Rocky

Kathy, YOU typed in what you claim is a QUOTE... misleading, wouldn't you say? Why would I be shocked if government scholarships were available on a racially targeted basis? Because IT'S AGAINST THE LAW. In other words, IT DON'T HAPPEN. You can GOOGLE the "Civil Rights Act of 1966" (I think that's the correct year). What you are seeing that you don't like is PRIVATE SCHOLARSHIP FUNDS deciding to whom they will offer their funds. THEY get to decide... otherwise, we'd be observing COMMUNISM... and that wouldn't fly in America.

Indeed Dave, check post #1 this thread... that is indeed what rhino was talking about. Looks like Brady & Co. owned the first half... it's certainly not over yet... let's see if Manning can get his composure and do his thang! However, that interception by Samuels was a thing of beauty.

I thought it was going to be in MIAMI?

Me too... I think the AFC championship game today will be one of the best games this year...

Well HEY! at least I AM still a member of Club 52... unlike some stranger that has moved on past that point!

I believe there is NOT a correlation between "illegals" and the high cost of health care coverage for Americans. Period. Again, emphatically NO... I do NOT think cutting off foreign aid would do ANYTHING to ensure all Americans would have adequate resources. THIS is a GREAT idea. Getting it done, however, is another story altogether. Simple, for the most part, except for the last one (above) those proposals would do NOTHING for everyday Americans. BUT cutting off foreign aid WOULD exacerbate international tension/distrust of the US. BTW, THAT thinking (of which there is nothing wrong) IS Socialism. Not that there's anything wrong with that... but it IS socialism. To determine whether there is a problem with ANY such special scholarship program, you would have to know -- WHERE DOES THE MONEY COME FROM? I'd be VERY shocked and surprised if ANY Latino only or Black only scholarship program were funded by any US government source. AND private scholarship funds have EVERY right to direct scholarships to whomever they see fit.

hahahaha! good one Excie!

Entirely reasonable... In Arizona, that party ("none of the above") is the fastest growing party on voter registration roles.

Ahhemm! As I have said for 1954... since folks born in 1954, AFTER Jan 21 are also in Club 52!

Hardly... No, my comment was intended to nudge her just a tad because with loaded questions like this thread pose can appear to be a set up as such (i.e. "to put every male on GSC on the run."), unless (and more appropriately) a good faith gesture of being the first one to offer up a response to the thread you started. IF she had started the ball rolling with her own offering, I would have been willing to offer up a responsive respone myself.

Again, your interpretation is basically upside down. It is repugnicanism which ignores the needs and realities of Americans. It's just that the ones like rhino don't want to address needs of ANYONE... which is obviously a more stark version of repugnicanism.

Like it or not, you've described MOSTLY republicans. BTW, the only possible answer I can come up with for your (probably) rhetorical question is -- DENIAL -- that ominous psychological defense mechanism.

Right... as far as the hospitals go, I don't believe "frivilous" lawsuits are a problem. However, malpractice insurance premiums (because of the proliferation of careless practitioners) have gotten high in AZ also and THAT has reportedly impacted the number of health professionals practicing in rural areas in AZ... and that seems to be especially the case regarding ob/gyn's in rural AZ... To summarize: frivilous lawsuits no; malpractice incidents (with resulting claims/lawsuits) yes. malpractice insurance premium increases: hospitals no; doctors yes

My belief: emphatically NO.

Point 1: This reminds me of my earliest memories, as an "adult" of things political. I was still overseas, still an airman in the USAF. It was just before the 1976 general election. I remember having voted absentee, for a third party candidate for president. I remember being indignant about foreign aid... from US taxpayer tax dollars. I remember even writing to my US senator about it... of course, nothing ever came of the situation. I don't even remember receiving a response. I later came to understand just a little bit of the why's and wherefores of foreign aide... not much, just a little. Years later, in the early 1990s, while working as an accountant in a state government agency, my first real lobbying/activist activity... bugging Arizona lawmakers about a pending ban on smoking in state buildings. THAT seems so archaic of an issue now, but then, it looked like they weren't going to put a ban in effect. I won't describe my working conditions in detail, but I was subjected to second hand smoke wayyyyyyyyyy tooooooooo much. After that, (which finally did pass) I became more involved in state and school district issues... and actually got some things accomplished (not alone, but with small groups of committed people). Point 2: My point was not to deny there is hunger in America. I'm sure there is. However, there need not be, because of local initiatives (food banks/volunteers) as well as the federally funded Food Stamp program. Where it is occurring, there is obviously some breakdown in outreach and/or implementation. People who are determined CAN get through obstacles. People who are desparate and hungry may not know HOW to do so on their own, however. So, Kathy, please don't think I was saying you were less than truthful... I believe you... and I suppose that if I knew anyone in such a situation, I'd want to help find the path to overcome any obstacles. Because I know that paths are there to be found.

Don't lose sight of the RIGHT to ARM BEARS!

In case anyone is interested, tonight the History Channel is running a few programs on cults... Dish Network channel 120

Hey, I QUACKED out loud (er, laughed) when I read your post, Raf! What a hoot... er, QUACK!

It IS my understanding that that IS the case... and regardless of ability to pay the bill, and regardless of immigration status. THAT is one of the biggest concerns in AZ about the undocumented immigrant. Of course, the indigent (who cannot pay for their care) are by no means limited to "illegals." There are a LOT of working poor in AZ who fall into that category (unable to pay). IF there is NO legal requirement, there MAY be a requirement that in order to qualify for medicare/medicaid funding, indigent cannot be turned away without care. --------- Also, on the S-CHIP's I mentioned in my previous post, but forgot to mention -- to qualify for this program, I understand documentation of legal status for citizenship and/or legal resident alien IS required.

NONE of our children NEED go hungry. Besides Food Stamps for struggling families, most population centers have food banks. Congress HAS funded a program that funds State Childrens' Health Insurance Programs... Last I looked, the feds paid 80 percent to the states needing to chip in 20 percent. This is available nationwide (from the perspective of Congress/federal govt)... whether it's available in your state is dependent on whether your state legislature appropriates the matching 20 percent. I know that Arizona's legislative leadership (repugs) don't like it, even though it's a tremendous deal. Most federally funded programs require the states to match dollar for dollar. That's an example of WHY I take a dim view of many repugnican lawmakers.

Rightfully so! Completing a bachelor's degree in three years is no small feat. From the time I started (Aug 72) it was 14 years before I finished mine in May 86... of course, I threw in some of that wayfer stuff in the middle... And Rhino's partly right... I CAN recognize some good in (some) repubs, and won't deny corruption in Dems (who get caught) ...

Means test is WAIVED if the veteran agrees to pay copays for both visits and meds... that doesn't mean they won't ask your husband about it again.

Not me!

YOU are correct sir. Service-connected disability is service-connected disability. Period. There is NO (lawful) distinction.

Non-service-connected veterans... those who do not suffer service-connected injury/disability must complete a means test EVERY year. EVERY year, not just for a couple of years. However, once enrolled, a veteran may continue to be enrolled for the rest of his/her life, but whether or not the veteran must pay co-pays is determined by the means test. It's not EVER the decision of the president. CONGRESS ONLY can appropriate. Period. And you are correct that it is not something that can simply be "looked up" to determine quickly which president is responsible for what policies, policy decisions, implementations, etc. It takes a long-term study that generally comes either by way of work experience in a government or government related profession/situation and/or college education or some form of continuing adult education. Not that my background makes me any kind of an expert, but -- having worked for 8+ years for a state government agency as an accountant (and held certification as a CGFM, or certified government financial manager), and about four years reporting and doing technical research on the Arizona Legislature for a political newspaper -- gave me the opportunity to develop some degree of understanding so that I can look beyond the surface of news and opinions put forth by journalists and pundits. Some concepts are more or less the same for the federal govt. as for states.