Headline from HuffPo: Grassley Voted For So-Called "Death Panel" In 2003…
posted by Bill Arnett @ 3:15 PM Permalink …wow! Big surprise there!Who would have ever guessed that Assley and other grand old prevaricators like Boner and crew would LIE to all of America with their bare, shameless faces hanging out:
Time Magazine's Amy Sullivan pointed out last night that, for all of his ardent demagoguery on the so-called "death panels," Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) voted for just such a provision in 2003.Man, you can tell a republican is lying when his/her lips move and/or they start refusing to take the calls of fellow Senators, although in Assley's case all you need do is LOOK at him and you know he's probably just another in-bred, psychopathic, red-necked hillbilly that don't need no health care.
Remember the 2003 Medicare prescription drug bill, the one that passed with the votes of 204 GOP House members and 42 GOP Senators? Anyone want to guess what it provided funding for? Did you say counseling for end-of-life issues and care? Ding ding ding!!
So either Republicans were for death panels in 2003 before turning against them now--or they're lying about end-of-life counseling in order to frighten the bejeezus out of their fellow citizens and defeat health reform by any means necessary. Which is it, Mr. Grassley ("Yea," 2003)?
Reps. John Boehner (R-Ohio) and Thaddeus McCotter (R-Mich.), who both claimed end-of-life consultations could result in "government encouraged euthanasia," also voted for similar policy in 2003.
Sen. Arlen Specter (D-Pa.) tried to call Grassley on Friday and tell him he was wrong about health care reform. He got the senator's voicemail.
"Pass that bottle of moonshine over here Ma 'cause I ain't feelin' no good," appears to be Assley's preferred method of health care.
Labels: conspiracy, corporate owned media, corruption, disinformation, GOP, health care, hypocrisy, neocons, propaganda, utter contempt
4 Comments:
Bill;
Aren't you just a tad painting your pastey descriptions with a three-foot-wide "push-broom" brush? You proclaim:
"... although in Assley's case all you need do is LOOK at him and you know he's probably just another in-bred, psychopathic, red-necked hillbilly that don't need no health care."
To an uncomfortable degree, I have you know that I resemble that very much ~
DanD
So do I, DanD. But being a red-neck used to be an honorable thing 'cause they would leap to America's defense in a heartbeat. Now, seemingly, if you ain't one of them, part and parcel, people like Assley could care less if your heart is beating at all. And please note that 'red-neck' was proceeded by, "he's probably just another in-bred, psychopathic', a class to which rethuglicans have virtually laid sole claim by their treasonous actions against America, and I'd be willing to bet my right arm that YOU would never do anything to harm America, which clearly exempts you, me, and other patriots from that class.
However, if I have inadvertently offended you I offer my heartfelt apologies.
Bill
Uh, Bill;
I usually fall back on my selectively un-sunlit, pastey resemblances as a canard (instead of saying "I resent that," I proclaim "I resemble that"). When you get right down to it, ALL basic body-types (and their collateral melanin mixtures) have their less desirable genes.
While inbreeding can produce some really low-rent defectives, human society's seeminglyh repetitive domination by its own, biologically less productive genetic defectives is really just a perpetrated political strategy of culture. By allowing such reproductively inbred conseqences to first parasitically transcend its own minority survival, as the technologies and infrastructure continue development, what the natural world would have caused to die off is instead ultimately adopted for specialized corporate assimilation.
Doesn't it make you wonder how the inbreds of royalty manage to sustain their political and economic oppression of various societies even when it is clear that they were/are not the healthiest, strongest, or even brightest members of a community?
The intellectually trained genetic cripple need depend on neither physical stamina or even emotional stability in order to dominate the otherwise physically stronger members of any particular human tribe. Actually, the flawed bodies of the physically handicapped (dominated by those 4th, 5th, ... generation inbreds) actually motivates these crippled dependents to concentrate developing their own educations and intellectual skills upon institutionally more exotic methods of environmental domination.
I mean, really, the physically "best-developed" members of virtually all socio-economic groups rarely ever become top political leaders.
From Ceasar to Mohammed, to FDR(even such "master-race" sub-cultures as Nazi Germany got a one-nut generalissimo as supreme leader), being a periodically incapacitated epileptic or polio victim actually caused these sufferers to more insightfully concentrate exactly what kind of leadership skills they would choose for their personal development.
Within the human species, what has popularly considered its "best and brightest" personalities continues not to always be its best-developed.
DanD
Well stated.
Post a Comment
<< Home