<p>Hey, guys, chill, or they’ll lock this thread. Let’s get back to the subject at hand: [What was that subject again??] Oh yeah, Interesteddad was talking about Obama lacking a health care policy.</p>
<p>Whoosh – if this is how p*ssy we get a year before the primaries, it’s going to be an interesting election.</p>
<p>“singlehanded” as in without Hillary Clinton, it wouldn’t exist.</p>
<p>Thanks for the link, interestedad. I will admit that I wasn’t aware of her role in that legislation.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>1sokkermom, thanks for answering. I was just asking from a parsing standpoint: You disagree with a compound statement, which part of it do you disagree with? </p>
<p>My reason for asking is that I was curious; I wasn’t aware of HC’s role in CHIP either, and I was wondering if there were more significant accomplishments in health care or medicine that you were going to cite. </p>
<p>You can support something very wholeheartedly without believing it significant relative to other related things or to the community in general. For example, I strongly support the Archdiocese of New Orleans’ controversial plan to rebuild one of their schools on the site of a ruined church, but I have to admit that in the grand scheme of things, even though it’s important to me, it’s not among the most significant concerns of the rebuilding effort.</p>
<p>I’m sorry that I worded my question open-endedly enough that posters appear to have misconstrued it as though I were casting aspersions on your concern for children’s health, rather than an attempt to parse your statement.</p>
<p>conyat:
I technically never disagreed with the first (compound) sentence, nor did I agree with it. I simply confirmed that I agreed with mini’s second statement about disliking Hillary. There really was no parsing intended or necessarily implied! I probably wouldn’t even know how to parse if I tried. ;)</p>
<p>My comment that you quoted was in answer to sjmom’s comment, not your rhetorical question.</p>
<p>Mini, I don’t understand. You affirm that Hilary Clinton was “single handedly” responsible for the drafting and passing of this extremely important piece of legislation, but the only reason you ever site for “not liking her” is the fact that she is married to a genocidal maniac. Honestly, is it fair to blame her for the perceived actions of her husband? Is her marriage the only thing that prohibits your supporting her candidacy?</p>
<p>I think Mini’s politics lie above and beyond the traditional two-party offerings!</p>
<p>I can respect that. I understand and share the belief that the two parties share the same fundamental goals – keeping themselves in power to the exclusion of others and peddling their influence. Fundamentally, the only difference is that the two parties service the needs of different special interests.</p>
<p>Where I probably differ from Mini is that I have come to grips with it. As Bill Belichick would say, “It is what it is. I don’t make the rules.”</p>