richard51 Posted January 25, 2017 Share Posted January 25, 2017 Ebaynut: go and look up Tom Price on wiki. There are references there and I'm sure that he would have disowned them if they were untrue.NB Its at the end of the early life education and medical career section. It would appear that he is more interested in money than applying the hippocratic oath. What an absolute ****.What is your comment about that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
richard51 Posted January 25, 2017 Share Posted January 25, 2017 He is the nominee for secretary of health no less. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonzjob Posted January 25, 2017 Share Posted January 25, 2017 Is it going to be the UST Inc., the United States of Thumpington Inc. that's going to emerge?Will he build a wall all the way around his world so high and tight that nowt can penitrate it?If so, will someone come along and fill it with water [6]Now, the Mexicans would be the first in the queue to pay for that wall me-thinks [:-))]Edit : - I get totally confused at just what the Nut is quoting, what is being said in reply and only just making out the 'signature' (I suppose that's what it's supposed to be?) about the wall that the Mexicans are going to be forced (?) to pay for? Is it because I woun't go near Twatter/Farsebook/etc. or is it because I am just not in the same generation even if the same age? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ebaynut Posted January 27, 2017 Author Share Posted January 27, 2017 Cathar Tours wrote, Even worse he probably won't be president in 10 years time and with all his money what does he care. Be interesting to see exactly how he intends to get the money from the Mexicans to pay for his wall, that should be quite hilarious. Talk about state the obvious, a person can only serve as POTUS for a maximum of two, four year terms, so for once, you are right. Well, I hope you enjoy watching him make the Mexicans pay for the wall, because they will, one way or another. You may recall how you thought it ‘quite hilarious’ when he stood to be the republican candidate. No doubt you thought it ‘quite hilarious’ when he ran for the presidency, you no doubt also thought it ‘quite hilarious’ when he said there would be a wall along the southern border. Well I hope you enjoy the enjoy the next stage as much, I am sure I will. [:D] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ebaynut Posted January 27, 2017 Author Share Posted January 27, 2017 Richard51 wrote, Ebaynut: go and look up Tom Price on wiki. There are references there and I'm sure that he would have disowned them if they were untrue. NB Its at the end of the early life education and medical career section. It would appear that he is more interested in money than applying the hippocratic oath. What an absolute ****. What is your comment about that? My comment? Well, if you wish to try to prove a point you are making, then you should not expect the other party to spend their time, looking up things they really don't care about to try to prove your point. I would suggest you find the information and learn how to post it in a Link. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
richard51 Posted January 27, 2017 Share Posted January 27, 2017 Sorry, didn't realise you have to select the actual us politician if you go direct to wiki. That takes some doing!If you google Tom Price then the right person comes up straight away. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Price_(U.S._politician)Perhaps cutting and pasting is not too strenuous.You are so clever knowing how to do links. With your comment could you supply a link to show how to make a link, rather than to the rather biased fox news. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cathar Tours Posted January 27, 2017 Share Posted January 27, 2017 Well Ebaynut you should have read the 22nd Amendment in full, it's two 4 year terms but up to 10 years in office which is why rather than say defiantly I said probably.http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/usconstitution/a/amend22.htmWell Trump never won the popular vote so I guess more people in the US think he should not be president than those that think he should. Something you can see really riles him.Personally I was totally amazed that the UK voted to leave although over 17M refused to ignore the lies and vote to remain. Likewise I was amazed that more people voted against Trump than for him yet the American system of colleges means he becomes president.Interestingly you chose Murdoch's (known for his right wing support) FOX News interview and not the one from the day before with NBC but then as Trump said there are few honest journalists and they seem to only work for FOX.In December 2016 the EU and Mexico agreed to look at upgrading their 1997 free trade agreement to include more goods so in the long run it won't make much difference to Mexico only to American consumers who will be paying the tax so no Mexico won't be paying, the American consumer will.By the way the wall-builder Todd Sternfeld has suggested that it is more likely to come in at $26 billion (£20.6bn) with a further $25 billion to replace the existing fences.http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/758714/Trump-Mexico-border-wall-How-much-cost-who-pay-immigrantsThere are more sources that all come out at much the same number, well short of the $8 billion Trump said it will cost.In the link to his FOX interview you gave he also said he will cut public spending and increase spending on the military. Seeing he has one of the biggest military forces on the planet this would seem a bit of a waste. He then went on to contradict himself by saying he would spend more on Schools and the transport infrastructure which I thought were public services. I wonder where that money will come from, he didn't say? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonzjob Posted January 27, 2017 Share Posted January 27, 2017 There CT, just to keep our Mr Nut happyThis is your link activatedI'd hate to meet him on a bad day, Mr Nut that is [:-))] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lehaut Posted January 27, 2017 Share Posted January 27, 2017 To add to the joy, gather this was slipped through on Trump day and will come into play in 2017. Think it is a great idea!From April 2017 the UK will introduce its own two child policy. Of course the UK’s two child policy is not as brutal as China’s one child policy was. But it marks a clear change in the way benefits are assessed and paid to low income families.So all we need now is a system that converts body fat to heating oil and the UK will surge ahead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
idun Posted January 28, 2017 Share Posted January 28, 2017 And I am for this new law, cannot come quickly enough for me.Unless say twins or more are born at the second birth, who I hopeshould be OK and I really hope that they are. It seems perfectly OK to me.I don't care how wealthy or not people are, the planet is overpopulated and people living too long........ so I would like to see something done internationally to reduce population growth in general. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lehaut Posted January 28, 2017 Share Posted January 28, 2017 Yes, twins, triplets are covered, so are births due to rape. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lindal1000 Posted January 28, 2017 Share Posted January 28, 2017 To be clear it isn't limiting the number of children anyone can have, but limiting benefits, in particular tax credits, to two children. It only applies to new claimants. As with many things it will affect poorer people more than the wealthy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
idun Posted January 28, 2017 Share Posted January 28, 2017 I have two kids.......... we could not afford more and even all them years ago, replacing us as a couple seemed OK. And I have not got a clue as to why anyone with limited ressources would have endless kids......... AND expect the likes of me to pay for them, I do not want to.And still there is this overpopulated world, so anything that encourages a reduction in population is OK with me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lindal1000 Posted January 29, 2017 Share Posted January 29, 2017 Although that assumes people have children because of the money available . My guess is it will put off very few poorer people from having children. It certainly never did in the past. I don't have any kids..something I'm very grateful for when I see the dystopian future to which we are heading. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
idun Posted January 29, 2017 Share Posted January 29, 2017 I never suggested that it put anyone off having children completely, but as parents we are supposed to be responsible for the children we have. Although sometimes despite our best efforts, other factors ruin lives, ie my youngest son........... a messed up life, completely damaged adult........ and at least two of the three factors involved are down to his life in France. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.