This blog,originally founded by Blogger, who is listed in Marquis Who's Who and is a recipient of the Albert Nelson Marquis Lifetime Achievement Award. He holds a theological degree and a doctorate in Counseling Psychology. Taught Psychology for 32 years and is now Professor Emeritus. Is a board-certified psychologist and was awarded the Lifetime Achievement Award in his profession. Ministered as a chaplain, and pastored Baptist and Episcopal churches. Publications cover the integration of psychology and theology. Served in the Army, the Merchant Marines and the Peace Corps.

Tuesday, September 8, 2009

Foxx on healthcare: Americans “fed up with Washington’s tin ear”


WASHINGTON, D.C., Sept. 8—Congresswoman Virginia Foxx (NC05) made the following statement before the House of Representatives today, calling on Congress to pursue healthcare reform that puts patients, not big government, first:
“Mr. Speaker, it was a long, hot August for
many members of Congress who returned home to face the displeasure of constituents fed up with Washington’s tin ear syndrome.

“Over the past month I have heard from more people than I can count who have had enough of the explosion of Washington-style big government. And of course it was no comfort that in the middle of August the White House announced that they expect $9.1 trillion in new government debt over the next ten years.

“So how is it that the American people are expected to stomach a new government-run healthcare proposal that is estimated to cost up to $1.6 trillion?

“Let’s scrap the current government-run healthcare proposal and return to the drawing board for a plan like ones Republicans have offered that put patients, not government, first.”

63 comments:

Liberal POV said...

Blogger and Ms Foxx

How about a health care bill that puts citizens and families first not big insurance companies and the pharmaceutical industry?

oatz said...

Great Liberal POV when Obama introduces one such Bill we will get to debate it. All members will read it and sing Kumbahya.

Liberal POV said...

Oatz

That the job of congress persons like Ms Foxx. She should be concerned about the citizens of the fifth District especially those struggling to support their families. I'm see little evidence Ms Foxx has any concern for the working poor in the fifth district.

oatz said...

The fact that we are here today to debate raising America's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can't pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government's reckless fiscal policies.

Over the past 5 years, our federal debt has increased by $3.5 trillion to $8.6 trillion. That is "trillion" with a "T." That is money that we have borrowed from the Social Security trust fund, borrowed from China and Japan, borrowed from American taxpayers. And over the next 5 years, between now and 2011, the President's budget will increase the debt by almost another $3.5 trillion.

Numbers that large are sometimes hard to understand. Some people may wonder why they matter. Here is why: This year, the Federal Government will spend $220 billion on interest. That is more money to pay interest on our national debt than we'll spend on Medicaid and the State Children's Health Insurance Program. That is more money to pay interest on our debt this year than we will spend on education, homeland security, transportation, and veterans benefits combined. It is more money in one year than we are likely to spend to rebuild the devastated gulf coast in a way that honors the best of America.

And the cost of our debt is one of the fastest growing expenses in the Federal budget. This rising debt is a hidden domestic enemy, robbing our cities and States of critical investments in infrastructure like bridges, ports, and levees; robbing our families and our children of critical investments in education and health care reform; robbing our seniors of the retirement and health security they have counted on.

Every dollar we pay in interest is a dollar that is not going to investment in America's priorities.

Senator Barack Obama
Senate Floor Speech on Public Debt
March 16, 2006

Today, Barack Obama will ask Congress to increase the debt ceiling above $12 trillion.

Liberal POV said...

Oatz

Remember We had a surplus when Clintion left office and Bush and Cheney cut taxes on the rich then stated the war in Iraq.

If the rich had continued to pay their fair share we wouldn't have the problemss we have today.

Republicans are alway get us into economic problems.

Gregg said...

"Republicans are alway get us into economic problems." -LiberalPOV

Look Lib, that a damn lie. The logic, like most liberal talking points, is shallow. On the surface you are correct about the surplus. Liberals depend on shallow thinking to fool the masses like you. There was as surplus but the economy was shrinking, in fact in recession, when Clinton left office. Bush's tax cuts brought in MORE revenue. Don't bother asking for a link look it up yourself. The numbers are the numbers. Check the GAO. None of that is refutable.

Say you lost your high paying job and you had no prospect to get another. You still have a mortgage and other bills to maintain your lifestyle. It's a good thing that you have money in the bank (surplus) but it's going to run out. You are in deep doo doo if you don't get some money coming in. So yes, we had money in the bank but we were in deep doo doo.

Now, I'm not blaming Clinton. The dot com bubble burst and it wasn't his fault but the fact remains: Bush inherited deep doo doo. His tax cuts worked and the economy rebounded pronto. When it did he spent it, that was bad and pissed off the base but the money was there to spend.

Contrast that with Obama who also inherited deep doo doo. His policies DID NOT bring in more revenue they brought in less...much less. Now he's spending MORE. So back to the analogy, you lost your job you still have a mortgage, your bank account is overdrawn and you buy 4 new mansions and a fleet of Roll Royces all the while claiming you are fixing the problem. IT"S STUPID and everybody knows it.

That's just the facts, plain and simple. That is precisely what Ms. Foxx is saying. We're being fed a line of crap and it taste like crap. We're sick of it.

oatz said...

First, ask yourself whether the government that brought us such "waste and inefficiency" and "unwarranted subsidies" in the first place can be believed when it says that this time it will get things right. The nonpartistan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) doesn't think so: Its director, Douglas Elmendorf, told the Senate Budget Committee in July that "in the legislation that has been reported we do not see the sort of fundamental changes that would be necessary to reduce the trajectory of federal health spending by a significant amount."

Now look at one way Mr. Obama wants to eliminate inefficiency and waste: He's asked Congress to create an Independent Medicare Advisory Council—an unelected, largely unaccountable group of experts charged with containing Medicare costs. In an interview with the New York Times in April, the president suggested that such a group, working outside of "normal political channels," should guide decisions regarding that "huge driver of cost . . . the chronically ill and those toward the end of their lives . . . ."

Given such statements, is it any wonder that many of the sick and elderly are concerned that the Democrats' proposals will ultimately lead to rationing of their health care by—dare I say it—death panels? Establishment voices dismissed that phrase, but it rang true for many Americans. Working through "normal political channels," they made themselves heard, and as a result Congress will likely reject a wrong-headed proposal to authorize end-of-life counseling in this cost-cutting context. But the fact remains that the Democrats' proposals would still empower unelected bureaucrats to make decisions affecting life or death health-care matters. Such government overreaching is what we've come to expect from this administration.

Speaking of government overreaching, how will the Democrats' proposals affect the deficit? The CBO estimates that the current House proposal not only won't reduce the deficit but will actually increase it by $239 billion over 10 years. Only in Washington could a plan that adds hundreds of billions to the deficit be hailed as a cost-cutting measure.

Gregg said...

Oatz's post is Sarah Palin's op-ed in the Wall Street Journal.

Nobody said...

"If the rich had continued to pay their fair share we wouldn't have the problemss we have today."

Lib,
Define "fair share." Numbers, please. Are you more interested in the rich paying a fair share, or are you primarily motivated by the simple fact that the rich are rich and you want to make them poor?

Sarkazein said...

Nobody-

The Lib is interested in the "rich" paying his "fair" share. As are most liberals, there is a looter gene in his character.

Sarkazein said...

Something has to happen to stop the over-legislation of my country by both Democrats and Republicans.
I am leaning toward the "Vote Them All Out" Party.

http://www.breitbart.tv/ca-assemblyman-caught-on-hot-mic-offering-lewd-details-of-affair-with-lobbyist/

I don't really care the guy is a hound, but there is no way he can separate from his job. Of course he'll be gone soon.

Liberal POV said...

Nobody

Simple they should at least be paying the rate they were under Clinton when we had a balanced budget.
The huge deficits started when Bush and Cheney ran up a deficit to give the rich the big tax breaks and started the war in Iraq all of you supported.

Gregg said...

Lib,

Please find a new lie.

Nobody said...

Lib,

No numbers? Quantify your statements. Bush lowered the top rate from 39.6% to 35%. He lowered the bottom rate from 15% to 10% and removed many lower income people from paying federal income taxes altogether. The net result was to INCREASE the total revenues brought in, but spending increased more. Then the recession, caused by the housing market collapse has brought on more deficits. When people lose their jobs, they no longer pay income taxes and begin receiving benefits from the government, reversing the flow of money. You are economically ignorant and ideologically driven. None of what you say holds up with the facts. 40+ million tax returns show NO TAXES PAID or money received through the tax code by lower income families. The top 50% of income earners (the rich) pay about 97% of all federal income taxes collected in this country. That sounds like more than their fair share. I know this personally, because I saw the tax return, that a friend of mine had $1700 withheld from his paychecks last year and received a "refund" of $4700 because he qualified for the EIC. Is that a "fair share?" I'm sure you won't believe this -- that you simply declare this to be "more conservative propaganda." Just close your eyes and stick your fingers in your ears, screaming, "La, la, la."
http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/250.html

guy faulkes said...

I think Obama's speech tonight will be very interesting. I have a steak dinner wagered on the content. My friend thinks that Obama is going to try to ram through the public option, the death panels, etc. I think he is going to retreat, try to use subterfuge to get the public option later, and to claim victory by supporting those issues of which we have favored such as tort reform, competition among insurance providers nationwide, and eliminating exclusion from coverage due to prior conditions.

His claiming credit for issues he did not support is a certainty because he has never formally indicated what he wanted. If you do not stand for anything, you can either claim credit or disavow blame for everything. I believe Rodger Young refers to Clinton as a wide eyed, dope smoking slug. Mr. Obama has admitted to using drugs, so I have to wonder if RY is mistaken about the liberal to which he should refer. Maybe the term covers both, but at least Clinton did make a stand on health care (because his wifey told him to).

As you can see from the foregoing statements, I agree completely with Ms. Foxx.

Anonymous said...

Nobody

" None of what you say holds up with the facts. 40+ million tax returns show NO TAXES PAID or money received through the tax code by lower income families."

This is likely a basic difference between Democrats and Republicans.

I as a liberal Democrat believe the way to fix the economy and National deficit is to keep focused on those at the bottom. This is done with union labor force, education, education, education,trade schools, better benefits, health care, prison reform.
The Democrats believe everyone in society should be productive and earning enough to pay taxes.

Republicans want to focused on making better opportunities and tax breaks for the wealthiest. The trickle down myth. They want a cheap labor force but complain when this cheap labor force doesn't make enough to pay taxes.

It's not the middle and upper middle class that I have problems with not paying their fair share they do.
It that top 1% to 5% that think they need a fourth or fifth home or stuff more the working poor need health care, education, public transportation, or food.

The ones who often make million at the expense of the poor. That 40% that don't pay more then sales and Social Security and Medicare. Which turns out to be about 15%?

Those in the top 5% have accountants, lawyers, lobbyist and politicians like Ms Foxx to look after their interest. Most are able to avoid much of their tax obligations.

Anonymous said...

Nobody

" None of what you say holds up with the facts. 40+ million tax returns show NO TAXES PAID or money received through the tax code by lower income families."

This is likely a basic difference between Democrats and Republicans.

I as a liberal Democrat believe the way to fix the economy and National deficit is to keep focused on those at the bottom. This is done with union labor force, education, education, education,trade schools, better benefits, health care, prison reform.
The Democrats believe everyone in society should be productive and earning enough to pay taxes.

Republicans want to focused on making better opportunities and tax breaks for the wealthiest. The trickle down myth. They want a cheap labor force but complain when this cheap labor force doesn't make enough to pay taxes.

It's not the middle and upper middle class that I have problems with not paying their fair share they do.
It that top 1% to 5% that think they need a fourth or fifth home or stuff more the working poor need health care, education, public transportation, or food.

The ones who often make million at the expense of the poor. That 40% that don't pay more then sales and Social Security and Medicare. Which turns out to be about 15%?

Those in the top 5% have accountants, lawyers, lobbyist and politicians like Ms Foxx to look after their interest. Most are able to avoid much of their tax obligations.

Liberal POV said...

My post above Liberal POV

Gregg said...

There is no room for truth in Lib's mind Nobody. That made way too much sense. I suspect Lib will ignore you, wait a few days and repeat the same tired lie as if you never posted.

Speaking of tired lies I sincerely hope Obama doesn't keep telling his tonight.

Lie #1 - In his Labor Day speech to the AFL-CIO Obama claimed that the Republicans had no ideas. What a lie! There are at least 4 different Republican sponsored bills including this one being slammed in the lefty blog "The Huffington Post".

Lie #2 - He calls the idea of death panels "ridiculous". Sure the phrase is charged and exaggerated but certainly NOT ridiculous. Ultra Liberal Camille Paglia on the lefty blog Salon.com put it this way: "When I first saw that phrase, headlined on the Drudge Report, I burst out laughing. It seemed so over the top! But on reflection, I realized that Palin's shrewdly timed metaphor spoke directly to the electorate's unease with the prospect of shadowy, unelected government figures controlling our lives. A death panel not only has the power of life and death but is itself a symptom of a Kafkaesque brave new world where authority has become remote, arbitrary and spectral. And as in the Spanish Inquisition, dissidence is heresy, persecuted and punished."

Lie #3 - Compliance is not mandatory. Page 16 of the house bill says otherwise. Here's the bill. If any libs can't understand it let me know and I'll break it down for you. Max Baucus wants to fine people $3800 for not having health care.

Lie #4 - Illegal immigrants will not be covered. Obama on August 15th, 2009, in Grand Junction, Colorado: "So just to recap here, if you’re one of nearly 46 million people who don’t have health insurance, you will finally have quality, affordable options." The number "46 million" includes 10-12 million illegal immigrants.

There you go, all from lefties at lefty blogs or Obama himself. I figured I'd try that approach this time. Rush told me to...or was it Fox?

Nobody said...

"Those in the top 5% have accountants, lawyers, lobbyist and politicians like Ms Foxx to look after their interest. Most are able to avoid much of their tax obligations."

How can you say this in light of the fact that the top 5% are the ones supporting this country financially. I agree whole heartedly with your statement that education is the key. It got me out of poverty, but it was MY efforts at attaining that education that did it, not some feel-good liberal who wanted to give everything away and have the rich pay for it. The top 5% cannot pay for an endless list of "benefits," as you put it, for people who simply will not take responsibility for their own lives. Personal responsibility HAS to enter the equation at some point. The opportunity is there for everyone, not everyone will seize it. As a conservative, I believe the role of government is to promote equality of opportunity, not guarantee equality of outcomes. Do some people have advantages? Of course. But your ideology would excuse poor decisions ascribing them to poverty, background, whatever, which I can agree with TO A POINT. But then you would make the problem worse by subsidizing bad decisions with "free" benefits without limit, as long as you're poor, never acknowledging that, in many instances, it is their own bad decisions that keep people in poverty. People need to be taught to be responsible for their own lives, work hard, get an education, get and keep a job, save money. Not hear some liberal complain about how their being exploited by the rich and THAT's the REAL reason their poor. There is nothing in that message that would encourage someone to be more responsible. But it is what you do constantly.

Nobody said...

By the way, you accuse me of complaining that the working poor don't pay any taxes. I'm actually not. I complaining that liberals like you constantly complain that the rich don't pay their "fair share" and demonize them when in actuality, they are the only ones paying taxes. That was the point of my earlier post. It's a shame I have to explain the point to you.

Sarkazein said...

VP Cheney is wrong, Obama is making us safer:

Tue Sep 8, 2:56 pm ET
WASHINGTON (AFP) – The United States wants to enlist its 3.4 million Girl Scouts in the effort to combat hurricanes, pandemics, terror attacks and other disasters.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) launched a campaign Tuesday to entice the blue, brown and green-clad multitudes to be even more prepared, with the promise of a new patch if they pitch in.
The young scouts will be able to emblazon their sashes or vests with the patch if they undergo the training which readies them for an emergency.
"This new preparedness patch will increase citizen preparedness and enhance our country's readiness for disasters," said DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano in a statement.

Liberal POV said...

Nobody

Those that benefit most should expect to pay the most.

The bottom 80% of citizens in the United Stateds only have 7% ofthe wealth.

The bottom 40% you refer to have no wealth.

Go to this site and look at the trends under both Democrates and Republicans.

http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html

"The contrast is even starker for the super-rich. The top 0.01 percent of earners in the US are now taking home six percent of all the income, higher than the 1920s peak of five percent, and a whopping six-fold increase since the start of the Reagan administration, when the top 0.01 percent earned one percent of all the income."

Source:

http://rawstory.com/08/news/2009/08/15/concentration-of-wealth-in-hands-of-rich/

My question Why does the top 1% to 5% need a fourth or fifth home or stuff more the working poor need health care, education, public transportation, or food. What's the point of such wealth before the basic needs of fellow citizens,and employees have the very basic needs met? I'm referring to Health care, education, safe streets, and living wage.

Nobody said...

I said earlier: "Define "fair share." Numbers, please. Are you more interested in the rich paying a fair share, or are you primarily motivated by the simple fact that the rich are rich and you want to make them poor?"

You have now answered my question. You are motivated by envy. I don't have the wealth that you mention, but I'm happy with my lot in life and my family. I work 5 days a week and come home to a home and a meal and a wife and kids. I don't sit around making myself angry thinking, "That rich SOB shouldn't have that!" How miserable are you?

Gregg said...

Lib,

Not that it will make any difference to you but your argument is based on a false premise. When you refer to a percentage of "the wealth" you assume that it is a fixed amount. If the top .01% make 10 or 20% of income it does not mean the poor make less. You assume that if one gets a bigger piece of the pie then someone else has to settle for a smaller piece. Not true, the pie can get bigger. Haven't we been through this before?

You are also disregarding the enormous amount of good that the very rich do with their money over and above the piles of money the government confiscates from them at the point of a gun.

I agree with "Nobody" when he says, "There is nothing in that message that would encourage someone to be more responsible" but would take it a step further. There is nothing at all to be gained by envying the rich the way that you obviously do.

Sarkazein said...

Also, some poor become rich, some rich become poor. It is ever changing. The Left wants to assure it never changes.

Nobody said...

I like the comments from Greg and Sark. Statistically, the average American in poverty has a higher standard of living than the average European, period. I was behind someone in line at the grocery store the other day -- she was talking on what looked to be a very expensive cell phone, completely ignoring the cashier who was trying to clear her food stamp/EBT card with the manager. Meanwhile, I try to get by on my disposable Walmart cell phone, saving minutes as much as possible so that I only have to buy one 60 day/300 minute card every other month for $30.00 and paying for my own groceries.

Gregg said...

This man making this speech is making me sick.

Sarkazein said...

Rep. Joe Wilson, R-S.C. for President!

Gregg said...

Sark,

It was beautiful! God bless Joe Wilson!

grounded in reality said...

Liberal POV says that Bush started a war. Hey don't you remember that a bunch of Islamic America Hating TERROISTS flew plans into the WTO, Pentagon and a field in Penn. Bush responded with heavy support from congress!!!!!!! He didn't start it but certainly planned on finishing it. It was when Dems. saw an advantage to politicize the war that it became unpopular. So don’t you dare blame Bush for STARTING a War.

voiceoftruth said...

GOOD point grounded in reality!!

grounded in reality said...

Sorry WTC not WTO - got happy fingers on the keyboard.

grounded in reality said...

Since when did the Constitution demand that the rich take care of the poor and guarantee them (the poor) health care, etc. The Constitution only guarantees the right to pursue prosperity. The Constitution never guaranteed the poor that a centralized Federal Government would be their “Robinhood” taking from the rich and giving to the poor. The responsibility of taking care of those who cannot take care of themselves (not those who WON’T) primarily falls to churches and charities who do their work through donations that are GIVEN – not from taxes that are TAKEN. The libs don’t trust the good nature of good people because they are intellectual elitist who think they know better than anyone else what is best for them. Well I would rather trust the goodness of people than the bureaucracy of elitist.

Sarkazein said...

I am trying to develop a shorter "battle cry" than "Obama lied and Americans became Socialists".
I need something that rhymes with "lied" to keep it in the accepted category of political speak.

Obama lied and people lost their liberty...no

Obama lied and free people lost...no

Obama lied and I paid for illegal aliens maternity
bills...no

You liberals are good at chants, give it a try.

Gregg said...

"Remember, Mr. President, elected officials work for the people. Forcing a conclusion in order to claim a “victory” is not healthy for our country. We hear you say government isn’t always the answer; now hear us -- that’s what we’ve been saying all along."

guy faulkes said...

Sark, How about "If this passes; Obama lied, the elderly died"?

I am very disappointed in Mr. Wilson. One should respect the office of President. However, if the President lied (as he did), then there is no reason to apologize and say that you acted inappropriately. Mr. Wilson should retract the apology at once.

I think I owe my friend a dinner. Obama did not say anything new.

Sarkazein said...

Why wouldn't Obama say "If the wording in these bills can be interpreted by so many to say illegal aliens will get free government health-care, let us work together to clarify this" ? Instead, he calls all the people interpreting the bill this way as not telling the truth and bickering. This is the most divisive President ever. This proves he is only an organizer of like minded people. Something anyone can do.

guy faulkes said...

Sark, Obama is much worse than the most divisive President in history. His experience was ACORN and a stent in Congress that was geared solely for a run at the Presidency. His ACORN connection could possibly end up with his impeachment and imprisonment after a thorough investigation of this despicable organization is completed.

The following link is to the video of an undercover operation a young man and woman did to document ACRON's operating procedures. This is breaking news and is sickening.

http://biggovernment.com/category/acorn/

guy faulkes said...

OOPS!The link I provided was to the transcript of the video. You can click on view video at that page or use this link to go directly to the video. Sorry.

guy faulkes said...

http://biggovernment.breitbart.com/2009/09/10/chaos-for-glory/

Eventually I am going to get this right. This crap has me very upset.

Liberal POV said...

Guy

Have you had your coffee and anger fix this morning?

guy faulkes said...

I do not drink coffee anymore, but this ACORN atrocity certainly has me angry as it should every citizen of this country.

Gregg said...

I'm with you Guy, I'm angry too. After that ugly speech last night I wake up to the ACORN thing. I think it tells more about those that are not angered than it tells about those that are. It's not odd at all that people are taking sides on this. What's odd is that the "sides" are right and left instead of right and wrong.

Sarkazein said...

The Left wants to prosecute lawyers and CIA agents from the Bush administration, let's see if they will want to prosecute lawyers for ACORN.
One group was trying to protect my country, and the other is trying to loot my country.

Gregg said...

Sark,

I was thinking about the slogan thing.

Obama's not yo mama... too cute

He's an Obamanation...too complicated

How do you know if Obama's lying, his lips are moving...too long and cliche'

It finally hit me. Joe Wilson said it best: "You Lie"

Anything this President says should not be taken at face value because he lies. Even if he tells the truth one cannot believe it without verification.

Reader said...

I read and watched this too Guy, plus the 11 that were arrested in FL yesterday.

This is why Wilson called Obama a liar Lib. Make sure you read it.

http://media.sfexaminer.com/documents/noncitizens.pdf

Reader said...

Gregg, totally in agreement with you.

Sarkazein said...

Gregg-

How about "Sorry, you lie". ? Not very catchy, but true.

The Democrats won't hear it unless it rhymes though.

Blogger said...

Psychics channel other peoples’ thoughts. When Joe Wilson blurted out “You Lie!”, I’ll bet he wondered “Where did that come from?” My theory is that Wilson is psychic and picked up tens of millions of people’s simultaneous thought waves.” The poor man channeled out loud, not realizing where the thought came from.

aDaughterOfYaHWeH said...

I love that Blogger!!! haha!!!

BikerBard said...

You folks missed the funny part of Foxx's press release. She said NC residents will have more money in their pay this year, because of the stimulus CONGRESS passed in Feb. This is the same bill, on which, she voted "NO."

Now the funny part- Foxx can talk out of both sides of her mouth at the same time! LOL!

GroundedInReality said...

On the slogan thing how about "Obama lied and Democracy died" ???

Sarkazein said...

Blogger-

When Wilson hollered "You lie!" my wife said; "Sarkazein, stop that, that's not nice." I had to think for a moment and had to tell her that wasn't me that time.

Gregg said...

Hey BB, my neighbor just robbed a bank. He stimulated his economy. Was I speaking out of both sides of my mouth when I told him not to?

Sarkazein said...

G in R-

Your slogan would work. The word Democracy could be interchangeable with Capitalism and others.

aDaughterOfYaHWeH said...

i agree!!!! great!

BikerBard said...

Gregg:
Your analogy stretches credibility. And is your neighbor, my Rep. Foxx? Excuses, excuses!

Anonymous said...

This is the same Congresswoman Foxx who called the Gay bias killing of Matthew Shepard a Hoax. She is a sad joke and will be replaced at the next election

Gregg said...

"Your analogy stretches credibility." -BB

Why, because you say so?

Gregg said...

Nonny (If that's your real name),

Hate crime legislation is stupid. Murder is murder.

Sarkazein said...

Gregg-

Liberals just re-invented the legal term "intent" for political reasons. So now it's not a crime against man, it is a crime against correct thought.

Gregg said...

Well said Sark.