Bogus radio address by the Dems.

All in all, the Graeme Frost case is a perfect illustration of the modern right-wing political machine at work, and in particular its routine reliance on character assassination in place of honest debate. If service members oppose a Republican war, they're "phony soldiers"; if Michael J. Fox opposes Bush policy on stem cells, he's faking his Parkinson's symptoms; if an injured 12-year-old child makes the case for a government health insurance program, he's a fraud.

Meanwhile, leading conservative politicians, far from trying to distance themselves from these smears, rush to embrace them. And some people in the news media are still willing to be used as patsies.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/12/opinion/12krugman.html?_r=1&ref=opinion&oref=slogin

Maddow: "Twelve year old Graeme Frost, meet Cindy Sheehan, meet 9/11 widows, meet Staff Sgt. Brian McGough, meet Michael J. Fox, meet the kids who were targeted by Mark Foley, meet Jack Murtha. I mean, Graeme Frost as a twelve year old now joins an esteemed list of Americans who have been personally attacked, personally slimed, called liars and cowards and frauds, and threatened for daring to publicly espouse a view that the right disagrees with. I mean, just when you think you've found the person who they can't possibly slime, I don't know, say a twelve year old kid just out of a coma, turns out yeah, the bar does actually go that low, it's just astonishing."

http://www.crooksandliars.com/page/2/?rand=%7B20071012150355%7D

Their politicans they all lie. That is nothing new. ...

Just what did you expect JTT? The Right Wing is populated by a bunch of ignorant, greedy, and vicious degenerate sub-human animals with no redeeming social function.

They preach about how Jesus is their Savior and hero (like Bush did), but the second a firm choice arises in their life to choose between good and evil they always select the path of darkness. What makes it worse and truly exposes them as personal cowards is that they try to defend their degenerate behavior as acts of "tough love," instead of standing up and admitting that could not care less about their fellow man. They don't even have the balls to admit their misanthopy.

I read the entire thread before my first post earlier and was certainly not surprised that not a single Right Wing bozo has any statement of compassion or remorse for the boy's or family's situation. Nope, they just knaw at the family like its just an exercize in bad taste, like dogs snarling over a bone.

They're just a bunch of f^%king puke bastards, who ought to experience the hardship they laugh about when others endure it.

kuvasz wrote:

Just what did you expect JTT? The Right Wing is populated by a bunch of ignorant, greedy, and vicious degenerate sub-human animals with no redeeming social function.

They preach about how Jesus is their Savior and hero (like Bush did), but the second a firm choice arises in their life to choose between good and evil they always select the path of darkness. What makes it worse and truly exposes them as personal cowards is that they try to defend their degenerate behavior as acts of "tough love," instead of standing up and admitting that could not care less about their fellow man. They don't even have the balls to admit their misanthopy.

I read the entire thread before my first post earlier and was certainly not surprised that not a single Right Wing bozo has any statement of compassion or remorse for the boy's or family's situation. Nope, they just knaw at the family like its just an exercize in bad taste, like dogs snarling over a bone.

They're just a bunch of f^%king puke bastards, who ought to experience the hardship they laugh about when others endure it.

[/b]

How do you know I haven't experienced hardship?

Who is laughing now?

How do you know I haven't experienced hardship?

Who is laughing now?

woiyo wrote:

kuvasz wrote:

Just what did you expect JTT? The Right Wing is populated by a bunch of ignorant, greedy, and vicious degenerate sub-human animals with no redeeming social function.

They preach about how Jesus is their Savior and hero (like Bush did), but the second a firm choice arises in their life to choose between good and evil they always select the path of darkness. What makes it worse and truly exposes them as personal cowards is that they try to defend their degenerate behavior as acts of "tough love," instead of standing up and admitting that could not care less about their fellow man. They don't even have the balls to admit their misanthopy.

I read the entire thread before my first post earlier and was certainly not surprised that not a single Right Wing bozo has any statement of compassion or remorse for the boy's or family's situation. Nope, they just knaw at the family like its just an exercize in bad taste, like dogs snarling over a bone.

They're just a bunch of f^%king puke bastards, who ought to experience the hardship they laugh about when others endure it.

[/b]

How do you know I haven't experienced hardship?

Who is laughing now?

If you did, you didn't learn much from it. It seems odd to me that you would be willing to damn many people who need help in order to keep the few number who would abuse the system from having a chance to do so.

I'm certainly not laughing.

Cycloptichorn

Conservatives claim to be in favor of stable families, small businesses, hard work, private schools, investment and homeownership. So why in the world are so many on the right attacking the family of Graeme Frost?

Frost is the 12-year-old from Baltimore who delivered the Democrats' reply to a radio address by President Bush in September. The seventh-grader pleaded -- in vain, it turned out -- that the president not veto Congress's $35 billion expansion of the children's health care program known as SCHIP. A car crash in December 2004 left two of Halsey and Bonnie Frost's children comatose, Graeme with a brain stem injury and Gemma, his sister, with a cranial fracture.

The kids were treated, thanks to SCHIP. The Frosts spoke out so the public would know that real people lie behind the acronym.

Their reward was to be trashed on right-wing blogs and talk radio as if they were multimillionaires ripping off the system. The assault on the Frosts apparently began on the Free Republic Web site and quickly spread to National Review Online, Power Line and Michelle Malkin's blog, as well as Rush Limbaugh's radio show.

And of what were the Frosts guilty? Well, they own their own home, which they bought for $55,000 in 1990 and which is now worth about $260,000; they invested in a commercial property, valued at $160,000; Halsey Frost, a self-employed woodworker, once owned a small business that was dissolved in 1999; and Graeme attends a private school on scholarship. I rely here on facts reported this week in the Baltimore Sun and the New York Times, both of which set straight the more outlandish claims made by the Frosts' attackers.

The right is unapologetic. "The Democrats chose to outsource their airtime to a Seventh Grader," wrote National Review's Mark Steyn. "If a political party is desperate enough to send a boy to do a man's job, then the boy is fair game."

Okay, the Democrats are "fair game," but a 12-year-old? No wonder nobody talks about compassionate conservatism anymore.

As a general rule, I am a fan of the blogosphere. It has broadened the public debate and brought new people into politics. And nasty stuff is by no means limited to the right-wing blogs. Left-of-center blogs whose political views I largely share have published offensive stuff, too. Shaun Mullen, who blogs at The Moderate Voice-- yes, there are moderate blogs -- is right to generalize when he says that the targeting of the Frost family reveals "the vicious underbelly of the blogosphere."

So rather than just condemn the right-wingers as meanies, let's take their claims seriously. Doing so makes clear that they are engaged in a perverse and incoherent form of class warfare.

The left is accused of all manner of sins related to covetousness and envy whenever it raises questions about who benefits from Bush's tax cuts and mentions the yachts such folks might buy or the mansions they might own. But here is a family with modest possessions doing everything conservatives tell people they should do, and the right trashes them for getting help to buy health insurance for their children.

Most conservatives favor government-supported vouchers that would help Graeme attend his private school, but here they turn around and criticize him for . . . attending a private school. Federal money for private schools but not for health insurance? What's the logic here?

Conservatives endlessly praise risk-taking by entrepreneurs and would give big tax cuts to those who are most successful. But if a small-business person is struggling, he shouldn't even think about applying for SCHIP.

Conservatives who want to repeal the estate tax on large fortunes have cited stories -- most of them don't check out -- about farmers having to sell their farms to pay inheritance taxes. But the implication of these attacks on the Frosts is that they are expected to sell their investment property to pay for health care. Why?

Oh, yes, and conservatives tell us how much they love homeownership, and then assail the Frosts for having the nerve to own a home. I suppose they should have to sell that, too.

The real issue here is whether uninsured families with earnings similar to the Frosts' need government help to buy health coverage. With the average family policy in employer-provided plans now costing more than $12,000 annually -- the price is usually higher for families trying to buy it on their own -- the answer is plainly yes. All the conservative attacks on a boy from Baltimore who dared to speak out will not make this issue go away.

parados wrote:

Maybe we should talk about personal responsibility.

Don't you think people should be responsible for their own actions woiyo?

For once, you might take a moment and look at my latest posts/responses to Cyclo, and you will see I am directly talking to personal responsibility.

Maybe you have a different meaning of what personal responsibility means than I do.

woiyo wrote:

parados wrote:

Maybe we should talk about personal responsibility.

Don't you think people should be responsible for their own actions woiyo?

For once, you might take a moment and look at my latest posts/responses to Cyclo, and you will see I am directly talking to personal responsibility.

Maybe you have a different meaning of what personal responsibility means than I do.

So when will you take personal responsibility for getting facts wrong about this case? Or does that personal responsibility only count for the other guy?

So to sum this all up from the following site:

To review quickly: We are now "meanies," "hypocrites," "slimers," and "mobsters" for challenging the wisdom of taking money away from taxpayers of lesser means who are responsible enough to buy insurance before a catastrophic event in order to subsidize two-property, three-car families with four children in private schools and two parents who work "intermittently" and "part-time" who didn't have the foresight or priorities to purchase insurance before a tragic auto accident.

And they call our conclusions "dubious?"

http://michellemalkin.com/2007/10/12/question-for-grown-ups-who-deserves-government-subsidized-health-insurance/

The libs on this thread are showing me something. Showing me that I better start looking into what programs might be available for me. Who knows, I could be missing out on a handout of some kind?

P.S. Has anyone pointed out the desire to further fund SCHIP with the tobacco tax? Isn't that a regressive tax to begin with, but also includes taking money from people that may be poorer and giving it to people that may be better off? For example, does the average smoker make 45 to 50K per year, have three cars, live in a 3,000 square foot house, and own a commercial property?

The libs on this thread are showing me something. Showing me that I better start looking into what programs might be available for me. Who knows, I could be missing out on a handout of some kind?

One thing is for sure, Roxi, you are no rocket scientist.

okie wrote:

So to sum this all up from the following site:

To review quickly: We are now "meanies," "hypocrites," "slimers," and "mobsters" for challenging the wisdom of taking money away from taxpayers of lesser means who are responsible enough to buy insurance before a catastrophic event in order to subsidize two-property, three-car families with four children in private schools and two parents who work "intermittently" and "part-time" who didn't have the foresight or priorities to purchase insurance before a tragic auto accident.

And they call our conclusions "dubious?"

http://michellemalkin.com/2007/10/12/question-for-grown-ups-who-deserves-government-subsidized-health-insurance/

The libs on this thread are showing me something. Showing me that I better start looking into what programs might be available for me. Who knows, I could be missing out on a handout of some kind?

P.S. Has anyone pointed out the desire to further fund SCHIP with the tobacco tax? Isn't that a regressive tax to begin with, but also includes taking money from people that may be poorer and giving it to people that may be better off? For example, does the average smoker make 45 to 50K per year, have three cars, live in a 3,000 square foot house, and own a commercial property?

Has anyone pointed out that it was the Republicans who shot down other funding alternatives? Again, the slimers are not only are the lowest form of human excrement to attack a sick child but they can't even tell the truth.

This says it all:

Quote:

The libs on this thread are showing me something. Showing me that I better start looking into what programs might be available for me. Who knows, I could be missing out on a handout of some kind?

Really, just logging and reading garbage like this makes me feel the need to bathe. Sick, really sick. I am just so grateful not to be like them though, I can't find the words.

One thing is for sure, Roxi, you are no rocket scientist.

Despite their howls about "the children," Democrats and their media partners are happy to milk them for political gain.

Unfortunately, that narrative was bolstered this week by some conservative bloggers. After the Schip veto, Democrats chose a 12-year-old boy named Graeme Frost to deliver a two-minute rebuttal. While that was a political stunt, the Washington habit of employing "poster children" is hardly new. But the Internet mob leapt to some dubious conclusions and claimed the Frost kids shouldn't have been on Schip in the first place.

As it turns out, they belonged to just the sort of family that a modest Schip is supposed to help.

Roxi, sounds like you missed the boat when it left. Or maybe a question is in order, what happened to you then?