Posted on 12/12/2009 5:02:05 PM PST by PJ-Comix
Remember all the excitement over the "unveiling" of ReidCare in the Senate a few days ago? Harry Reid came as close to gleeful as he ever gets (which means a bit less gloomy than usual) when he announced his new "consensus" healthcare bill which entails expanding MediCare coverage to folks as young as 55? He made it appear that there was a new momentum on a health bill. Only one problem. The Associated Press revealed that ReidCare contains rationing. So if you need end of life care, forget it. Too expensive. This was the argument against the death panels that conservatives made a few months ago but were mocked for being paranoid...even though they were right. So now the DUmmies have discovered that ReidCare is nothing more than a SCAM to get a health bill to Obama to sign before he gives the State of the Union speech in January. Yes, it is no longer a matter of having a well thought out health care bill through Congress. It is all about having Obama sign a health bill into law as a feather in his cap before the state of the union speech. And now that the DUmmies have discovered what a scam ReidCare is, they are enraged as you can see in this THREAD, "The arrogance of allowing "annual limits" on health care...." So let us now watch the DUmmies all upset about being scammed once again in Bolshevik Red while the commentary of your humble correspondent, still trying to figure out how someone as gloomy and grumpy as Harry Reid ever got as far in politics as he did, is in the [barackets]:
The arrogance of allowing "annual limits" on health care....
[Hope and Spare Change.]
It is stupefying. It is mind-blowing. Surely the Senate knew someone would notice that they were stripping the lifeline for critically ill patients, hiding it deep down in the bill.
[Welcome to the wonderful world of "transparency."]
I feel like saying how dare they do this...but it would be a silly thing to say. They dare because they can, because they know they will get away with it.
[Toss anything at the wall just so The One can claim a health care victory by the time of his State of the Union speech.]
The last few days I have read posts about how nearly all Democrats support Obama, how only a pathetic little few dare not.
[We few. We pathetic few.]
It is not Obama I am concerned about. He has the oratorical ability to pull it off and come out in 2012 with flying colors.
[Um...uh...my teleprompter...broken.]
It is another matter how he would lose the majority in congress just because of the endless ways they jerk around those of us who gave them a majority.
[And the biggest of the jerks are the DUmmies.]
Those who are very ill, those with the most medical bills will pay dearly for that hidden clause that the Senate in its arrogance allowed to stay in there.
[I wonder if this DUmmie was laughing at conservatives last summer for daring to suggest that ObamaCare would have death panels to handle the rationing problem? And now on to the other DUmmies...]
I thought the whole f&cking point was to protect people from catastrophic bills due to having a major life threatening disease. What in the f*ck are we doing?
[Proving the right RIGHT when they claimed last summer that ObamaCare would lead to death panels.]
I do not even pretend to know what they are doing. I don't think even they know what they are doing.
[But surely Joe Biden is competent?]
This is just one more reason why we need Universal Single Payer health care!
[For the DUmmies, all roads lead to socialized medicine.]
Can you imagine what cancer patients would face? It is mind-boggling.
[They would face Death Panels...just as EVIL rightwingers have been saying all along.]
In the 2010 primaries, I will NOT vote for an incumbent. In the general
election, I will NOT vote for an incumbent. It does not matter to me if he or she is a Democrat, Republican, Unitarian, or Vegan - it is time for the office holders to be replaced with a fresh crop of weasels. The current crop has feasted in the henhouse long enough.
[GASP! You would even vote against incumbent Wiccans and Gaians?]
WHO put this limit in this bill? I would like the names, please. I would like the right to face her sentencers.
[Who put the limits in ReidCare? One clue would be the first syllable of ReidCare.]
Hill sources explain that this was inserted because CBO said premiums would "go through the roof" if insurers couldn't cap benefits.
[Without the limits the bill would add greatly to an already massive deficit. We are in multi-trillion dollar deficit territory nowadays. And the Chinese who own much of the debt are ticked off bigtime.]
I'm sure they are clueless, and also probably don't care if any of us live or die.
[Don't worry. ACORN will make sure that you still vote after death.]
Harry Reid should be drawn and quartered for trying to sneak this through a 2,000 page bill.
[So how is that transparency thing working out for you?]
Which is exactly why we need Single Payer, Universal Health Care for all.
[As stated upthread, all roads lead to socialized medicine for the DUmmies.]
The plan is: "Don't get sick, if you do, you will die because we aint payin JACK!"
[Perhaps its time for Alan Grayson to revise his cardboard sign. It's the DEMOCRATS doing this.]
Well, at least that will help keep the costs down.
Mutual of Obama. We need someone to pass that line along to Sarah Palin again.
Now watching “Pig Bomb” on Discovery Channel. They are acting like it is some horrible thing that feral pigs are breeding fast and growing to huge sizes like over 700 pounds. However, aren’t these the very pigs that hunters love? There are even hunting magazines devoted to those pigs. Much easier on the psyche to shoot an ugly feral pig than some Bambi type deer.
I don’t dare post which national store has STUPENDOUS steak specials on Sunday nights because a lot of them expire the next day. Last Sunday I picked up a nice size steak for just a buck. I ended up buying three steaks for about five bucks total. I don’t want to reveal where for fear everybody will start taking advantage of the deal and then no cheap steak for ol’ PJ.
bump
We drink lots of fruit punch and the like. At our wedding, we had the Sprite and sherbet combo. No booze at our receptions. Everyone actually gets to remember the event, and you don’t have to worry about obnoxious, sauced Uncle Don getting creepy with the bridesmaids.
Frankly, I’ve never understood the logic of heavy drinking and wild behavior at a wedding, even before I became a Mormon. How does it go? “Hey! This couple is beginning their life together and making a commitment before God and their families. Let’s get all guano-faced and act like frat dinks on Spring Break!”
All the Mormons will be jumping on you? Something tells me you might enjoy that.
If you like playing the ass, that’s your prerogative. You know we don’t marry 12-year olds, but feel free to smear and lie and have your fun. Usually that’s the kind of Christlike behavior reserved for the Religion Forum here on FR, but you gotta do what you gotta do. Have at it.
"Those DUmmies ask too many questions!"
PJ, It isn’t only Mormons who don’t have booze at wedding receptions.
When I was a girl (back in the Dark Ages) most wedding receptions were in the fellowship halls of Baptist, Methodist, or Presbyterian churches, and consisted of nuts, mints, wedding cake, and punch (non-alcoholic).
The only people who had liquor at wedding receptions were very rich people who had their receptions at the country club and Catholics, who usually had wine or beer at the K of C hall or the union hall.
Until the 1980’s, this was pretty much the style of receptions all over the Midwest. Large wedding receptions only arrived in the 1980’s, and then drinking became more acceptable even for the Methodists, because the receptions were no longer in the church basement.
Speaking as a former mother of the bride, it’s a very big headache to provide alcohol, because (at least in our state) you are responsible for making sure there is no underage drinking, and that there are no people leaving who will wreck their cars. We hired a professional bartender to make sure that we weren’t liable. And I didn’t drink at all, because I had to make sure things were going smoothly.
There are quite a few Protestant denominations who don’t allow drinking or frown on it, and those would be the Southern Baptists, the Assemblies of God, the Methodists, the American Baptists, and the Disciples of Christ.
Why you seem to think the Mormons are the only non-drinkers is puzzling. Perhaps you just haven’t been exposed to many different Protestant denominations. It’s unfortunate that you slandered them in your follow-up comment, and I think you should consider apologizing.
I am a Catholic convert, so I know the misconceptions people can have on both sides of the fence. But really, your comment was pretty insulting.
Follow the money. He, his family, and his friends are crooks.
When us dry Baptists get married...
...we have fruit punch.
I was an adult before I ever went to a champagne wedding.
[Welcome to the wonderful world of "transparency."]
Well DUmmies. if you had been paying attention, you would know they are ramming this through before the 2010 elections because they are in for a bloodbath.
And those who do not are having their arms twisted by zero.
[But surely Joe Biden is competent?]
DUmmies elected a bunch of DUmb congresscritters. Feeling any better you STUPID DUmmies?
[They would face Death Panels...just as EVIL rightwingers have been saying all along.]
No health care for the really sick among the DUmmies. Oh, for shame, for shame.
That is because you are confusing the wedding with the reception. Yes, the wedding is about the couple. But, later, the reception is about EVERYBODY ELSE. Everybody gets together. At first there is some cool separation from the two sides of the families. The bride's family and the groom's family. But then, under the influence of liquor, the walls break down, and everybody gets all happy together. Reverence has its place and that is at the wedding. However, it is at the reception where irreverence takes it's important spot.
Fruit punch at a wedding reception? Hmmm... I have to keep that in mind. Fruit punch is a magnet for vodka "accidentally" spilling into it. Hee! Hee!
Ironically it was a Baptist minister (Elijah Craig) who invented Bourbon. This whole antagonism towards alcohol among Protestant denominations didn't start until about the 1840s. Before that time, consumption of alcohol was almost universal. It had to be. In cities and even in smaller towns, water was downright dangerous due to cholera and other diseases while wine and liquor were much safer to drink. Hard apple cider was very popular among all (even kids) during colonial times. Johnny Appleseed planted apple trees so folks could make hard cider, not just eat apples. In fact, it was much more economical to transport apples in the form of hard cider rather than in the original form. Evem the Puritans drank ale and brought with them to America aboard the Mayflower. The biggest industry in colonial New England was the distillation of rum. In fact, John Hancock, the richest man in New England, was in the rum smuggling business.
As to the Protestant denominations, many never did subscribe to the alcohol prohibition such as the beer drinking/brewing Lutherans. But Charles would know more about that subject.
Perhaps you just haven’t been exposed to many different Protestant denominations. It’s unfortunate that you slandered them in your follow-up comment, and I think you should consider apologizing.
Huh? Where did I slander them? I didn't even slander Mormons. I was just curious how they handle their wedding receptions. In fact, if you check the FR record from last year, I was defending the Mormons from attacks by others who were slamming Romney on religious grounds.
P.S. I had two grandparents who left my father and his brothers and sister orphans when Dad was only about 3 years old due to death from cholera via bad drinking water so I am sort of up on this subject. Beer drinking might have saved them. Beer is GOOD!
A fruit punch bowl does tend to get heavily "laced" during the course of the reception. Hic!
P.S. Note my comment about Elijah Craig.
Oh, I did for sure. Of course, I'm a big fan of his. Haven't enjoyed his marvelous concoction lately, however. It's not available here in town, and I don't get to Sycamore that often anymore, which is where I buy it. Oh, well. That just makes it even more special when I can stock it.
As for weddings, if there's a bar I'll partake. If there isn't, that's fine as well. I'm at an age and health situation that all we do now is sit and talk at such events. Alcohol has become a non-issue. Except for the glass of wine at night with dinner (maybe one after on occasion), I drink for the pleasure of imbibing a quality beverage. But only on the weekend. Like today, I'll have my 2 fingers of Buffalo Trace during the Packers/Bears game. !!GO PACK!!
I’m Independent Baptist, we don’t have alcohol at wedding receptions or anything else. It’s never infringed upon the celebration of two people joining their lives together under God, nor the happiness of the occasion.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.