Recall the Graeme Frost kerfuffle from last week, where the Dems trotted out a kid to make the mean ol’ GOP look like they’re trying to kill children (ironic, coming from the party of unfettered access to abortion, but I digress). When people like me questioned whether a family of the Frosts’ means (over $80k in income, two SUV’s, four kids in private schools, nearly a half million in real estate equity, etc.) warranted the taxpayers paying for their health insurance, the left resorted to the predictable and dishonest tactic of accusing us of attacking not the program, but the kid. Again, why think when you can feel?
Anywho, I’d say it’s about time to ignore the faux outrage on the part of the left when it comes to “attacking the children”, wouldn’t you agree? From Hot Air:
As if to reward the righty bloggers for their fidelity to facts, leftwing pundits and bloggers have taken to childish name-calling and assertions of moral superiority. Say the folks over at blackfacing Firedoglake:
The difference between the far right wing and the far left wing: the far right will do anything — anything — so long as the ends justifies the means. The far left folks have ethical boundaries that they try very hard not to cross: things like attacking other people’s minor children is bad form . . .
Really? Is that your final answer?
Cuz it’s a lie.
2005. The Republicans trot out a kid to tout their Social Security reform. His name was Noah McCollough, and he was nine years of age at the time.
And the bloggers on the left savaged him. They made sexual references to him, called him a “budding young fascist” and made up a derogatory nickname for him. Q&O has the details.
What was is that the Firedoglakers said again?
Noah McCollough wasn’t the only one to incur the moonbats’ wrath. Remember the John Roberts confirmation hearings? His four-year-old son Jack was mocked by the nutroots as being gay (odd, considering the left purports to be champions of all things queer), adopted (”I think we should research Jack”), or Nazis redux.
Then there’s former Senator Rick Santorum’s young children, which are clearly fair game for the “don’t attack the children” hypocrites on the left. Ugly, pouty, slutty, destined to be a pole dancer…you get the idea. Yes, those kind and compassionate liberals sure do care about the children, don’t they?
As Bryan puts it:
…Wonkette is one of about 7 or 8 large leftwing blogs whose archives prove that many leftwing bloggers don’t regard attacking the minor children of political enemies as out of bounds. They seem to regard it as perfectly acceptable, except when they believe that they can score points by saying otherwise.
These vermin are evil, pure and simple. They know no shame.
You need to do some research on the Frost family. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell’s office has even came out and said that the family is legit and that the claims they made over 80K and all that are false.
Please read more about that story before putting out false information.
Comment by particleboy — October 17, 2007 @ 2:21 pm
You need to do some research on the Frost family.
I’ve done quite a bit, and I’ve documented it here. I’ve even provided links to back me up. Those are those thingys that, when clicked, take you off to other sites.
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell’s office has even came out and said that the family is legit and that the claims they made over 80K and all that are false.
Oh, well since ol’ Mitch says it, that settles it for me. That was sarcasm.
Let me ask you this:
What if I told you I drove these three cars: A Volvo SUV, a GMC Suburban, and a huge Ford F250 Pickup work truck?
And what if I told you, further, that I owned a large home and commercial property worth at least $400,000 in total–property for which I paid a total of $215,000?
And what if I told you, in addition, that I was resourceful enough to cobble together financing (through scholarships and other means) for private school education for four children?
And what if I told you that neither I nor my spouse were employed full-time – one of us working “intermittently” and the other “part-time”?
Would you consider my family “exactly the kind” and “precisely the type” of family that should benefit from S-CHIP, the government-subsidized health insurance program intended for the “working poor?”
Dude, they’ve got damned near half a million bucks in assets. They drive three big newer gas guzzlers. They lied about how much a health insurance policy costs in their area by about 300%. BOTH of them refuse to hold down full-time jobs. It’s so clear even you can see it: these people have made poor choices with their money and they want us to be forced to bail them out by giving them “free” health care.
It is perfectly legitimate to ask these questions and to scrutinize their claims, and that legitimacy is born out by leftards’ reflexive emtional “leave the child alone, you must want him to die!” verbal diarrhea. No one is attacking the child, but we are darned sure attacking the notion that a family who has the means to acquire that much is what the S-CHIP originators had in mind. Plus, I’m not about to trot out MY kid for political gain! Seriously, what kind of parent would do that?
It’s simple, really. If I am able-bodied and have a marketable skill set, I will do whatever I can to make sure my family is provided for. Even if I hate my job, I’ll put up with it if it means my kids have health insurance. If my spouse is unable to work full-time (especially if we have a kid who may have special requirements or need special accomodations like Graeme Frost), then you can bet your bottom dollar that I’ll be working a steady job with bennies for the family. My kids aren’t going to do without.
Finally, while I would argue that the Frosts have the means to get their own health plan (especially in light of the above) instead of confiscating part of my paycheck to fund their poor choices, the fact that gets completely lost is this: considering that Bush’s veto of expanding the S-CHIP program’s eligibility has no impact whatsoever on the Frosts (i.e. they would still qualify), why are we seeing them in the first damned place?? I mean, they’re NOT affected by the veto! Aside from shameful leftist tactics of trotting a kid out there as a human shield, for what reason did we ever need to hear the name Graeme Frost?
Oh, I almost forgot (which I think was your intent): I noticed you completely passed over the main point of this post, i.e. your leftie friends’ hypocrisy about “attacking kids”.
Comment by crushliberalism — October 17, 2007 @ 2:48 pm
You are again making most of your links to other conservative blogs. I don’t treat those as facts. In the memo sent by Senator McConnell’s office he even claims that they shouldn’t rely on information received by these blogs.
Second off by all accounts on reading the New York Times article they owned their own business yes…. but it folded. They bought the property they have in 1990 and now it is worth more but just because they have had that property for such a long time doesn’t mean they aren’t struggling now. Things change and this family’s yearly income is only 45,000 a year and that qualifies them. Now a family of four on 45,000 is not really all that well to do esp with the increase of cost of living. Again you just continue to say the same thing over and over but you are not making a clear point.
Now onto the attacking kids comments. It isn’t right for either side to bring kids into the discussion but I guess turnabout is fair play. I mean the Dems did it so it is fine for Republicans to do it now… So that makes it fine for Dems to make Iraq a political tool since Republicans have been using it since 2002
Comment by particleboy — October 18, 2007 @ 7:37 am
You are again making most of your links to other conservative blogs. I don’t treat those as facts.
Those blogs have links to more “mainstream” sources, but I suspect since you’ve got your marching orders from the left, those sources wouldn’t make any difference to you anyway.
but just because they have had that property for such a long time doesn’t mean they aren’t struggling now.
That’s true. But if I’m sitting on property that can be liquidated for a cool half-million, by God, that’s what I’ll do.
Things change and this family’s yearly income is only 45,000 a year and that qualifies them.
If either (or both) of them would hold down a full-time job, they’d make much more. So yeah, let’s reward their lethargy.
Again you just continue to say the same thing over and over
It’s because the facts haven’t changed. Funny how that works.
It isn’t right for either side to bring kids into the discussion but I guess turnabout is fair play.
I can pretty much ignore you now. That’s disgusting.
Comment by crushliberalism — October 18, 2007 @ 10:40 am
Why do you hate kids and think they shouldn’t have an opportunity to be healthy?
My son, right after he was born, was on government funded insurance because I had no choice since I couldn’t afford better at the time. As soon as I had the ability, he was off of that. If I couldn’t, he’d still be on it because things like immunizations, checkups, and general welfare of my son are important. As it is for ALL children and to most parents (not all are decent parents after all). But eligibility should be on a case by case basis, because there are people who will take advantage if given the oppoertunity. My guess, they’d be righties who just want to save a buck and could easily afford it. Because that’s what you guys do, right?
You should cite whole sentences in quotes, not just answer the part that you feel you can make a quip and get a blogger’s high. You really don’t make a point, other than “I’m right, you’re wrong’ which is no point at all, and the exact point of that sentence you half quoted.
And liquidating property isn’t exactly easy right now, if you’ve seen anything about real estate markets.
Comment by wailin — October 19, 2007 @ 7:40 am
Why do you hate kids and think they shouldn’t have an opportunity to be healthy?
I hate kids because they taste like chicken, and I’m a vegetarian. Since you’re an idiot, let me reassure you that the prior sentence was sarcasm.
I’m ready to ignore you like your boy PB above, since with that one stupid, irrational, emotional, bitchlike statement, you show an inability to converse with the grown-ups. Last warning, asshole.
Here’s the thing that leftards like you and PB need to get through your idiotic heads: if you are poor, the program covers you. If you aren’t, it shouldn’t. And if you can afford three newer vehicles like those mentioned above (a Volvo SUV, a GMC Suburban, and a huge Ford F250 Pickup work truck), then you damned sure can afford your own health insurance.
You destroyed your own point when you said this: “As soon as I had the ability, he was off of that.” The Frosts have the ability. But neither one of them wants to hold down a full-time job. Would you willingly not work a full-time gig in order to secure pay and benefits for your family? If you can still state that you would indeed willingly be such a louse, I have nothing else to say to you.
because there are people who will take advantage if given the oppoertunity. My guess, they’d be righties who just want to save a buck
Yeah, because welfare and public trough leeches all vote Republican. Dipshit.
Seriously, you leftists are completely incapable of reason. No one is advocating that the kids “just die, willya?”, and only a moron like you and PB would argue otherwise. It is perfectly reasonable to scrutinze ANY program that pilfers money away from productive Americans and ask if it’s money well spent. If so, great…and if not, then knock it off.
Comment by crushliberalism — October 19, 2007 @ 8:23 am
And you completely miss sarcasm calling it idiotic and answer with your own of that very nature, then have the audacity to ride a high horse. Perhaps you should refrain from adult conversations? If that was the focus of my argument, it would have simply been that. Then again, only certain people are allowed to wield sarcasm, right?
I’m not impoverished, nor was I then. That is exactly the point. The example of this family aside, whether your beliefs of it are true or those of others, there are people in the situation I was in. Too broke to afford to pay for it myself, but not impoverished to the point of being on welfare. That’s who SCHIP should, and is probably meant to help. The problem is making general requirements, when it should be a case by case basis.
And what were these jobs they couldn’t hold down? Why were they fired? Did they quit? Are you certain they were being louses through all of that? Perhaps it was a string of bad luck, as happens to a lot of people. A turn of the markets can lead to a lost job, meaning you can’t afford the things you formerly did. I don’t know all the details of this case and I doubt anyone but the family does.
Again, the SCHIP idea is good, but it needs to be on a case by case basis. That’s the point I’m making, to avoid confusion.
Comment by wailin — October 19, 2007 @ 9:18 am
And you completely miss sarcasm calling it idiotic
If you were being sarcastic when you asked why I hated kids and wanted them unhealthy, then I completely missed it. If that’s the case, then my apologies for that. But considering I’ve seen scores of that very sentiment from the left (and they weren’t being sarcastic), I figured yours was another one. If you’re saying you didn’t mean it that way, then it’s definitely “my bad.”
For future reference (so I don’t look any dumber than I already do!), put a smiley face after the sarcastic comments so I’ll know you’re kidding. Better yet, hit me back with my own condescending disclaimer “For those of you on the right, that was sarcasm.”
I’m a big boy, I can take it!
As for the Frosts, the hubby was trying to run a business when he had a houseful of young’uns to provide for, and he bought himself THREE big expensive vehicles. That’s completely irresponsible, and so is expecting the taxpayers to bail him out of that. He is more than capable of working full time, as is his wife, yet neither of them do so.
I don’t blame him for trying to start a successful business. Kudos to him for trying. But so am I, and I am doing it in my spare time so as not to impact my financial situation to my detriment. If I am fortunate enough to succeed in my business, I will go full-time with it at that time, but not before. That only makes sense.
Comment by crushliberalism — October 19, 2007 @ 9:42 am
It’s cool. It happens. I always forget you righties aren’t that perceptive.
The thing is, having a child makes me want good things for the child, who despite any irresponsibility by the parents, deserves to have an opportunity. You know that whole ‘Sins of the father’ thing. That’s why I don’t think homeowners in bad loans should be helped, but their children should have healthcare.
Comment by wailin — October 19, 2007 @ 10:57 am
It’s cool. It happens. I always forget you righties aren’t that perceptive. :-p
Ouch…good one, I hate to admit!
Comment by crushliberalism — October 19, 2007 @ 12:25 pm