Dionysus
HEAD: More in U.S. Say Health Coverage Is Not Gov�t. Responsibility
SUB-HEAD: Marks significant shift from the attitudes of the past decade
by Frank Newport
PRINCETON, NJ -- More Americans now say it is not the federal government's
responsibility to make sure all Americans have healthcare coverage (50%)
than say it is (47%). This is a first since Gallup began tracking this
question, and a significant shift from as recently as three years ago, when
two-thirds said ensuring healthcare coverage was the government's
responsibility.
Gallup has asked this question each November since 2001 as part of the
Gallup Poll Social Series, and most recently in its Nov. 5-8 Health and
Healthcare survey. There have been some fluctuations from year to year, but
this year marks the first time in the history of this trend that less than
half of Americans say ensuring healthcare coverage for all is the federal
government's responsibility.
"Both Republicans and Democrats since 2006 have become less likely to choose
the 'government responsibility' option, though Democrats' views have
remained steady over the past year while Republicans' support has declined
further."The high point for the "government responsibility" viewpoint
occurred in 2006, when 69% of Americans agreed. In 2008, this percentage
fell to 54%, its previous low reading. This year, in the midst of robust
debate on a potentially imminent healthcare reform law, the percentage of
Americans agreeing that it is the government's responsibility to make sure
everyone has health insurance has fallen even further, by seven points, to
47%. Half of Americans now say this is not the government's responsibility.
The reason behind this shift is unknown. Certainly the federal government's
role in the nation's healthcare system has been widely and vigorously
debated over the last several months, including much focus on the "public
option." These data suggest that one result of the debate has been a net
decrease in Americans' agreement that ensuring all Americans have healthcare
coverage is an appropriate role for the federal government.
There are major differences in views on this issue by partisanship, as would
be expected given the major partisan differences on most issues relating to
the role of government in the U.S. today. The views of Republicans and
independents who lean Republican about the government's healthcare role are
almost a precise mirror image of the views of Democrats and independents who
lean Democratic.
More than 7 out of 10 Republicans say it is not the responsibility of
government to see that all Americans have healthcare coverage, while more
than 7 out of 10 Democrats say it is.
A look at the trends on this question shows that both Republicans and
Democrats since 2006 have become less likely to choose the "government
responsibility" option, though Democrats' views have remained steady over
the past year while Republicans' support has declined further.
The percentage of Republicans choosing the "government responsibility"
option fell 20 percentage points between 2006 and the current survey,
compared to a 13-point drop among Democrats. From a longer-range
perspective, however, Democrats' views today reflect essentially a return to
the sentiment seen early in the decade, while Republicans now express
significantly lower support.
****************
Like a huge warship, American public opinion is turning around...beginning
to train its weapons on the toxic waste-loaded garbage scow that is the dud
Dems ObamaCare monstrosity (wow, great imagery, eh!).
"I doubt whether there are many Americans who think Congress has either the
right or competency to choose where they live, what clothes they wear or
what cars they drive. Yet many Americans stand ready to allow Congress to
decide what doctors they go to and what treatments they receive. We forget
that once we have government-sponsored health care, it can be used to
justify almost any restraint on liberty." --Walter E. Williams
"A society in which you're free to choose your cable package, your iTunes
downloads, and who ululates the best on American Idol but in which the
government takes care of peripheral stuff like your body is a society no
longer truly free."-- Mark Steyn
"Doctors take the Hippocratic Oath too seriously, 'as an imperative to do
everything for the patient regardless of the cost or effects on others"
(Journal of the American Medical Association, June 18, 2008).' "--Dr.
Ezekiel Emanuel, brother to Rahm Emanuel and advisor to Da Whiny Lyin' Prick
No Surrender!
Dionysus
zzpat
>
> More than 7 out of 10 Republicans say it is not the responsibility of
> government to see that all Americans have healthcare coverage, while more
> than 7 out of 10 Democrats say it is.
>
Ok, this works for me. If republicans don't want government run health
care they can give up their Medicare and Medicaid and they can choose
to go without any coverage as long as they also agree to never enter a
doctor's office or hospital. These people have gotten used to their
welfare...having others pay their way.
It's time for them to become adults or go without care. Even a child
knows you have to pay for something before you use it...but not a
republican.
Gallup is part of the right wing noise machine...especially between
elections. It's easy to get a poll to say whatever you want by
picking who'll you'll drop from the poll.
Every poll picks people they want to drop...for example, likely voter
polls drop all the voters who they think will not vote. It's like
picking and choosing in the Bible. Everyone does it so it's ok.
In the real world, no one should ever be dropped from a poll and every
poll drops someone.
Werner
> On Nov 14, 8:15 am, "Dionysus" <no.surren...@never.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > More than 7 out of 10 Republicans say it is not the responsibility of
> > government to see that all Americans have healthcare coverage, while more
> > than 7 out of 10 Democrats say it is.
>
> Ok, this works for me. If republicans don't want government run health
> care they can give up their Medicare and Medicaid and they can choose
> to go without any coverage as long as they also agree to never enter a
> doctor's office or hospital. These people have gotten used to their
> welfare...having others pay their way.
>
> It's time for them to become adults or go without care. Even a child
> knows you have to pay for something before you use it...but not a
> republican.
>
If you want health care pay for it yourself. Don't tax your neighbor.
"
In crafting the Bill of Rights, the framers were careful to
acknowledge implicitly and explicitly two key truths:
The first is that government does not grant rights it acknowledges
them. They exist independently of government. They're part of who and
what we are. And, as Jefferson noted in the Declaration of
Independence, the only legitimate function of government is to secure
them.
The second is that government is a servant to whom we delegate powers,
not a master who dispenses privileges. The Constitution carefully
enumerates the powers we, the people, delegate to our government and
it specifically denies that government any powers not so delegated.
Our rights lie beyond the pale of that delegation. They are
sacrosanct. Any government which infringes upon them is engaged in an
intolerable usurpation.
"
www.badnarik.org
-----
A "right" as envisioned by the Founders meant that the government
was not permitted to interfere with your pursuit of them, i.e.,
your pursuit of happiness was to be unhindered by government.
The "right" of free speech means that government cannot interfere
with your free speech. The "right" of gun ownership means that the
government cannot infringe your gun ownership. What does "right"
to health care mean? It means that the government cannot stand in
the way of your pursuit of health care, or impede your
obtaining health care. The "right" to an attorney means that the
government cannot prevent you obtaining an attorney to represent
you.
Of course, "right" has incorrectly come to mean that someone must
supply you with something. If your "right" to housing means that
some slave must supply you with housing, and your "right" to health
care means that some slave must supply you with health care, and your
"right" to an attorney means that some slave must supply you with an
attorney, does your "right" to free speech mean that some slave must
supply you with a loudspeaker, or TV air time? Does your "right" to
own guns mean that some slave must supply you with guns?
http://www.capitaldistrict-lp.org/Rights.shtml
Dollars in the common treasury are like fish in the common sea -
anyone who can will harvest to extinction. That is why socialism is
fundamentally corrupting and can not work. The Fed is making a lot of
paper fish. This is an illusion of wealth. The real fish are gone.
----
http://www.capitaldistrict-lp.org/how.shtml
Governing has become a way to get privileges for some at the expense
of others.
http://www.capitaldistrict-lp.org/what.shtml
http://www.investmentu.com/IUEL/2008/August/the-national-debt.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dp8ZmQMCtqA&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-FSoXKapKQs&feature=related
Poetic Justice
> On Nov 14, 5:03 pm, zzpat <zzpatr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Nov 14, 8:15 am, "Dionysus" <no.surren...@never.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> More than 7 out of 10 Republicans say it is not the responsibility of
>>> government to see that all Americans have healthcare coverage, while more
>>> than 7 out of 10 Democrats say it is.
>> Ok, this works for me. If republicans don't want government run health
>> care they can give up their Medicare and Medicaid and they can choose
>> to go without any coverage as long as they also agree to never enter a
>> doctor's office or hospital. These people have gotten used to their
>> welfare...having others pay their way.
>>
>> It's time for them to become adults or go without care. Even a child
>> knows you have to pay for something before you use it...but not a
>> republican.
>>
>> ...
As Obama piles up debt and prints money we don't have.
Clave
news:_aNLm.14133$gi1....@newsfe19.iad...
<...>
> As Obama piles up debt and prints money we don't have.
I've searched the archives, and you didn't seem to have much of a
problem with deficit spending over most of the last decade.
A Democrat in the White House wouldn't have just turned you into
a Big Fat Hypocrite now, would he?
What's the real problem here? That the deficit spending isn't
winding up in your pocket by virtue of your war stocks appreciating?
No? Then please to splain what the Huge Honking Difference is.
Jim
Poetic Justice
> "Poetic Justice" <PoeticJustice@talk-n-dog...com> wrote in message
> news:_aNLm.14133$gi1....@newsfe19.iad...
>
> <...>
>
>> As Obama piles up debt and prints money we don't have.
>
> I've searched the archives, and you didn't seem to have much of a
> problem with deficit spending over most of the last decade.
>
I did get on Republicans for "No Child...." and "the Prescription for
elderly" I remember saying we didn't have the money to pay for them.
I guess you didn't search that well.
Clave
How does the expense of those domestic programs, whatever you're talking
about, apparently intended to benefit American kids and seniors, compare to
the cost of the wars?
Your fiscal outrage seems laughably selective.
Jim
Geopinion
> On Nov 14, 5:03 pm, zzpat <zzpatr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 14, 8:15 am, "Dionysus" <no.surren...@never.net> wrote:
>
> > > More than 7 out of 10 Republicans say it is not the responsibility of
> > > government to see that all Americans have healthcare coverage, while more
> > > than 7 out of 10 Democrats say it is.
>
> > Ok, this works for me. If republicans don't want government run health
> > care they can give up their Medicare and Medicaid and they can choose
> > to go without any coverage as long as they also agree to never enter a
> > doctor's office or hospital. These people have gotten used to their
> > welfare...having others pay their way.
>
> > It's time for them to become adults or go without care. Even a child
> > knows you have to pay for something before you use it...but not a
> > republican.
>
> > ...
>
> If you want health care pay for it yourself. Don't tax your neighbor.
OK, I'll play your silly little game: if you want an education for
your kids, pay for it yourself; don't tax your childless neighbor or
your neighbor with grown children.
If you want roads to drive on, pay for them yourself, same thing for
fire protection, consumer safety, military protection, airports and
rail service, clean air and water . . . .
You anti-health-care nuts are shallow, one-note wonders.
MLW
> ----http://www.capitaldistrict-lp.org/how.shtml
> Governing has become a way to get privileges for some at the expense
> of others.
http://www.capitaldistrict-lp.org/what.shtmlhttp://www.investmentu.com/IUEL/2008/August/the-national-debt.htmlhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dp8ZmQMCtqA&feature=relatedhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-FSoXKapKQs&feature=related- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
John Galt
> On Nov 14, 8:15 am, "Dionysus" <no.surren...@never.net> wrote:
>
>> More than 7 out of 10 Republicans say it is not the responsibility of
>> government to see that all Americans have healthcare coverage, while more
>> than 7 out of 10 Democrats say it is.
>>
>
>
> Ok, this works for me. If republicans don't want government run health
> care they can give up their Medicare and Medicaid and they can choose
> to go without any coverage as long as they also agree to never enter a
> doctor's office or hospital.
One of the major reasons we're in this health care mess is because we
have laws that bar providers from denying services. So, now you want to
bar republicans from coverage while you provide it to illegal aliens?
Sounds like exactly the sort of irrational policies we've come to expect
from the left. Pass a program because we "need" it, don't worry about
paying for it, let future generations worry about it.
These people have gotten used to their
> welfare...having others pay their way.
Do they? I, like 80% + of Americans, have health insurance that, by law,
covers my family AND covers the Democrats low-income constituents.
Sounds like you've got the issue backwards. We're carrying the load for
you.
>
> It's time for them to become adults or go without care. Even a child
> knows you have to pay for something before you use it...but not a
> republican.
The biggest long-term threat to the US economy is a health care program
for seniors that has an inadequate funding mechanism. It wasn't
sponsored by Republicans.
>
> Gallup is part of the right wing noise machine
Yep. I knew that Gallup was going to get lumped in with Fox the minute
they had the "audacity" to publish consecutive polls showing that the
Demosocialists had fallen behind both in the generic congressional poll
and on the health care debate.
Typical. Assassinate motives and character, avoid the issues.
JG
SilentOtto
> zzpat wrote:
> > On Nov 14, 8:15 am, "Dionysus" <no.surren...@never.net> wrote:
>
> >> More than 7 out of 10 Republicans say it is not the responsibility of
> >> government to see that all Americans have healthcare coverage, while more
> >> than 7 out of 10 Democrats say it is.
>
> > Ok, this works for me. If republicans don't want government run health
> > care they can give up their Medicare and Medicaid and they can choose
> > to go without any coverage as long as they also agree to never enter a
> > doctor's office or hospital.
>
> One of the major reasons we're in this health care mess is because we
> have laws that bar providers from denying services. So, now you want to
> bar republicans from coverage while you provide it to illegal aliens?
What do you suggest?
Wheel a sick or injured illegal immigrant out into the parking lot of
a hospital and let them die? Put them on a jet to their home country
and hope they make it?
What?
Sick or injured people are a -real- problem that requires -real-
solutions, and rightwing rhetoric isn't an answer.
> Sounds like exactly the sort of irrational policies we've come to expect
> from the left. Pass a program because we "need" it, don't worry about
> paying for it, let future generations worry about it.
I would suggest that the right does the same thing, except they make
sure that the spending they approve ends up in the pockets of their
rich constituents instead of the pockets of the poor.
Why don't you direct me to the posts you wrote where you're getting
the vapors over federally backed flood insurance?
You know... The insurance that pays when multi-million dollar beach
houses get wiped out by hurricanes?
Nobody would be able to afford to build on the ocean front ( which I
don't think is a bad thing) without that insurance.
Where's the outrage over such an obviously socialistic program?
Since it benefits the rich instead of the poor it's sacrosanct.
John Galt
> On Nov 15, 5:36 am, John Galt <kady...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> zzpat wrote:
>>> On Nov 14, 8:15 am, "Dionysus" <no.surren...@never.net> wrote:
>>>> More than 7 out of 10 Republicans say it is not the responsibility of
>>>> government to see that all Americans have healthcare coverage, while more
>>>> than 7 out of 10 Democrats say it is.
>>> Ok, this works for me. If republicans don't want government run health
>>> care they can give up their Medicare and Medicaid and they can choose
>>> to go without any coverage as long as they also agree to never enter a
>>> doctor's office or hospital.
>> One of the major reasons we're in this health care mess is because we
>> have laws that bar providers from denying services. So, now you want to
>> bar republicans from coverage while you provide it to illegal aliens?
>
> What do you suggest?
>
> Wheel a sick or injured illegal immigrant out into the parking lot of
> a hospital and let them die? Put them on a jet to their home country
> and hope they make it?
>
> What?
>
> Sick or injured people are a -real- problem that requires -real-
> solutions, and rightwing rhetoric isn't an answer.
Nor is a leftist (zzpat) parrotting his imperfect understanding of the
rightwing position. My response was facetious. I tend to agree with you,
although I;m sure we don't agree on the solutions.
>
>
>> Sounds like exactly the sort of irrational policies we've come to expect
>> from the left. Pass a program because we "need" it, don't worry about
>> paying for it, let future generations worry about it.
>
> I would suggest that the right does the same thing, except they make
> sure that the spending they approve ends up in the pockets of their
> rich constituents instead of the pockets of the poor.
And you'd be correct. The "right" (probably better to say "GOP" here)
spends money we don't have on very expensive toys that are used to kill
people and break things. The best you can say about them is that at
least their debt is due in real time so it can accurately be measured.
OTOH, the left tends to pass social programs with inadequate funding
mechanisms. This creates "time bombs" in the economy where benefits are
increased over time and the funding mechanism becomes less adequate over
time. To me, this is less moral than overspending on weapons, but
there's little point in arguing over which group, both working to
destroy the economy, is worse than the other.
>
> Why don't you direct me to the posts you wrote where you're getting
> the vapors over federally backed flood insurance?
>
> You know... The insurance that pays when multi-million dollar beach
> houses get wiped out by hurricanes?
That pisses me off. The government should not be indemnifying bad
decisions, be they on Wall Street or on the coast of North Carolina.
Moral hazard and all that.
>
> Nobody would be able to afford to build on the ocean front ( which I
> don't think is a bad thing) without that insurance.
Some would, but not the above-average Joe, that's for sure.
>
> Where's the outrage over such an obviously socialistic program?
No shortage in my house. Don't get me going.
>
> Since it benefits the rich instead of the poor it's sacrosanct.
Apparently. Haven't seen the brand spanking new Dem Congress address it,
either, have we?
JG
John Galt
> In article <2cf84f2c-ed44-45e6...@s15g2000yqs.googlegroups.com>,
> SilentOtto <silen...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> One of the major reasons we're in this health care mess is because we
>>> have laws that bar providers from denying services. So, now you want to
>>> bar republicans from coverage while you provide it to illegal aliens?
>> What do you suggest?
>
> unconscious person brought into emergency with no identification?
>
> That's actually the fundamental problem for all these people whining about
> immigration: the only sure way to identify people is to require everyone to
> carry internal passports produce them on demand. Otherwise the claims that it is
> obvious is just a rationalisation of racism against anyone they decide is
> Mexican.
>
I haven't heard anyone suggesting we ought to grant or deny care based
on a visual assessment of their appearance.
However, the taxpayer is entitled to transparency in the use of their
funds. If taxpayers are paying for the uninsured, and the taxpayers
collectively decide that some levels of treatment should be withheld
form those who are not in legal status here in the US, it is the duty of
the government to do so; and the REASON behind the taxpayer's decision
(be it strictly economic or strictly racist) is none of the government's
business. Their job is to do as they are told by the citizenry.
JG
John Galt
> John Galt <kad...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Once in a China Blue Moon wrote:
>>> In article
>>> <2cf84f2c-ed44-45e6...@s15g2000yqs.googlegroups.com>,
>>> SilentOtto <silen...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> One of the major reasons we're in this health care mess is because we
>>>>> have laws that bar providers from denying services. So, now you want to
>>>>> bar republicans from coverage while you provide it to illegal aliens?
>>>> What do you suggest?
>>> The real problem is how do you determine the citizenship/residency of an
>>> unconscious person brought into emergency with no identification?
>>>
>>> That's actually the fundamental problem for all these people whining about
>>> immigration: the only sure way to identify people is to require everyone to
>>> carry internal passports produce them on demand. Otherwise the claims that
>>> it is
>>> obvious is just a rationalisation of racism against anyone they decide is
>>> Mexican.
>>>
>> I haven't heard anyone suggesting we ought to grant or deny care based
>> on a visual assessment of their appearance.
>
If you have a citation, then provide it. No reason to get testy.
But don't expect me to assume that you're right that such citations
exist if you're unwilling to prove your point. From past posts, you seem
to be a person who believes racism is the motivation behind virtually
everything. So, your word on this matter are, in my mind, somewhat suspect.
>
>> However, the taxpayer is entitled to transparency in the use of their
>> funds. If taxpayers are paying for the uninsured, and the taxpayers
>> collectively decide that some levels of treatment should be withheld
>> form those who are not in legal status here in the US, it is the duty of
>
> How do you determine the legal status of people brought unconscious into
> causality ward?
Let's first not change the point: if the taxpayer is paying, the
taxpayer deserves transparency, and the taxpayer is entitled to see
their funds spent as they see fit. This is precisely the same logic the
government uses to justify its regulation of compensation of TARP firm
executives.
As to the person in the dire emergency, you don't concern yourself with
his or her legal status. I certainly wouldn't support any notion that
dire emergency care be withheld based on immigration status. We are
still all human, after all.
That said, "dire emergencies" make up less than 1% of all medical
procedures. Let's talk about the 99% instead of getting hung up on the 1%.
JG
hal
How come it was fine when Bush was doing it?
How come it didn't matter when Clinton fixed the problem long ago?
John Galt
It wasn't.
>
> How come it didn't matter when Clinton fixed the problem long ago?
It did.
JG
Poetic Justice
> "Poetic Justice" <PoeticJustice@talk-n-dog...com> wrote in message
> news:%sNLm.14135$gi1....@newsfe19.iad...
>> Clave wrote:
>>> "Poetic Justice" <PoeticJustice@talk-n-dog...com> wrote in message
>>> news:_aNLm.14133$gi1....@newsfe19.iad...
>>>
>>> <...>
>>>
>>>> As Obama piles up debt and prints money we don't have.
>>> I've searched the archives, and you didn't seem to have much of a
>>> problem with deficit spending over most of the last decade.
>>>
>> I did get on Republicans for "No Child...." and "the Prescription for
>> elderly" I remember saying we didn't have the money to pay for them.
>
>
> How does the expense of those domestic programs, whatever you're talking
> about, apparently intended to benefit American kids and seniors, compare to
> the cost of the wars?
The constitution allows for common defence, it does NOT allow for drugs
and schools and money given to "the people"
Clave
We didn't need defending from Iraq.
Evasion noted, BTW.
Jim
American Patriot
"zzpat" <zzpa...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:a099c7a6-534b-40a6...@g23g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
American Patriot
network, retire and quit because of the draconian politicization of health
care. Doctors who take their oath seriously are going to quit or opt out of
government plans. Where does that leave the public option other than long
lines, rationing and denial of service, and leading to death
panels..............?????????? we're waiting.....
__________________
Is the White house going to start lumping newspapers with Glenn Beck too?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33946165/ns/politics-washington_post/
Report: Health bill would reduce senior care
Medicare cuts backed by House may affect access to provider, agency says
mmm-mmm-mmm barack insane obama........mmm-mmm-mmm the man with a plan
mmm-mmm-mmm
___________
"zzpat" <zzpa...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:a099c7a6-534b-40a6...@g23g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
American Patriot
deficit?
"Poetic Justice" <PoeticJustice@talk-n-dog...com> wrote in message
news:%sNLm.14135$gi1....@newsfe19.iad...
Werner
wrote:
...
>
> How does the expense of those domestic programs, whatever you're talking
> about, apparently intended to benefit American kids and seniors, compare to
> the cost of the wars?
>
> Your fiscal outrage seems laughably selective.
>
> Jim
War is an enumerated power in the constitution, Jim. Benefiting kids
and seniors isn't. But you and or your state can do it.
Clave
news:0e96a4ea-f085-415c...@x16g2000vbk.googlegroups.com...
<...>
> War is an enumerated power in the constitution, Jim. Benefiting kids
> and seniors isn't.
Providing for the general welfare is.
> But you and or your state can do it.
This is about the stupidest argument against *anything* I've heard, and yet
you wingnut blowholes still seem to think it means something.
I hope it impresses the rest of your herd, because out here in the real
world, no one has any idea what you're bibbling about.
Jim
Werner
wrote:
> "Werner" <whetz...@mac.com> wrote in message
That, Jim, is why the country is now bankrupt. How much health care
will that get you? But you can babble about government cares about
your health.
Clave
On Nov 15, 11:00 pm, "Clave" <ClaviusNoSpamDam...@cablespeed.com>
wrote:
> "Werner" <whetz...@mac.com> wrote in message
>
> news:0e96a4ea-f085-415c...@x16g2000vbk.googlegroups.com...
>
> <...>
>
> > War is an enumerated power in the constitution, Jim. Benefiting kids
> > and seniors isn't.
>
> Providing for the general welfare is.
>
> > But you and or your state can do it.
>
> This is about the stupidest argument against *anything* I've heard, and
> yet
> you wingnut blowholes still seem to think it means something.
>
> I hope it impresses the rest of your herd, because out here in the real
> world, no one has any idea what you're bibbling about.
>
> Jim
That, Jim, is why the country is now bankrupt.
============================================================
If anything bankrupted the country, it was an unnecessary war.
Don't let that interrupt your fantasy though.
Jim
Harold Burton
"Clave" <ClaviusNo...@cablespeed.com> wrote:
> If anything bankrupted the country, it was an unnecessary war.
Which one, the one Democrat Woodrow Wilson got us into, the one Democrat
Harry Truman got us into, or the one Democrat Lyndon Johnson got us into?
Snicker.
Werner
> In article <9c-dnUo5RoyyZpzWnZ2dnUVZ_o2dn...@cablespeedmi.com>,
>
> "Clave" <ClaviusNoSpamDam...@cablespeed.com> wrote:
> > If anything bankrupted the country, it was an unnecessary war.
>
> Which one, the one Democrat Woodrow Wilson got us into, the one Democrat
> Harry Truman got us into, or the one Democrat Lyndon Johnson got us into?
>
> Snicker.
We don't want to forget clinton either.
Clave
=======================================================================
Right. Nothing is *ever* Bush's fault.
Jim
Werner
wrote:
> "Werner" <whetz...@mac.com> wrote in message
Both political parties have been causing this country to now be in
the
toilet.Both party politicians are voted into office by The People.
The
fault is ours.
Harold Burton
"Clave" <ClaviusNo...@cablespeed.com> wrote:
You claiming WWI, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, of KKKlinton's
Bosnian war were Dubya's fault?
snicker.