I choose stupid!!

Amen!

Id like to buy a vowel Pat!!!

whether true or not

post many stories about the finding of

wmd

on the previous page

What many fail to realize, is that there are no reliable sources of information. The moment that you acknowledge a source as "reliable", you have willingly suppressed the ability to make an intelligent assessment. Every information source out there spins and manipulates a subtly confusing blend of facts and fabrication to support their adopted agenda.

that is why you need to check several sources and take ]

the common pieces of each

and when you watch something like a debate on tv

you turn it off before they spin it

to say what they want it to say

the problem w/people today is

they have forgotten the art of

thinking for themselves

then that must mean the stories about the wmd are correct then

which means maybe he's not so stupid

every school child knowes they found nothing in Iraq except for long degraded weapons used in the Iraq /Iran war and to describe them as the WMDS america went to war over is a huge stretch of the imagination. Had anything of signifance been found Bush would be pounding his shoe on a table at the UN

Actually, it means that all of the stories are true, depending upon your perception. Yes, there were WMDs present, by the technical definition. They were old, obsolete, decrepit, non-usable, and non-deliverable. They were also not of the type, quality or quantity that we used as justification for our invasion. All of the WMDs that were of the class that we were seeking, were destroyed during the first Gulf War, and Iraq possessed neither the capability nor the freedom to produce more (due to sanctions). The missiles that were found were also mostly inoperative, as well as obsolete, with no payloads. The existing stock of chemicals was only a danger if you flung yourself upon it bodily. The containers were in such poor condition that the military still hasn't been able to move a large portion of them.

so then they had them

they were not destroyed

and they could of

repackaged them

provided terrorist groups with them

who could have brought them into another country

and used it in a suicide bomb

or dumped it into a water supply

that is comforting

yes and if frogs didnt jump they wouldnt bump there butts on the ground

well at least they still have decent water to jump to

thanks to the confiscation of those

bio and chemical weapons in iraq

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Saddam Hussein did not possess stockpiles of illicit weapons at the time of the U.S. invasion in March 2003 and had not begun any program to produce them, a CIA report concludes.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/06/iraq.wmd.report/

Defense Department Disavows Santorum’s WMD Claims
Today, Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA) and Rep. Peter Hoekstra (R-MI) held a press conference and announced “we have found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.” Santorum and Hoekstra are hyping a document that describes degraded, pre-1991 munitions that were already acknowledged by the White House’s Iraq Survey Group and dismissed.

Fox News’ Jim Angle contacted the Defense Department who quickly disavowed Santorum and Hoekstra’s claims. A Defense Department official told Angle flatly that the munitions hyped by Santorum and Hoekstra are “not the WMD’s for which this country went to war.”

Fox’s Alan Colmes broke the news to Santorum. Watch it:

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/06/21/dod-disavows-santorum/

so the democratic talk radio works for bush

interesting

The only person on CNN that I would consider a credible source would be Glenn Beck. Anything else is "Bagdad Bob" to me until I verify it. And yes I still check Glenn Beck too.

well check with the rest of the entire free world and then get back to it......

Lets look at the phrase "at the time of the U.S. invasion" Like I have been saying. Saddam is not a stupid man. He would not have gotten to where he was if he was stupid. He had plenty of time to move any weapons he had out of iraq.

logan1976.......

Here is Hillary's Universal Health Care. I posted this on another thread.

In Senator Clinton's Health Care Program, she speaks of how health care is the right of every “American” — but she has a rather expansive definition of “American.” In 2005, Hillary co-sponsored legislation in the United States Senate to offer free health insurance, under the State Child Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) to the children of illegal immigrants who have lived in the United States for five years. So, that means that those who have dodged the immigration cops for five years successfully would be rewarded not only with legal status and a path to citizenship, but with immediate free health care for their children.

Indeed, when Democrats and liberals speak of the fifty million uninsured Americans, more than one fifth of those are illegal immigrants. Thus, about one in five of the beneficiaries of Hillary's program for universal health insurance are illegal aliens. Illegal immigrants are a disproportionately large segment of the uninsured population because legal immigrants and citizens who live in poverty are eligible for Medicaid, but illegal immigrants are not.

Hillary speaks of the importance of stopping health insurance companies from raising premiums on those who are sick. But she does not mention the inevitable flip side of her proposal — to raise premiums on those who are well. On the one hand, she would cover all those with chronic conditions with low-cost health insurance and, on the other, would stop insurance companies from “cherry picking” healthy and young people for their insurance plans. The net effect would be a major increase in health insurance premiums for the vast majority of Americans. In effect, her plan would turn “insurance” into “subsidy.”

The concept of insurance is that one pays a relatively low premium to guard against catastrophic expenses that are outside of our ability to meet financially. But Hillary’s program would really be nothing more than a cash transfer from the healthy to the sick, not an insurance program at all.

Hillary says that her program would provide “universal” coverage for all. In order to achieve universality, one must make the program compulsory. The bulk of the uninsured do not want to have to pay for insurance. They are healthy and don’t want the added burden of health insurance. So Hillary’s program, as she freely admits, would require health insurance as a pre-condition of employment. Not having health insurance would be a violation just as driving a car without automobile insurance is illegal. The resulting coercion would force millions to pay for coverage they do not want and feel they don’t need. But to pay for her national program, Hillary needs everyone to be covered so she can use their revenues to subsidize the coverage of those who are ill.

But the main defect of Hillary’s program is that it leaves out any attempt at cost control. With health care absorbing 16 percent of our economy, cost control is a vital part of any plan for universal coverage. Indeed, without it, extending coverage just offers a blank check to patients and providers which would drive even higher the share of our economy that goes to health care. Hillary will be forced to control costs as the implicit and vital element of any health care reform. This control of costs belies her contention that she would leave the health care system untouched except to extend coverage to those who now lack it. Because she would need to limit utilization and lower costs, she would be forced to ration health care and to impose government mandated and controlled managed care on all Americans.

For the first time, the word “no” would come into our system. Do you need open heart surgery? Are you a poor risk because of smoking or diabetes or age? No longer would the bureaucrat at the other end of the phone say “we won’t pay for it” or “you don’t need it” or “we can’t fit you in at our facility.” The answer would simply be no — even if you pay for it yourself, you may not have one. It is this type of coercion that drives Canadians over the border to the U.S. in search of medical options denied them at home under their socialized medical structure. Now it would operate on both sides of the border.

Finally, Hillary admits her proposal will cost $110 billion dollars. Where will this money come from? Taxes.

Incidentally, Obama's plan is no better.

fanta46........ Doctors "drum up unnecessary procedures to make more money," as you say, because America is turning into an overly litigious society. We will sue over nothing. Therefore, to cover their butts, doctors have got to order all kinds of tests.