jump to last post 1-11 of 11 discussions (97 posts)

Jeb Bush Admits His Reluctance To Fund Women’s HealthCare

  1. Alternative Prime profile image84
    Alternative Primeposted 15 months ago

    Yup, believe it or not, once again good ole’ Jeb “Jed” Bush corroborates his numbskull brother George W’s superior intellect ~

    While Jeb and his buddies in the oil business still receive BILLIONS in Federal Subsidies, he recently stated he is "UNSURE" if we need to spend millions on WOMEN’s HEALTHCARE ~ Yes, believe it or not, this imbecile actually said this ~

    I and many other Americans are astonished at his lack of connectivity with the American people, not to mention his Severe Deficiency in Compassion & Commitment to women and their well-being ~ Unbelievable ~ This bored, quasi-conscious millionaire looking for something to do was finished before he started anyway ~

    1. Credence2 profile image86
      Credence2posted 15 months ago in reply to this

      I have heard this AP, he and Sen. Paul also insinuates that if there is income inequality it is because we are all just so lazy....

      But as they say, 'the apple never falls far from the tree'. Two privileged 'self made' plutocrats, telling working people what their problem is.

      1. Alternative Prime profile image84
        Alternative Primeposted 15 months ago in reply to this

        Well, there U go Credence2, consistant with "Jed's" "Americans Just Need To Work Harder" Blunderous Comment ~ He's beginning to make even Mutt Romney look sane and compassionate, which we all know is near impossible ~

        But I do think Rand Paul would make a sensational president ----> On Planet Pluto, Mars, or Sirius B were he belongs, bossing around martians or big dopey dogs from disneyworld  ~ This guy and his old man remind me of that nutcase a couple decades ago, what was his name? Applegate or something like that, the guy who managed to convince a few poor lost souls that salvation was in the form of a glorious UFO traveling in tandum with Haley's Comet ~ Ron & Rand, just very weird people, not to mention what appears to be anarchistic tendencies ~

    2. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
      Kathryn L Hillposted 15 months ago in reply to this

      PS What are the facts. Less name calling and more facts, please.

    3. colorfulone profile image88
      colorfuloneposted 15 months ago in reply to this

      What was wrong with this thread?  http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/132155

      1. colorfulone profile image88
        colorfuloneposted 15 months ago in reply to this

        I posted this over on that other thread.

        "5 Things Shills Don't Want You To Know"
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sS9olPA2BK0

        China has a program that pays 50 cents per comment for political comments. They are called the 50 cent army. (please do look it up for yourselves)

        I do not support the Bush family because I rate presidential administrations and their relatives by "body count lists".  Our current president's is growing.
        (do your homework)

    4. GA Anderson profile image86
      GA Andersonposted 15 months ago in reply to this

      "...he recently stated he is "UNSURE" if we need to spend millions on WOMEN’s HEALTHCARE ~ Yes, believe it or not, this imbecile actually said this ~..."

      No, according to the L.A. Times he said this:

      “You could take dollar for dollar — although I’m not sure we need half a billion dollars for women's health issues — but if you took, dollar for dollar, there are many extraordinary fine organizations, community health organizations, that exist, federally sponsored organizations, to provide quality care for women on a variety of health issues,” Bush continued, speaking to the Southern Baptist Convention in Nashville.

      The context surrounding this was a question concerning de-funding PPA.

      And from this you got; "...he recently stated he is "UNSURE" if we need to spend millions on WOMEN’s HEALTHCARE ~ Yes, believe it or not, this imbecile actually said this ~..."

      I didn't even know you could get there from here.

      GA

      1. Alternative Prime profile image84
        Alternative Primeposted 15 months ago in reply to this

        GA Anderson ~

        Are you drinking with Kathryn?? If so, I'm jeleous ----> smile <----

        You just corroborated my point ~ Yes, Jeb Bush said the following "Although i'm not sure we need half a billion dollars for women's healthcare" ~ This suggests he would propose 1 million, 1 thousand, or even nil on this critically important issue, but in his opinion, millions is way out of line ~

        Jeb is explicitly expressing his un-willingness to spend millions, which is a drop in the proverbial bucket, on women's health isssues ~  Therefore, it means he is reluctant to finance women's healthcare, just like all other conservatives ~

        1. GA Anderson profile image86
          GA Andersonposted 15 months ago in reply to this

          A man could get dizzy following that trail. I still don't see how you got here from there.

          Why no mention of the context of the statement? Is the conversation or event surrounding your, (first inaccurate, and later incomplete) quote harmful to the power of your statement?

          You said he said `millions` when in fact he said `half-a-billion`

          Then you extrapolated that to really mean he could say "...1 million, 1 thousand, or even nil..."

          Like they asked Ol' Joe, "Say it ain't so!"  Well it's not so. He did not say "Although i'm not sure we need half a billion dollars for women's healthcare" ... funded by China. Or "Although i'm not sure we need half a billion dollars for women's healthcare" ... taken out of the budget. Or "Although i'm not sure we need half a billion dollars for women's healthcare" ... contracted to one supplier.

          But, we wouldn't know that from your blazing rhetoric. We wouldn't know that he wasn't talking about women's healthcare in general.

          And we wouldn't know that he was talking about de-funding Planned Parenthood to the tune of half-a-billion dollars. A sentiment that might no be as alien or repulsive to some, as it appears to be to you.

          No worries, context is sorta like facts, and I already know they aren't that important to a fiery declaration.
          .
          GA

          1. Alternative Prime profile image84
            Alternative Primeposted 15 months ago in reply to this

            GA ~

            Half a Billion Dollars = "Millions" not Billions or Trillions

            It's irrelevant as to the context, Jeb Bush is questioning the amount of money we SHOULD spend on Women's Health Care which is idiodic when the real answer is "We should spend whatever it takes to keep women healthy" ~

            There is no debate on this issue except in "Conservative Nutcase Land" ~

            P.S. ~ Have you heard word one from Jeb about his reluctance to continue the distribution of monetary gifts to the tune of "Billions" in taxpayer subsidies to his friends in the oil business? Didn't think so cause I haven't heard anything either ~

            So here's the score so far ~ "Billions" of our money to oil companies is OK by Jeb but he is unsure about what should be spent on Women's Health Issues ~ I guess he needs more time to think about that one ~ Don't worry though, women have plenty of time while this numbskull decides what he THINKS should be allocated to our mothers, daughters, sisters, nieces, and of course grandmothers ~

            1. wilderness profile image96
              wildernessposted 15 months ago in reply to this

              Don't you really mean "keep all women under all circumstances completely healthy"?  (Men and children don't count, I guess)

              1. Alternative Prime profile image84
                Alternative Primeposted 15 months ago in reply to this

                C'mon wilderness ~ R U getting drunk all day with Kathryn 2 ----> smile She's uN-sExy now due to her DECLINING intellect and conservative loyalty, U do realize that right? 

                I understand there must be an "Information Deficiency" up there in Idaho or Montana or wherever you live off the grid, seems to be a typical drawback of rural life, perhaps that's the primary reason for conservative support in these remote, sparsely populated regions, while city dwellers in great numbers support progressives, but regarding the topic at hand, I think I've articulated clearly ~

                I was trying to be "Subject Specific" when discussing "Women's Health Issues" and Jed Bush's lack of interest and or commitment thereof, but it would essentially be the same in reference to "HealthCare" overall ~ Jeb "Jed" Bush is uninterested in taking care of Americans while progressives have taken action toward a single payer "All are Covered at Birth" sensible solution ~

                1. wilderness profile image96
                  wildernessposted 15 months ago in reply to this

                  I understand that you are a died-in-the-wool socialist, wishing a nanny state.  I understand that you will spin and twist anything a conservative says or does to make it sound as evil as possible.  I understand that you aren't interested in the meaning of conservative conversation; only in how bad you can make it sound.

                  That's what I understand.  GA quoted the whole statement, putting the comment into proper perspective but you insist on changing the wording and leaving out the rest of the statement.  It makes it very plain what the agenda is.

                  1. Alternative Prime profile image84
                    Alternative Primeposted 15 months ago in reply to this

                    wilderness ~

                    Conservatives are quite competent at defining themselves as  "Evil", they need no help from me nor any other reasonably sane individual ~

                    Just study the republican conservative voting record and unless you are exceedingly filthy rich, you might just convert to the progressive good side ~

                    How do you expect to talk or negotiate with a defunct party like the GOP which is more than willing to sabotage this nation in the form of a "Government Shut Down" just because they disagree with the majority? I like and support my government and will demand prosecution of said individuals if they attempt this treasonous activity again ~

                    P.S. ~ Jeb "Jed" Bush made it perfectly clear that he is "Unsure" about funding for "Women's Health Issues" but he's absolutely commited with venomous conviction to RAISING the Retirement Age for our precious Senior Citizens ~ I guess "Slaving" or should I say working until age 65 or 67 is just not a long enough sentance for good ole' Jeb's liking ~ Evil is as Evil does ~ smile  <----

                    P.S. ~ Capitalism is an utter failure, the adoption of more Socialistic Aspects, Components, and Tendancies is not only the smart thing to do, but critically essential for the survival of the human species ~

        2. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
          Kathryn L Hillposted 15 months ago in reply to this

          Women should not be catered to through gov't created/run institutions funded by the gov't/people. Women need to take care of their own health so as not to take $ from hard working Americans. They should see it as their patriotic duty, at least.
          But will they?
          NOOOOOOO! Thanks to the Dems/left.

    5. rhamson profile image76
      rhamsonposted 15 months ago in reply to this

      "Yup, believe it or not, once again good ole’ Jeb “Jed” Bush corroborates his numbskull brother George W’s superior intellect ~ "

      The only thing I can agree with you on in this is that Jeb suffers from what his older brother did. He is not quick on his feet nor does he express himself well (other than Georgey Porgey ducking flying shoes). Maybe it was a Freudian slip or brain fart we won't know as he cleaned it up very quickly later on. He has done that before as did his brother. Who can forget the famous "shame on me" flub Georgey Porgey made.

      My question is why do you feed into these things? Is it the want to destroy instead of understand? You are led off into a series of arguments that make no sense to defend. Did Jeb mean what he said as you understand it? He has made flubs before so how does that relate? What of his speech in Chicago? Does he have a knack for mixing up the facts and names? Do you even know?

    6. Onusonus profile image87
      Onusonusposted 15 months ago in reply to this

      He was talking about defunding abortion providers. It's always important to remove context when spewing out a bunch of misguided rhetoric to your average uninformed liberal sheeple.

      1. rhamson profile image76
        rhamsonposted 15 months ago in reply to this

        Misinformation is the mothers milk of politics. It aligns so closely with propaganda.

        “If you tell a big enough lie and tell it frequently enough, it will be believed.”

        ― Adolf Hitler

        1. colorfulone profile image88
          colorfuloneposted 15 months ago in reply to this

          Where is that like button? 

          Like, like, like, like, like, like, like ...

  2. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
    Kathryn L Hillposted 15 months ago

    (Automatons 0f any type are definitely Unsexy.)

  3. colorfulone profile image88
    colorfuloneposted 15 months ago

    Obama is threatening to deny citizens Medicaid in states that defund Planned Parenthood. 

    Here's one of the latest undercover PP videos. The others are too horrible for me to post. 
    http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2 … onsent.php

    1. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
      Kathryn L Hillposted 15 months ago in reply to this

      Thanks Colorfulone.

  4. Alternative Prime profile image84
    Alternative Primeposted 15 months ago

    smile ~ Trump quotes Prime ~ smile

    At a live event in New Hampshire today Donald Trump, the GOP leader by a landslide right now was asked about Woman's Health Issues ~ He replied "Whatever it takes" ~

    Not a big fan of Trump but he does seem to understand what Jeb "Jed" Bush  and most other conservatives fail to recognize ~ The fact that Woman's Health Care is one of the most important issues of our time and "Capping Funds" directed toward  this effort would be absolutely unacceptable ~

    1. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
      Kathryn L Hillposted 15 months ago in reply to this

      Thats a pretty vague response. He may find it doesn't take as much as is being used. $. Especially if women can keep their pants on and not get turned on by every guy who tells them they're sexy.

      1. Alternative Prime profile image84
        Alternative Primeposted 15 months ago in reply to this

        Kathryn ~ If U keep talkin' like that you're not gonna' have to worry about using PP around me, maybe wilderness or another hillbilly cousin but certainly not me ----> smile <----

        Do U realize what you just said?

        Let's just be conservative and say there are 150 Million Women in the United States, and then let's take 500 Million and divide it into that amount which equals roughly $3.50 per woman ~

        Jed Bush and now YOU are "UNSURE" that we should spend $3.50 per woman on "Woman's Health Care" ~ So what would be an acceptable number for U and good ole' Jeb? $1.00 - .50 cents - .25 cents?? Any less than that we'll be headed for NEGATIVE SPENDING on essential women's health care which is exactly what that numbskull is truly aiming for ~

        1. GA Anderson profile image86
          GA Andersonposted 15 months ago in reply to this

          It looks like you may have things a little confused, (or at least backwards), concerning that $3.50 pp number.

          Your perspective on this will be interesting I am sure, but regarding your allocation logic I went searching for current Fed. spending on Women's health care costs.

          Too much work to find a consolidated number, but in the search of Federal, Federally sponsored, and Federally supported Women's Healthcare, I encountered programs with a billion here, and programs with billions there. Community program grants in the tens and hundreds of millions. etc. etc.

          You could find the same info yourself if interested, but by the time my calculator was hitting 10 or 11 digits I figured that was enough background to conclude that the exclusion of one program (PPA) expenditure of half-a-billion would, in the worst case, (by your method), be a reduction of women's healthcare spending by your $3.50, (assuming every woman went to a PPA clinic) - not a representation of total healthcare spending per woman.

          So, what service will be lost for want of that $3.50?

          Now I know that is a simplistic way of looking at it. I am sure PPA gives a lot of important services to women and value for our tax dollars -  but it is not the total of Fed. Women's healthcare expenditures, as it appears your logic assumes.

          Which, by the way, seems a pretty naive and telling assumption at that. To assume the US government that you are so proud of would only spend $3.50 per women for their healthcare.

          No wonder you are so upset about PPA possibly losing their funding.

          ps. Many of the articles searched mentioned the coverage and benefits now available to women via  ACA participation, and medicaid expansion. PPA uses insurance billing for all costs covered, and if the ACA is the great coverage it is being touted as, then maybe there is redundancy in the PPA half-billion support.

          GA

          1. Alternative Prime profile image84
            Alternative Primeposted 15 months ago in reply to this

            GA ~

            I'm not quite sure what you're getting at but here it is in simplistic version once again ~

            Jed Bush clearly stated in unambiguous terms that he wasn't sure if we needed to spend half a billion dollars on Women's Health Care ~ Half a Billion I believe equals 500 Million ~ A conservative total number of women in the United States would be roughly 150 Million ~ By my calculation, this would equate to a total of roughly $3.50 potentially spent on each American Women's Health Care ~ A number which is apparently unacceptable, debatable, and atrocious according to mathmatical genius Jed Bush ~

            Even if you reduce the total number of American Women to say 20 Million you are still spending a mere $20 or $30 per woman which would certainly  make Jeb hang himself by the beer soaked testicles from the nearest oil well ~

            When are you going to admit Jeb Bush is not interested in ensuring adequate Health Care for Women, it's just not a priority for him, he seems to be pre-occupied with his idiot brother's unwinnable Iraq War Disaster ~ Why? Who knows, but his campaign manager should steer him far far away from that radioactive subject and back onto something he can work with, which is NOTHING actually ~ This guy is MUTT ROMNEY PLUS ~ Not Good ~

    2. wilderness profile image96
      wildernessposted 15 months ago in reply to this

      Only a liberal socialist would ever think that capping funds to ANY project is absolutely unacceptable.  Everyone else understands that the federal budget is not unlimited.

      1. Alternative Prime profile image84
        Alternative Primeposted 15 months ago in reply to this

        Actually wilderness, the Federal Budget is and should be unlimited when refering to Women's Health Care" ~ Or HealthCare PERIOD ~

        1. wilderness profile image96
          wildernessposted 15 months ago in reply to this

          Nice!  We should spend 10 trillion immediately to fix all women's health issue.  There won't be any hospitals, doctors or nurses to aid them, and men and children will die out, but we'll have answers!

          Typical far left thinking.  All governments have unlimited funds to do with as they choose regardless of the reality that NO government has such a thing.  You should move to Greece, where they are finding out just what such an attitude does to an economy.

          1. Alternative Prime profile image84
            Alternative Primeposted 15 months ago in reply to this

            A bit of an exaggeration  at 10 TRillIOn wilderness, but if that's what it takes, that's what it takes to keep our Women Healthy ~

            Acquiring the funds to finance Health Issues would not add to our deficit, they would be secured by increasing an existing tax, or initiating  a new tariff or tax to be levied upon corporate interests that are obligated to pay for such necessities ~

            Even Jeb's old man "George the Senior", father of 2 "Special Boys" took a no-new-tax pledge while campaigning, however, shortly after his hand left the bible, he realized how important "Taxing Power" is to this country ~ NO Taxes or Anemic Taxes = WEAK & Anemic United States ~

            1. wilderness profile image96
              wildernessposted 15 months ago in reply to this

              And where will you get the 10 trillion?  China is having trouble and can't afford to support us much any more, and Europe is the same.  Will you ask Iran for free money for your wonderful projects?  There isn't enough money in the country, so don't bother pretending that you can get your unlimited funding from corporations (you do realize that 10 trillion is most of our total GDP, and that's just one of the many wonderful liberal projects "for the people")?

        2. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
          Kathryn L Hillposted 15 months ago in reply to this

          Do you realize what YOU are saying?

          You are obviously exaggerating again. You are forgiven. You have a special need. Patience is in order.

  5. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
    Kathryn L Hillposted 15 months ago

    Cap those funds and keep our taxes low so that We the People will be able to percolate/grow the economy.
    Yes, the basic philosophy of the Right is so evil, isn't it?
    Everything would be fine, if only the Left could understand the very legitimate concerns of the Right, if you ask me … which, unfortunately, no one ...

  6. colorfulone profile image88
    colorfuloneposted 15 months ago

    The difference between the two ideologies: Conservative vs Liberal Progrressive

    While walking in the park Mr. Republican and Mrs. Democrat met up with a homeless man. Mr. Republican gave the man his personal business card and offered the man a job. Then, he took a $20 from  his pocket and gave it to the man.

    Mrs. Democrat was inspired by Mr. Republican's actions. So much so, that when they met up with a homeless woman, Mrs. D. was willing to offer the woman some help. She approached the woman and offered the directions to the city's welfare office. Then, Mrs D. took $20 out of Mr. R.'s pocket. She needed to keep $15 for administrative fees and then she gave $5.00 to the poor woman.

    1. Alternative Prime profile image84
      Alternative Primeposted 15 months ago in reply to this

      Nice try colorfulone but that's completely Untrue & an Un-realistic scenario ~ Ridiculous Actually ~

      First of all, Mr. Republican would never offer the homeless man a job considering he does not have a RESIDENCE ~ A typical roadblock toward employment ~ Secondly, the homeless man might be enduring mental health issues ~

      Thirdly, if you think the majority of republicans would offer this man in desperation a JOB, or show the least bit of compassion, you're definately out of touch with REALITY and need to move to Planet Pluto with the Rand Paul's of the Earth ~

      This scenario does NOT happen in real life for good reason, and that is republicans simply don't care, and if they did, I guess we would have solved the homeless problem by now right?

      It's a complicated situation, but during the interum of solving it, we need to provide good homes to EVERYONE living on the street regardless of the cost ~

    2. colorfulone profile image88
      colorfuloneposted 15 months ago in reply to this

      I think the "scenario" sounds like Trump and Clinton.

      1. colorfulone profile image88
        colorfuloneposted 15 months ago in reply to this

        Before the dreadful rear end car collision I was the victim of, I still then couldn't agree with you less.

        Being a contractor who hired several homeless people to give them a leg up, I see your comment as a disability of lack of knowledge.

        For giving a place to live to six homeless people, I see your comment as completely out of order.

        But, thanks for your injection (of poison).

  7. Alternative Prime profile image84
    Alternative Primeposted 15 months ago

    Well, believe it or not, here we go again, it’s no surprise to me though, nor to anyone who follows politics ~

    Now dunce Jeb "Jed" Bush refers to precious little human beings born in the United States as “Anchor babies” ~

    Regardless of your prejudices against a certain race, creed, or color, as Jeb obviously holds against Mexican American Citizens, calling any innocent infant an “Anchor Anything” is inhumanely offensive ~

    One more of many reasons why this numbskull is SINKING fast ~ His wife is a minority, boy, I pity her existence with this fool and I wonder how she feels about his choice of terminology used to describe Mexican Amercian Babies Born in the United States ~

    In addition, I'd like to hear her opinion about Jeb's reluctance and or refusal to embrace and or fund Women's Health Care in America ~

    1. wilderness profile image96
      wildernessposted 15 months ago in reply to this

      Do you know what an "anchor baby" is?  Pretending they do not exist with false horror does not mean they are not in the country by the millions.  Do you know that there is no such thing as a "Mexican American citizen" (unless you refer to that tiny number with dual citizenship)?  Did you know that Jeb has never mentioned defunding "Women's Health Care" in America (just because he recognizes limits the far left pretend aren't there doesn't mean he would not fund what we can)?

      1. Alternative Prime profile image84
        Alternative Primeposted 15 months ago in reply to this

        wilderness ~

        I know what a “Baby” is, and I know when conservative imbeciles like “on his way out” Bush try to attach another descriptive word, it’s very offensive to the majority of Americans especially minorities and women ~

        “Publicity Hound” Ann Coulter et al insane conservatives like R. Limbaugh coined this ridiculously offensive phrase a while back and despite their assertions regarding said rhetoric, which of course have no merit, no proof, nor concrete evidence, these precious infants are human beings first and foremost PERIOD ~

        If an individual of Mexican Blood is born in the United States that infant remains Mexican and is immediately and without condition granted U.S Citizenship regardless of your opinion to the contrary or willingness to amend said document, these events make him/her American ~ Therefore, an individual can indeed be regarded as a “Mexican American Citizen” just like “Irish American Citizen“ or German American Citizen“ etc ~

        Mexican Blood = Mexican ~ Born in America = American ~ Constitutional Right = Citizen

        MEXICAN AMERICAN CITIZEN

        In reality, Jeb has clearly articulated his “RELUCTANCE” to fund Women’s Health Care and or Issues, and according to his past history of “Slashing” programs, a plausible “Non-Funding” or significant REDUCTION in funding stance by this “Trump Poodle” is certainly not out of the question ~

        Conservatives Rant and Rave all day long about how proud they are to “Slash and Trash” programs like Social Security which benefit the majority of Americans while maintaining HUGE monetary taxpayer gifts to the wealthy ~ That’s a fact and it needs to change ~

        1. colorfulone profile image88
          colorfuloneposted 15 months ago in reply to this

          References please.   Sounds silly to me.

        2. wilderness profile image96
          wildernessposted 15 months ago in reply to this

          You may understand what a baby is, but of course that wasn't the question, was it?  I'll repeat it for you: "Do you know what an "anchor baby" is"?  And no, the term is not offensive to the "majority" of Americans; only those that wish to spin political rhetoric into an emotional issue rather than a rational one.   Most people also recognize the reasons for the citizenship clause of the 14th amendment and understand how it is being suborned to create masses of anchor babies.  They also want it stopped.

          Sorry, but the current fad to try and indicate ancestoral heritage in a statement or current citizenship is just that; a fad without a lot of meaning.  The vast majority of people have ONE national citizenship, not multiple ones. 

          If you think Jeb has ever indicated a reluctance to fund health care, you need to produce a quote from him.  And not one that says we need to fund it, just perhaps not at the levels it is now.  There is a difference in the two, you know, in spite of your rants that they are identical.

          Yes, there is a rant and rave here, but it is not coming from conservatives.  It's coming from a socialist that finds it necessary to grossly spin, exaggerate  and distort anything a conservative has to say without regard to the truth.  (You cannot find even a single "HUGE monetary taxpayer gift to the wealthy", let alone multiple ones).

          1. Alternative Prime profile image84
            Alternative Primeposted 15 months ago in reply to this

            Wilderness ~

            There’s nothing wrong with injecting your BLOOD into how you describe your heritage, just remember that ~ Moreover, if you really get technical, a case for Native Americans being the only genuine Americans could be presented ~

            You, Ann Coulter, R. Limbobaugh, Sean Hammerhead et al rabid talking head conservatives should simply compile your so called “Anchor Babies” evidence, take it to the court of jurisdiction, explain vehemently to the judge what you think is happening, and let her / him decide if there is a breach of the 14th Amendment ~ Let the legal system prevail ~

            Unfortunately, you appear to be a typical conservative wilderness, just like Jeb “Jed” Bush ~ You have a reluctance or serious hesitation to fund vitally important issues such as “Women’s Health Care”, or at the very least you favor placing a “CAP” on this important effort at perhaps less than what might be needed while waving an open federal checkbook in the air to enlist a “Pseudo-Militia” to go running around this nation hunting down, cuffing & shackling, then deporting millions of hard working, loyal “HUMAN BEINGS” back to Mexico ~

            How much TIME, ENERGY, RESOURCES & TAXPAYER MONEY would that take??

            In very stark contrast, a PRIORITY for Progressive Democrats is to spend “Whatever it takes” on Women’s Health Care verses spending Multi-Billions or even a Trillion Dollars Hunting & DEPORTING Americans & their families, a futile exercise which of course would only be a detriment to the United States ~

            1. wilderness profile image96
              wildernessposted 15 months ago in reply to this

              Of course there is no breach - that's the point.  There is, however, a gross breach in the original purpose of the amendment, and that, too, is the point.  Sad that the liberal base cannot see it (more likely don't WANT to see it because ignoring it buys votes for them), but trust me - it's there and in spades.

              I understand that it is a priority for the far left to spend "Whatever it takes" on a whole raft of glorious projects to "improve" people's lives (and enslave them to the party as well, but that's not to be mentioned).  It's a mark of extreme stupidity, and is bankrupting our country, but that's the far left for you.  I understand what they're doing, I'm just smart enough to know it cannot be done while maintaining the country.

              1. Alternative Prime profile image84
                Alternative Primeposted 15 months ago in reply to this

                If there's no "Breach" then why do conservative nutcases like Ann Coulter have their pocket constitutions all in a bunch?

                I never said the "Progressive Left"  is interested in spending whatever it takes on a "Whole raft of glorious projects", we are however interested in spending whatever it takes on what most conservative republican corporate puppets would define as "Un-important Issues" like "Women's Health Care", "Social Security", "Medicare" ~

                BTW wilderness, the only person I can think of who in recent memory "Bankrupted" this nation is Jeb's bonehead brother George W by giving away all our wealth to the wealthy ~ he swiflty turned a significant surplus created by and inherited from President Clinton, into a defecit shortly after taking office ~ BLUNDER #1 ~

                BLUNDER #2 ~ He invaded the WRONG country to start an unwinnable WAR in the Middle East, a war in which his little brother "Jebber" as his old man calls him, is aching to re-kindle if a miracle happens and he becomes PREZ ~

                BLUNDERS o' PLENTY from this family of Bushs' and if by that miracle Jeb does become Prez, this country will once again get what it deserves ~ AN IDIOT ~

                1. wilderness profile image96
                  wildernessposted 15 months ago in reply to this

                  BTW, Alternative Prime, the far left (not "progressive", but just the socialist far left) does indeed have a whole raft of charity programs to enslave the people to the party.  It is masked in such statements as "You want the children to DIE!", but the end goal is to turn the people into willing, mindless slaves.

                  And no, social security and medicare are not the charity programs of the socialist.  They are paid for by specific payments from every workers wage, dedicated to paying for their own entitlement after retirement.  Had the funds not been stolen by liberals for their pet projects to buy votes, and intelligently invested instead, SS payments could easily be doubled to every person getting them.  Maybe it paid for "Women's Health Care" instead of going back to the person for their own retirement.

                  Can you point me to a photo/copy of a single check from taxpayers that GW gave to the wealthy without any return?  No?  Perhaps you should not spout such nonsense then.

                2. wilderness profile image96
                  wildernessposted 15 months ago in reply to this

                  Anchor babies: What liberals try to gloss over is that it is a massive problem.  As much as 10% of babies born in the US are "anchor babies", instantly giving parents the right to collect charity.  In fact, 71% of illegals with children (as opposed to 39% of citizen households with children) collect such charity, and the cost is enormous to the rest of the country.  Nor does this include the cost of schooling, health care, etc.

                  http://www.nationalreview.com/article/4 … incentives

                  While ignoring such costs, or pretending it isn't there, will certainly buy political favor it doesn't help cover the cost of women's health care.  Or any other social give-away the liberals propose, but that doesn't matter, does it?  After all, there is unlimited funding for such things!

                  1. Alternative Prime profile image84
                    Alternative Primeposted 15 months ago in reply to this

                    Until you can prove your assertions with concrete evidence, your “Anchor Baby” theory is not recognized ~

                    I believe aliens from another galaxy control the republican side of congress but until I can prove it, it’s immaterial ~ As I previously recommended wilderness, bring your irrefutable evidence to the courts and tell them you believe 10% of Mexican Human Beings born unto this country were conceived with explicit intent to defraud ~ See what happens ~ You along with the Ann Coulters & R. Limbobaughs of this world appear to be adamant in your allegations so it should be a slam dunk right?

                    But please don’t worry too much wilderness, your hero “Trump Poodle Jeb” apparently has banked plenty of “Big Oil Money” which should help him to stay in the race for a little while longer despite his Utter Incompetence, Disdain for Women and their everyday struggles to remain healthy, and his Disastrously In-Articulate Demeanor ~

                    P.S. ~ sometime in the near future our collective assets will indeed need to be distributed “Fair & Equitably” amongst “We the People” out of necessity if anything else ~ The Failure of Capitolism has succeeded in "Enslaving" the Majority of Americans to a Job or "Slave Slot" for life, most of whom get paid a poverty level wage ~ This "Monopoly of Our Wealth" and suppression of the majority perpetrated by a few individuals must end ~

  8. Alternative Prime profile image84
    Alternative Primeposted 15 months ago

    wilderness ~

    Another defenition of "Bankruptcy" is "Destitution" and when an idiot like Jeb's big brother George W "Gifts" an enormous surplus fortune to wealthy individuals and leaves the nation with none, I would say it's a pretty destitute situation ~

    You win on the Wall Street thing ~ YES, I've had a miraculous epiphany, believe it or not, I NOW Agree there are NO SWINDLERS on WALL STREET ---------> smile <---------- As a matter of fact they are ALL God's ANGELS with the utmost ethics, morality, and good intent -----> smile <------

    Even though it's immaterial to my assertions, prove that all greedy millionaires & billionaires have acquired this massive wealth legally ~

    1. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
      Kathryn L Hillposted 15 months ago in reply to this

      Dear A. Prime,
      Prove they are not "God's angels" knowing and working with the Abundance of God. I am quite certain they have well developed habits of doing whatever it takes to expand, expand, expand their wealth. Not through theft, but through tuning into the infinite nature of God's unlimited bounty.
      Yes, they are angels. cool

      … well, some are devils.
      but which ones?
      Can YOU, A Prime, tell us?

    2. wilderness profile image96
      wildernessposted 15 months ago in reply to this

      Bankruptcy: "Bankruptcy is a legal status of a person or other entity that cannot repay the debts it owes to creditors."  <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bankruptcy>

      Destitution:  "without means of subsistence; lacking food, clothing, and shelter."  <http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/destitute?s=t>

      You will note that bankruptcy does not address the issue of food, clothing and shelter at all, while being destitute does not address the matter of creditors.  The two are completely different and do not connect at all.  Try again instead of making up your own definitions.

      Still no examples of GW giving taxpayer gifts to the wealthy.  You might as well give it up as I'm not inclined to take your word without backup data (so far it hasn't been very good; just unsupported opinions that are proven to be false).

      I needn't prove anything; you have made the assertion they are all thieves and must thus back it up with proof.  You do understand that, don't you?  That your assertions are not considered true without proof and that no one is expected to prove the opposite or they ARE true?

      1. Alternative Prime profile image84
        Alternative Primeposted 15 months ago in reply to this

        wilderness ~

        I guess you’re just desperately trying to reduce this conversation to an exercise in semantics versus shining a bright luminous light on Jeb Bush’s admitted reluctance and or refusal as Presidential Candidate to provide Women the Proper Health Care they need and deserve while you feverishly try to defend and justify Wall Street Greed and those Swindlers who continue to ABUSE our Open Market System ~ Good Luck with that ~

        Even Donald Trump without hesitation "TRUMPED" Bonehead Bush by stating "Whatever it Takes" with regard to "Women's Health Care" ~

        "Bankrupt" also means to simply “WIPE OUT” which is exactly what idiot George W did to the massive surplus he had inherited from President Clinton ~ Bush perpetrated one of the most massive money give aways to the wealthy which of course in turn, resulted in a more “Destitute” situation for those Americans who needed assistance the most ~

        It’s not my job here in a chat forum to educate you wilderness, if your memory fails you just go do your own research and the facts about this moronic oil family will astonish you, or maybe not ~

        1. wilderness profile image96
          wildernessposted 15 months ago in reply to this

          No, I'm not trying to reduce the conversation to anything; I'm trying to get you to support your assertion that JB wants to end women's health care, that GW gave monetary gifts to wall street tycoons and that the country was bankrupt during the GW presidency.  You've made the statements but steadfastly refuse to provide anything supporting them.  The obvious conclusion is that you've presented falsehoods as factual and that matches my memory of the time then and now.

          Nowhere in the Wikipedia definition do I see anything about "WIPE OUT", for instance, yet you still claim we were bankrupt.  Still making up definitions while labeling GW as an "idiot" and "moron", which he definitely was not (or do you need a definition of those terms as well?).  Just more far left rhetoric, and obviously false rhetoric at that.  One of us seemingly needs education, but at least I CAN google a dictionary definition.  Now, had you listed specific tycoons, and their illegal actions, I would go along with you as there are thieves in every branch of life.  But you didn't - you said "Wall Street", (and now "wealthy"), indicating everyone in those categories.

          Perhaps if you left the loaded words and negative connotations alone and tried to just present facts instead of arguments from your own emotions? And, maybe, just those "facts" you can support?  I do suspect the conversation would instantly become a lot more meaningful, for I have no interest in your imaginative theories or personal definitions.

          1. Alternative Prime profile image84
            Alternative Primeposted 15 months ago in reply to this

            One more time wilderness then you're on your own ~

            Jeb "Jed" Bush with hs own crooked incompetent mouth said "He's not sure we need to spend millions on Women's Health Issues" ~ Indicating explicitly that millions of dollars is too much money to help women maintain optimum health ~ Even Donald Trump is compassionate on this vitally important issue ~

            I believe the total amount George W, Jeb's numbskull brother, gave away was 1. 2 TRILLION in surplus left to him by President Clinton, this treasure was gifted primarily to the wealthiest 1% & Wall Street / Big Oil Buddies while way too many Americans wallow in a destitute situation which is unacceptable to Progressive Democrats ~

            GOOGLE the word "Bankrupt" and PoW, right before your eyes, one definition is "WIPE OUT" amongst many others ~

            Honestly, do you get comprehensive information retrieval where you live up in Montana wilderness? This is a serious question, I talk to many individuals who live "Off the Grid" and the technology is deficient in many rural areas, other than repetitive "Talk Radio" there's not much else for them to receive ~ "Modernization" That's one main reason why they are seriously considering "Flipping" over to the Compassionate Left Side ~

            1. wilderness profile image96
              wildernessposted 15 months ago in reply to this

              One more time Alternative Prime and then you're on your own.  From your very own posts:

              "In reality, Jeb has clearly articulated his “RELUCTANCE” to fund Women’s Health Care and or Issues"
              "In addition, I'd like to hear her opinion about Jeb's reluctance and or refusal to embrace and or fund Women's Health Care"
              "Actually wilderness, the Federal Budget is and should be unlimited when refering to Women's Health Care"
              "Jeb Bush is not interested in ensuring adequate Health Care for Women"
              "The fact that Woman's Health Care is one of the most important issues of our time and "Capping Funds" directed toward  this effort would be absolutely unacceptable "
              "Jeb "Jed" Bush is uninterested in taking care of Americans"
              "We should spend whatever it takes to keep women healthy"

              Pretty obvious conclusion: JB is smart enough to recognize that there is not unlimited funds for any project, and said so.  AP isn't, and twists JB's words to try and claim JB wants zero Women's health care expenditures - an obviously false statement based on the equally obviously false premise that there are unlimited funds for his pet projects.  Try again, AP, and try very hard to get it right.  Stop the innuendo, the connotative and false descriptions ("crooked", "incompetent" and even "explicitly" as that is a gross exaggeration of what was said).  Understand for just once that all the compassion in the world does not produce dollar trees growing on every street corner; understand that funding for ANY project is limited and priorities for EVERY project must be set at something less than 100%.



              You can believe whatever you wish as to a trillion dollars GWB gave to Wall street and big oil, but until you can produce canceled checks or similar evidence your beliefs fall far short of knowledge.  You can even pretend that Clinton produced a surplus, but when the debt grew every year it isn't hard to show it never happened.  Pretending that your belief IS knowledge is foolish in the extreme.

              http://usercontent2.hubimg.com/12604871.jpg

              Googling "bankrupt" produces the following:
              bank·rupt
              ˈbaNGkˌrəpt/Submit
              adjective
              1. (of a person or organization) declared in law unable to pay outstanding debts.
              "the company was declared bankrupt"
              synonyms:    insolvent, failed, ruined, in debt, owing money, in the red, in arrears, overleveraged, in receivership; informalbust, belly up, broke, cash-strapped, flat broke
              "the company was declared bankrupt"
              2. completely lacking in a particular quality or value.
              "their cause is morally bankrupt"
              synonyms:    bereft of, devoid of, empty of, destitute of; completely lacking in, without, in need of, wanting
              "this government is bankrupt of ideas"

              Not until you get to the verb do we find even a synonym that comes close to "wiped out", and as I recall that was the third term you tried to pass off as meaning "bankrupt".  And a rather poor synonym at that; it's hard to be "wiped out" with a quadrillion dollars of military hardware sitting around.  In any case, if you check back over the legal definition I provided you will see that it means (legally) an inability to pay one's debts; something that has never happened to this country.  The only countries it HAS happened to are socialist leaning ones and we aren't that far gone yet.

              "Compassionate left side"???  The only "compassion" shown (long term) is to reduce the country to third world status by continuing to pretend that there is unlimited funding and assets for their pet projects.  That and hog tying the citizen to the largesse of the politicians handing out the "free" money to anyone that wants it.  Personally I don't find much "compassion" in either goal - perhaps we have as different definition of "compassion" as we do "bankrupt"?

              As far as sources of information, that available in the rural state of Idaho seems to be much better than wherever you are; so far all you've offered is unsupported opinion rather than facts.  Thankfully, we have better than that to consider, though it does take a small amount of effort to find.

              1. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
                Kathryn L Hillposted 15 months ago in reply to this

                WaY to Go, IdahO! big_smile

              2. Alternative Prime profile image84
                Alternative Primeposted 15 months ago in reply to this

                wilderness ~

                Jeb Bush is "Unsure" that we need to spend millions on Women's Health Care which means he is Apprehensive, Uncertain, Relcutant to give Women what they need to maintain optimum HEALTH ~ Millions is a drop in the bucket to allot for this important issue ~ This "Reluctance to help women is APPAULING to most ~ Just one more of many reasons why good ole' Jeb is Sinking ~

                Even Donald Trump is compassionate in this area and understands where the funds could be shifted from to finance this ~

                "WHATEVER IT TAKES" to help women PERIOD is the CORRECT answer ~  If you and Kathryn and good ole' Jeb "Jed" Bush disagree, that of course is your perogative and good luck with that mindset ~

                1. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
                  Kathryn L Hillposted 15 months ago in reply to this

                  … what is the result of yours (mindset). That is the question.

                  1. Alternative Prime profile image84
                    Alternative Primeposted 15 months ago in reply to this

                    Kathryn ~

                    The result of my mindset and that of Progressives is that Women will  rec eive "Whatever it Takes" to maintain OPTIMUM HEALTH ~  PERIOD ~

                    There is no debate, discussion, nor Jeb Bush apprehension regarding this important issue ~ You, wilderness, Numbskull Jeb and all other  backward thinking conservatives can maintain your gleeful visions of de-funding and or terminating programs which help women if that's your choice, once again, it's your Prerogative ~ ----> smile <----

                    Conservatives once again trying to TAKE from the Majority of Americans and GIVE to Billionaires & Wall Street Swindlers" ~ What else is new?

                2. wilderness profile image96
                  wildernessposted 15 months ago in reply to this

                  Back again?  So Jeb is unsure if we need to spend as much as we do.  How does that simple, truthful comment equate with "Jeb "Jed" Bush is uninterested in taking care of Americans"?  Or "In addition, I'd like to hear her opinion about Jeb's reluctance and or refusal to embrace and or fund Women's Health Care"?  Just because you feel that "We should spend whatever it takes to keep women healthy" all while knowing we will not succeed if we spend the entire yearly GDP every month on women's health?  Personally, I'd have to say that Jeb is right - that ALL expenditures should be examined every single year.  That's what a budget is for, you know, although I also recognize that extreme liberals view a budget as total nonsense - there is always enough for whatever they deem important even if it has to be borrowed from our children.

                  We see that in the statement that ""WHATEVER IT TAKES" to help women PERIOD is the CORRECT answer" irregardless of the cost in lives, hunger, or anything else.  We don't need to help Katrina victims, we don't need to fight wild fires, we don't need to rebuild after a tornado - put it all into women's health care.  Forget the military (no one will ever attack the twin towers) and end WIC.  Stop vaccinations and school lunches - stop all education everywhere and put the money into women's health care.  Halt all veterans benefits (unless they are female) and quit providing low cost housing.  "Whatever it takes" to ensure all women are 100% healthy at all times. 

                  R I I I G H T!  It's the liberal way!  (Until the economy fails and we ALL deteriorate into third world conditions, anyway.)

                  1. Alternative Prime profile image84
                    Alternative Primeposted 15 months ago in reply to this

                    Nice list of all the other Extremely Important Causes Conservatives  ALWAYS OPPOSE ~

                    The money is there, it just needs to be shifted AWAY from the abusers and TOWARD Women's Health Care & ALL the other causes you mentioned ~

                    There is way too much idle wealth in the TRILLIONS just sitting around collecting dust in dungeons ~ Time to put it to work for ALL AMERICANS not just Jed Bush's OIL Buds ~

  9. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
    Kathryn L Hillposted 15 months ago

    Totally worth repeating:
    "... the far left (not "progressive", but just the socialist far left) does indeed have a whole raft of charity programs to enslave the people to the party.  It is masked in such statements as "You want the children to DIE!", but the end goal is to turn the people into willing, mindless slaves." wilderness

    … Supremely excellent point: 
    "… social security and medicare are not the charity programs of the socialist.  They are paid for by specific payments from every workers wage, dedicated to paying for their own entitlement after retirement.  Had the funds not been stolen by liberals for their pet projects to buy votes, and intelligently invested instead, SS payments could easily be doubled to every person getting them.  Maybe it paid for "Women's Health Care" instead of going back to the person for their own retirement." wilderness

    Thank You, wilderness.

  10. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
    Kathryn L Hillposted 15 months ago

    "abyss of Greed."
    as opposed to a deep endless receptacle of generosity.
    Sigh.

    Got Generosity?

    I would if I could, but NOOOOO !!!

  11. PrettyPanther profile image85
    PrettyPantherposted 15 months ago

    This entire argument has burrowed down into the weeds in a pretty useless manner.  We have plenty of money to fund Medicare for All.  No, it won't keep everyone perfectly healthy.  Yes, it would require taking money from more than one pot (bloated defense budget, anyone?) and putting it in the health care pot.  It's simply a matter of priorities.

    1. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
      Kathryn L Hillposted 15 months ago in reply to this

      Health for Men!
      Women should be allowed to go topless on Venice Beach!
      Equality for all!
      http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2015/08/ … ice-beach/

    2. Alternative Prime profile image84
      Alternative Primeposted 15 months ago in reply to this

      I essentially agree with you PrettyPanther ~

      Medicare is actually a birth-right and the sooner we begin granting Health Care via this program to ALL new born infants, the better off the United States will be ~ This is a Progressive Push for Comprehensive Coverage which is met with Rabid Opposition from Jeb Bush and his GOP brethren  who are beholden to insurance companies ~

      Of course there is money for this and other essential programs which can be procured by exactly as you mentioned, a diversion of funds from unecessary budget items ~ In addition, the bulk of funds will be extracted from new initiatives which would include compelling Wall Street and other grossly over compensated enities to contribute to the General Well Being of the "UNITED States of America" ~

      Time to Re-Direct our assets where they belong ~

      1. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
        Kathryn L Hillposted 15 months ago in reply to this

        Entitled States of Amerika

        Back to the ESSA:  Entitled Single State of Amerika

        "Of course there is money for this and other essential programs which can be procured by exactly as you mentioned, a diversion of funds from unecessary budget items."
        Such as...

        1. wilderness profile image96
          wildernessposted 15 months ago in reply to this

          But we really ARE entitled to medicare.  We can all take out an actuarially determined amount based on what we put in.  We are indeed entitled to that, at least until the pot runs dry from liberals "redirecting" our contributions into their pet projects.

          1. PrettyPanther profile image85
            PrettyPantherposted 15 months ago in reply to this

            Well, here is where I disagree with Alternative Prime. I don't think health care, or Medicare, is a birth right.  I just believe we can make a conscientious choice about how we want to spend the vast wealth that exists in this country.  That choice should be based on many things, but the most important factor should be our values.  What is most important to us?  Invading a country who didn't attack us?  Providing nourishment to those who are hungry?  Hoarding wealt?    Providing preventative health care?  Subsidizing the oil industry?  Investing in infrastructure?

            It's a choice, people.  Vote for those whose actions reflect your values.  You like giving your money to Exxon?  Keep voting for those who think it's a-okay.  Want to invest your money in the future of this country by sending a bright, motivated but penniless kid to college?  Vote for the one who is for that.

            It's all about choices.  Be proactive and stop accepting that big money has to rule everything.  Vote for those who want to dismantle Citizens United by amending the constitution to get big money out of politics.  As it stands, we barely have a fighting chance for our voices to be heard.  Take the steps to change it.  Stop with the defeatist attitude.  Stop swallowing the line that money equals freedom.  Money equals influence for those who have it.  That's not democracy, that's plutocracy.  Let's change that.

            1. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
              Kathryn L Hillposted 15 months ago in reply to this

              … without loosing free market.

              1. PrettyPanther profile image85
                PrettyPantherposted 15 months ago in reply to this

                Having giant corporations control our government with huge sums of cash is not a free market.

                1. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
                  Kathryn L Hillposted 15 months ago in reply to this

                  The government doesn't have to allow it.
                  We have monopoly laws the Gov't can enforce, the Gov't can close loopholes, stop bailing out and stop making back room deals.
                  But WE have MAKE the government accountable … !
                  The responsibility is with the people to make the Gov't, (the elected representatives who WE have GIVEN power,) serve US!

                  But which presidential candidate is mentioning any of this?

                  1. PrettyPanther profile image85
                    PrettyPantherposted 15 months ago in reply to this

                    Check out Bernie Sanders.

                2. Alternative Prime profile image84
                  Alternative Primeposted 15 months ago in reply to this

                  PrettyPanther ~

                  "Free Market" & "Capitalism" are terms used by Radical Conservatives to Disguise the Truth, which is the fact that Corporations and the few individuals who control these entities and of course Wall Street, have been and will continue to Stockpile our Assets to be used in the future to control this and other Countries ~

                  On Women's Health Care ~ Jeb Bush has clearly articulated his acceptance and support of the fact that his buddies in the oil industry  and himself indirectly, continue to receive and benefit from Billions in taxpayer monies in the form of subsidies, yet he is "Reluctant" to allocate Millions to care for and or prevent health ailments which are associated with women ~ These are some of his VALUES ~

                  1. PrettyPanther profile image85
                    PrettyPantherposted 15 months ago in reply to this

                    Yes, many conservative politicians use buzz words like "freedom" and "free market" to garner support from the masses, even though what they really mean is freedom for the rich to continue to buy influence.  This does not benefit the middle class.

 
working