Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Apparently not. In the liberal world, taxpayers are just supposed to fork over as much money as liberals demand and never question whether programs could be streamlined without causing any loss of benefits. YOU go to hell.

It would be nice if you all ever applied to this philosophy to defense spending, which is a gargantuan portion of the federal budget compared to health insurance and food assistance for children.

+1 funny how caring about the health of children is considered a "liberal" thing by some on this forum.

unfortunately, to the GOP, the health of children is just not as important as giving more tax breaks to commercial and real estate developers and hedge fund managers.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Liberals really need to stop telling people who bring up valid questions .- such as redundant programs and government inefficiencies - to go to hell. They are just showing themselves to be nasty people.

Yes, telling people to go to hell is a nastiness that is equivalent to denying children healthcare.

We should take our personal hurt feelings about what someone said to us that wasn't polite on the internet or elsewhere--and use it to vote in people that will harm our neighbor's children. Sounds right.

Except that I was told to go to hell for questioning the possible overlap between CHIP and Medicaid. I never said anything about denying children healthcare. Even a HINT that I don't just blindly follow the liberal mantra is enough to send me to hell, according to you.

What happens with liberals like you is that you are quick to curse out a person who has the gall to even question inefficiencies about delivery of taxpayer benefits. And your nonsense about "voting in people to harm children" is the over-dramatic response to a conservative who wants to know if a program can be streamlined - rather than fall lock-step into the liberal narrative of "just give whatever needs to be provided without questioning whether it could be done more efficiently."

You should get over your hatred of those who want to see more government efficiency of health care delivery (if it can be done without loss of health care to children - and it can). Your demonization of those who voice valid concerns will continue to cost you votes at the polls.

Meh. We will take back the House in 2018. Screw the hillbilly red states.

"Hillbilly" red states? I thought liberals didn't like bigotry. What a bunch of hypocrites.

Go back to your troll factory, Dmitri. Aiding and abetting the subversion of a free and democratic election is treason.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Liberals really need to stop telling people who bring up valid questions .- such as redundant programs and government inefficiencies - to go to hell. They are just showing themselves to be nasty people.

Yes, telling people to go to hell is a nastiness that is equivalent to denying children healthcare.

We should take our personal hurt feelings about what someone said to us that wasn't polite on the internet or elsewhere--and use it to vote in people that will harm our neighbor's children. Sounds right.

Except that I was told to go to hell for questioning the possible overlap between CHIP and Medicaid. I never said anything about denying children healthcare. Even a HINT that I don't just blindly follow the liberal mantra is enough to send me to hell, according to you.

What happens with liberals like you is that you are quick to curse out a person who has the gall to even question inefficiencies about delivery of taxpayer benefits. And your nonsense about "voting in people to harm children" is the over-dramatic response to a conservative who wants to know if a program can be streamlined - rather than fall lock-step into the liberal narrative of "just give whatever needs to be provided without questioning whether it could be done more efficiently."

You should get over your hatred of those who want to see more government efficiency of health care delivery (if it can be done without loss of health care to children - and it can). Your demonization of those who voice valid concerns will continue to cost you votes at the polls.

Right, drama queens vote for Trump because someone tells them to go to hell on an online forum. Got it. Glad you have your priorities sorted out.

Youre so full of hate and anger toward anyone who doesn't march lock-step behind bloated and inefficient entitlement programs that you can't even hear what others say. It is the "to hell with you" sanctimonious attitude that you and other holier-than-tho liberals have proudly shouted to middle America during all of last year's election that cost you the election. And you're still doing it.

Really? Instead of dumping on the person again, are you capable of any self-reflection? Should someone who questions the administration of entitlement programs be told to go to hell? A simple yes or no will do.

Yes. Bye, Felicia.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Liberals really need to stop telling people who bring up valid questions .- such as redundant programs and government inefficiencies - to go to hell. They are just showing themselves to be nasty people.

Yes, telling people to go to hell is a nastiness that is equivalent to denying children healthcare.

We should take our personal hurt feelings about what someone said to us that wasn't polite on the internet or elsewhere--and use it to vote in people that will harm our neighbor's children. Sounds right.

Except that I was told to go to hell for questioning the possible overlap between CHIP and Medicaid. I never said anything about denying children healthcare. Even a HINT that I don't just blindly follow the liberal mantra is enough to send me to hell, according to you.

What happens with liberals like you is that you are quick to curse out a person who has the gall to even question inefficiencies about delivery of taxpayer benefits. And your nonsense about "voting in people to harm children" is the over-dramatic response to a conservative who wants to know if a program can be streamlined - rather than fall lock-step into the liberal narrative of "just give whatever needs to be provided without questioning whether it could be done more efficiently."

You should get over your hatred of those who want to see more government efficiency of health care delivery (if it can be done without loss of health care to children - and it can). Your demonization of those who voice valid concerns will continue to cost you votes at the polls.

Meh. We will take back the House in 2018. Screw the hillbilly red states.

"Hillbilly" red states? I thought liberals didn't like bigotry. What a bunch of hypocrites.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Liberals really need to stop telling people who bring up valid questions .- such as redundant programs and government inefficiencies - to go to hell. They are just showing themselves to be nasty people.

Yes, telling people to go to hell is a nastiness that is equivalent to denying children healthcare.

We should take our personal hurt feelings about what someone said to us that wasn't polite on the internet or elsewhere--and use it to vote in people that will harm our neighbor's children. Sounds right.

Except that I was told to go to hell for questioning the possible overlap between CHIP and Medicaid. I never said anything about denying children healthcare. Even a HINT that I don't just blindly follow the liberal mantra is enough to send me to hell, according to you.

What happens with liberals like you is that you are quick to curse out a person who has the gall to even question inefficiencies about delivery of taxpayer benefits. And your nonsense about "voting in people to harm children" is the over-dramatic response to a conservative who wants to know if a program can be streamlined - rather than fall lock-step into the liberal narrative of "just give whatever needs to be provided without questioning whether it could be done more efficiently."

You should get over your hatred of those who want to see more government efficiency of health care delivery (if it can be done without loss of health care to children - and it can). Your demonization of those who voice valid concerns will continue to cost you votes at the polls.

Right, drama queens vote for Trump because someone tells them to go to hell on an online forum. Got it. Glad you have your priorities sorted out.

Youre so full of hate and anger toward anyone who doesn't march lock-step behind bloated and inefficient entitlement programs that you can't even hear what others say. It is the "to hell with you" sanctimonious attitude that you and other holier-than-tho liberals have proudly shouted to middle America during all of last year's election that cost you the election. And you're still doing it.

Really? Instead of dumping on the person again, are you capable of any self-reflection? Should someone who questions the administration of entitlement programs be told to go to hell? A simple yes or no will do.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Liberals really need to stop telling people who bring up valid questions .- such as redundant programs and government inefficiencies - to go to hell. They are just showing themselves to be nasty people.

Yes, telling people to go to hell is a nastiness that is equivalent to denying children healthcare.

We should take our personal hurt feelings about what someone said to us that wasn't polite on the internet or elsewhere--and use it to vote in people that will harm our neighbor's children. Sounds right.

Except that I was told to go to hell for questioning the possible overlap between CHIP and Medicaid. I never said anything about denying children healthcare. Even a HINT that I don't just blindly follow the liberal mantra is enough to send me to hell, according to you.

What happens with liberals like you is that you are quick to curse out a person who has the gall to even question inefficiencies about delivery of taxpayer benefits. And your nonsense about "voting in people to harm children" is the over-dramatic response to a conservative who wants to know if a program can be streamlined - rather than fall lock-step into the liberal narrative of "just give whatever needs to be provided without questioning whether it could be done more efficiently."

You should get over your hatred of those who want to see more government efficiency of health care delivery (if it can be done without loss of health care to children - and it can). Your demonization of those who voice valid concerns will continue to cost you votes at the polls.

Meh. We will take back the House in 2018. Screw the hillbilly red states.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Liberals really need to stop telling people who bring up valid questions .- such as redundant programs and government inefficiencies - to go to hell. They are just showing themselves to be nasty people.

Yes, telling people to go to hell is a nastiness that is equivalent to denying children healthcare.

We should take our personal hurt feelings about what someone said to us that wasn't polite on the internet or elsewhere--and use it to vote in people that will harm our neighbor's children. Sounds right.

Except that I was told to go to hell for questioning the possible overlap between CHIP and Medicaid. I never said anything about denying children healthcare. Even a HINT that I don't just blindly follow the liberal mantra is enough to send me to hell, according to you.

What happens with liberals like you is that you are quick to curse out a person who has the gall to even question inefficiencies about delivery of taxpayer benefits. And your nonsense about "voting in people to harm children" is the over-dramatic response to a conservative who wants to know if a program can be streamlined - rather than fall lock-step into the liberal narrative of "just give whatever needs to be provided without questioning whether it could be done more efficiently."

You should get over your hatred of those who want to see more government efficiency of health care delivery (if it can be done without loss of health care to children - and it can). Your demonization of those who voice valid concerns will continue to cost you votes at the polls.

Right, drama queens vote for Trump because someone tells them to go to hell on an online forum. Got it. Glad you have your priorities sorted out.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When will the victimization of rich, white Christian folks finally stop?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What an f'ing hypocrite.It's all those damn Mormons who have all those kids and many folks in Utah are on welfare. Those are his constituents he's talking about

Utah ranks 5th from the top in government spending:
He's delusional. That's why he's leaving the Senate.

Anonymous wrote:What an f'ing hypocrite.It's all those damn Mormons who have all those kids and many folks in Utah are on welfare. Those are his constituents he's talking about

Anonymous wrote:When will the victimization of rich, white Christian folks finally stop?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Liberals really need to stop telling people who bring up valid questions .- such as redundant programs and government inefficiencies - to go to hell. They are just showing themselves to be nasty people.

Yes, telling people to go to hell is a nastiness that is equivalent to denying children healthcare.

We should take our personal hurt feelings about what someone said to us that wasn't polite on the internet or elsewhere--and use it to vote in people that will harm our neighbor's children. Sounds right.

Except that I was told to go to hell for questioning the possible overlap between CHIP and Medicaid. I never said anything about denying children healthcare. Even a HINT that I don't just blindly follow the liberal mantra is enough to send me to hell, according to you.

What happens with liberals like you is that you are quick to curse out a person who has the gall to even question inefficiencies about delivery of taxpayer benefits. And your nonsense about "voting in people to harm children" is the over-dramatic response to a conservative who wants to know if a program can be streamlined - rather than fall lock-step into the liberal narrative of "just give whatever needs to be provided without questioning whether it could be done more efficiently."

You should get over your hatred of those who want to see more government efficiency of health care delivery (if it can be done without loss of health care to children - and it can). Your demonization of those who voice valid concerns will continue to cost you votes at the polls.