The Tea Party... - Page 9 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Cimarron29414 · 10-02-2010, 11:40 AM

tully,

My point in describing my relationship with this man is to enforce the fact that this is first hand knowledge. This isn't the "my brother's best friend's uncle worked at a hospital who knew a guy who came in and..."

For clarity, Randy is not homeless. He rents a room from a church. As for his bills, I could not pretend to know the exact details of how the hospital absorbed his medical bills. I could presume they were written off as an unpaid debt and that, consequently, those who receive treatment pay a higher premium for that treatment which "covers" his expenses. The fact of the matter is that, upon admission, they asked for his insurance. He didn't have any - and one look at him would tell you he couldn't afford to pay for a quad bypass. They treated him anyway - with the best possible care.

As for your assertion: the link provided had the information I needed to better understand where you were coming from. Now that I understand where you are coming from, I concede that my story doesn't have much relevance to your point.

I agree with you that a lack of health insurance coverage means that children with preventable issues don't get picked up in annual checkups and become serious health problems.

I also agree that we should suspend ALL financial contributions to all foreign nations until our national debt is paid off and our citizens have the care our government previously committed to them (whether I agree if that's in their purview or not.) However, that means not a penny of federal money to Haiti, Somalia, the UN, Mexico, Iraq, Afghanistan etc. Are you okay with that?

Tully Mars · 10-02-2010, 12:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cimarron29414

tully,

My point in describing my relationship with this man is to enforce the fact that this is first hand knowledge. This isn't the "my brother's best friend's uncle worked at a hospital who knew a guy who came in and..."

For clarity, Randy is not homeless. He rents a room from a church. As for his bills, I could not pretend to know the exact details of how the hospital absorbed his medical bills. I could presume they were written off as an unpaid debt and that, consequently, those who receive treatment pay a higher premium for that treatment which "covers" his expenses. The fact of the matter is that, upon admission, they asked for his insurance. He didn't have any. They treated him anyway - with the best possible care.

Interesting story. I don't question it's truth. I would question how often that happens. Having worked with low income and no income people as a parole and probation officer I can say that's not the experience I'm used to seeing with the US health care system. What I'm used to seeing is people visiting the ER for just about everything since they can not be turned away for treatment. But that treatment is limited to making the patient stable not curing anything or long term care. Heck I've had guys on my caseload beg me not to release them from closed custody because they have a serious illness and on the street they will not be able to afford their medication(s.) Of course the answer to that is when the parole board says you leave... you leave.

I think your friend was very lucky. He may also have a collection agency or two after him. Of course if he has no reported income they'll have a hard time collecting.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cimarron29414

As for your assertion, your link provided the information I needed to better understand where you were coming from. I also agree, now that I understand where you are coming from, that my story doesn't have much relevance to your point.

I agree with you that a lack of health insurance coverage means that children with preventable issues don't get picked up in annual checkups and become serious health problems.

It's not just children. Many people fall into a gap where they make enough to not qualify for low income assistance. The US has the ability to provide the best medical care in the world. Many people do not have access to that care solely due to lack of ability to pay.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cimarron29414

I also agree that we should suspend ALL financial contributions to all foreign nations until our national debt is paid off and our citizens have the care our government previously committed to them (whether I agree if that's in their purview or not.) However, that means not a penny of federal money to Haiti, Somalia, the UN, Mexico, Iraq, Afghanistan etc. Are you okay with that?

Providing assistance to other countries should be way down on our priority list in my opinion. Should it be zero? Maybe, I don't know. I certainly think we should be taking care of our own people prior to trying to assisting other countries. From my point of view most of the time the US provides funding to other countries it comes with a price tag and often comes back to bite us in the ass. I mean we helped fund and train OBL and the Taliban when they were fighting off the Russians. Right now the US is providing Mexico with funds to help fight the "war on drugs." Under a plan called the "Mérida Initiative" the US has agreed to give the Mexican government something like 400 million to fight drug trafficking. It got it's name from the city where Bush and Calderón worked out the details of the plan in 2007. I live in Mexico. I was in Mérida yesterday. I have little doubt giving the Mexican government money and thinking it will have any positive affect is dreaming. If I had to guess I'd say at least 50% of any help provided goes directly to the drug gangs or people paid off by them. As long as there is a demand for drugs in the US there will be people ready to supply that demand.

All that said do I think we should help out during a natural disaster such as the Christmas day tsunami? Yes, but so should all other nations.

boink · 10-02-2010, 01:13 PM

92% of Americans prefer socialism over US system

what !?!? BURN THE WITCH !!
AMERICAblog News: 92% of Americans prefer socialism over US system

Quote:

Americans vastly underestimate the degree of wealth inequality in America, and we believe that the distribution should be far more equitable than it actually is, according to a new study.

Americans thought the richest 20 percent of our society controlled about 59 percent of the wealth, while the real number is closer to 84 percent.

Americans Vastly Underestimate Wealth Inequality, Support 'More Equal Distribution Of Wealth': Study

here is the study PDF
http://www.people.hbs.edu/mnorton/no...in%20press.pdf

400 Richest Americans Got Richer This Year, As Most Americans' Net Worth Tanked: Forbes

I'm shure they worked for every penny ! someday I'll get there too, just keep my nose to the grindstone here...I'll get there !

Derwood · 10-13-2010, 10:42 AM

More good stuff from Matt Taibbi

Quote:

Quelle surprise! So it turns out that one after another of the Tea Party candidates is in one way or another mooching off the government. The latest series of hilarious disclosures center around Alaska’s GI-Joe-bearded windbag Senatorial candidate, Joe Miller, who appears to have run virtually the entire gamut of government aid en route to becoming a staunch, fist-shaking opponent of the welfare state.

Miller’s pomposity and piety with regard to government aid programs has all along been in line with the usual screechingly hysterical self-righteousness Tea Party candidates bring to such matters, railing against Obamacare and other “entitlement” programs and promising to end the “welfare state.” That makes it all the more delicious now that he and his family have been exposed for taking state medical aid, unemployment insurance, farm subsidies, hell, even for using state equipment to run a private political campaign.

Back in June, Miller was saying this about his Republican primary opponent Lisa Murkowski, blasting her for supporting a state health care program:

As you are aware, just last week the Anchorage Daily News reported that the Denali KidCare Program funded 662 abortions last year. Senator Murkowski has been a champion of this program, voting against the majority of her Republican colleagues for CHIPRA (HR 2) in January of 2009.

Of course it now turns out that back in the Nineties, Miller himself and his three children (with one on the way; he now has eight) were at one point receiving assistance via a program almost exactly like the Denali KidCare program, which is only for low-income earners. Various reports note that Miller received this assistance after he’d bought a house and been hired by a prestigious law firm; he also got low-income hunting and fishing licenses during that time. It’s also come out that he received some $7,000 in farm subsidies and that his wife received unemployment insurance benefits.

So now of course Miller, who said he and his family “absolutely” used Alaska’s state medical program, is backtracking and saying that he’s not against the modern Denali Kidcare program, only against the “expansion” of it. But even more telling was his longer answer about the program, as reported in the Anchorage Daily News:

Miller said what he's advocating is complete state control of the programs. "That doesn't mean we cut off the programs. That is ultimately a state decision. And I think there is a use; in fact the most effective use is probably those programs that help transition the populations from more of a situation of dependency" to one where they can be economically independent, Miller said.

You see, when a nice white lawyer with a GI Joe beard uses state aid to help him through tough times and get over the hump – so that he can go from having three little future Medicare-collecting Republican children to eight little future Medicare-collecting Republican children – that’s a good solid use of government aid, because what we’re doing is helping someone “transition” from dependency to economic independence.

This of course is different from the way other, less GI-Joe-looking people use government aid, i.e. as a permanent crutch that helps genetically lazy and ambitionless parasites mooch off of rich white taxpayers instead of getting real jobs.

I can’t even tell you how many people I interviewed at Tea Party events who came up with one version or another of the Joe Miller defense. Yes, I’m on Medicare, but… I needed it! It’s those other people who don’t need it who are the problem!

Or: Yes, it’s true, I retired from the police/military/DPW at 54 and am on a fat government pension that you and your kids are going to be paying for for the next forty years, while I sit in my plywood-paneled living room in Florida watching Fox News, gobbling Medicare-funded prescription medications, and railing against welfare queens. But I worked hard for those bennies! Not like those other people!

This whole concept of “good welfare” and “bad welfare” is at the heart of the Tea Party ideology, and it’s something that is believed implicitly across the line. It’s why so many of their political champions, like Miller, and sniveling Kentucky rich kid Rand Paul (a doctor whose patient base is 50% state insured), and Nevada “crazy juice” Senate candidate Sharron Angle (who’s covered by husband Ted’s Federal Employee Health Plan insurance), are so completely unapologetic about taking state aid with one hand and jacking off angry pseudo-libertarian mobs with the other.

They genuinely don’t see the contradiction, much in the same way that some Wall Street people genuinely can’t see the problem with their company, say, taking $13 billion in bonuses in the same year that they accepted $13 billion in state bailouts. You wave a pitchfork at them with little post-its of the relevant figures taped to the ends, and ask them to confess – and they can’t, because they literally don’t see your point.

After all, these bankers will protest, we needed to pay out those billions in bonuses to stay competitive! It’s not like we’re just taking the money willy-nilly, like those dreadful people in ratty army coats who shop with food stamps in the bodega downstairs!

The rationalization continues: If I can’t help my department heads buy Porsches, they say, the whole system collapses, and the system is what’s important. It’s not like simply handing out money to people who can’t pay their mortgages, which of course is real waste. As Berkshire Hathaway investment titan Charles Munger put it, it’s those people who have to “suck it in and cope.” But bailouts for companies like the ones Munger invests in, like Wells Fargo and Goldman, that’s preserving the system – and we should all “thank God” for that kind of state aid.

The reason these arguments are inherently ridiculous is that if you live in America, you have a pretty good chance of being in some way or another dependent upon government aid. Whether it’s aerospace or military contracting or farm subsidies or grants in academia, medicine or the arts… most of us are in some way living off of this spending, directly or indirectly. Defense spending in particular has been a primary engine of American capitalism for more than half a century now. And government subsidies of agriculture and financial services have begun to rival defense largesse.

All of which would normally make it unfair for any journalist to go after a politician for taking government aid. After all, pretty much everybody has in some way or another lived off the government in his life – whether by working in a firm that takes government contracts, or attending a state school, or getting into a college thanks to affirmative action programs, or serving in the military or law enforcement, or collecting Medicare or food stamps or unemployment.

But these Tea Partyers make themselves fair game with their preposterous absolutist stance on government. If you call Obamacare radical socialism and unemployment insurance a parasitic welfare state program—well, guess what, asshole, you’re going to get rung up when we find out you had your whole family living off state medical aid and farm subsidies.

Even beyond that, though, is the way that Tea Party candidates and activists demonize the consumers of “entitlement” programs, branding them as lazy parasites who are taking from hard-working folk by supporting “redistributionist” politicians. You probably heard about the story of David Jungerman, the Kansas farmer who created a billboard that read as follows:

ARE YOU A PRODUCER OR A PARASITE?

DEMOCRATS – THE PARTY OF PARASITES

Of course it now turns out that Jungerman himself took over a million dollars in farm subsidies since 1995. When asked about the apparently contradiction, Jungerman offered the Miller defense:

“That’s just my money coming back to me,” Jungerman, 72, said Monday. “I pay a lot in taxes. I’m not a parasite.”

In Tea Party legend the “parasites” would I suppose be people who don’t pay taxes, or pay few taxes, and receive government support in excess of what they pay. Maybe they mean the 39-odd million Americans (about 1 in 8) who are now receiving food stamps. In the Hobbesian jungle the Tea Partyers would prefer we all live in, it’s true, most of those 39 million people (including the just under 50% of all children, and 90% of black children, who will at some point in their lives eat a meal bought with food stamps) would indeed be sucking wind instead of eating cheese.

These are the parasites they’re probably talking about. You know, children. Meanwhile, a slick grownup yuppie politician with a GI Joe beard and a breeder wife and eight kids, leeching off the state at every turn and gunning for a U.S. Senate salary and pension on an anti-welfare platform, he’s just a hardworking citizen who simply needed a lift during a “transitional” period. Man, did they break the mold when they made these assholes.

Tully Mars · 10-13-2010, 11:08 AM

I wondered about Miller when he was asked about ending SS and then it was pointed out his parents are on SS. He kind of balked and said something that basically amounted to "well they need it, but it needs to be phased out." I guess when his family no longer needs help from the evil government then these program should be killed. Of course with 8 kids that may take a while. He's also claimed the porks got to stop. That seems like a bold statement in state that receives more pork then any other.

dogzilla · 10-13-2010, 03:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Derwood

More good stuff from Matt Taibbi

We have to start somewhere, and no politician is perfect. Heck, the cowardly democrats refused to have any kind of trial for Charlie Rangel and Maxine Waters. Then there's the list of Obama's cabinet appointees that somehow thought they were exempt from paying income tax.

Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi stated they were going to 'drain the swamp' and failed dramatically, so now the American public is going to help them do that.

If it takes candidates like this to shut down Obama's crazy spending programs, well, it's a start.

Since I've not taken a penny from any federal or state entitlement program in my adult life, I have no problem with eligibility for these programs being tightened up.

All three of my Congressional reps are up for re-election this year. Three votes against them. 100% guaranteed. Obama and the Democrats have to go.

Tully Mars · 10-13-2010, 03:07 PM

Seem odd to start "somewhere" by replacing these hypocrites with other hypocrites.

Willravel · 10-13-2010, 04:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dogzilla

If it takes candidates like this to shut down Obama's crazy spending programs, well, it's a start.

dc_dux · 10-19-2010, 05:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dogzilla

We have to start somewhere, and no politician is perfect. Heck, the cowardly democrats refused to have any kind of trial for Charlie Rangel and Maxine Waters...

One of the most significant features of the ethic reforms that the Democrats enacted in 2007 (with no Republican support) was the creation of the quasi-independent Office of Congressional Ethics (OCE).

As a result, for the first time ever, ethics charges could be raised and investigated without having to rely on the Ethics Committee itself to initiate an action, which if one looks back throughout history rarely occurred (most recently, many of the Republicans who were charged with crimes in the Abramoff scandal never faced an Ethics Committee investigation).

It was through the actions of the OCE that Maxine Waters is facing an investigation.

What will happen to the OCE, if Boehner were to become Speaker:

Quote:

House Republicans are chortling over the Democratic majority’s troubles with ethics allegations, but they also are ominously signaling their distaste for the Office of Congressional Ethics — the one new player on Capitol Hill with a clear determination to do something about the morass.

The Republican minority leader, John Boehner, said he wants to “take a look” at the office if his party regains majority power — a reminder that his members fiercely opposed the quasi-independent office when it was created two years ago by Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

Mr. Boehner wondered aloud how effective the office really is, ignoring its considerable record for discreetly investigating alleged misbehavior on both sides of the aisle and letting the chips fall where they may....

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/05/op...thu3.html?_r=1

Like the campaign finance reform act passed by the House Democrats earlier this year (and blocked in the Senate), this 2007 ethics reform act does not go far enough.

But, I am of the opinion that even small incremental steps to correct abuses are better than the status quo in both cases.

Willravel · 10-19-2010, 01:15 PM

I fully expect if there is a Speaker Boehner there will be impeachment investigations. To expect otherwise is highly naive.

Tully Mars · 10-19-2010, 02:27 PM

I don't see that happening.

Willravel · 10-19-2010, 04:39 PM

Think of how galvanized the Republican base was when President Clinton was dragged before the people and treated like trash under the minor pretense of lying under oath about having an extramarital affair. That destroyed for many people all that President Clinton built up, all the successes he had. And it was utter bullshit, of course. Bush won (well, he was actually chosen, but he did get a lot of votes) partially because the Republicans had convinced the people that Democrats, especially those associated with Clinton, were somehow more immoral than Republicans.

Imagine that in 2012. Imagine birth certificate investigations or smoking weed in college and the rest of the circus returning, and then Mitt Romney or some other white-bread Republican running on family values and religious morality in 2012 coming out swinging. President Obama would have a real fight on his hands whereas now he is the clear front runner against all contenders.

Tully Mars · 10-19-2010, 05:12 PM

Oh I have little doubt they (GOP) will do all kinds of nasty ass BS to make Obama's life a living hell. I just don't see impeachment in the mix.

Baraka_Guru · 10-19-2010, 06:21 PM

They don't need impeachment, they just need to pull America from the fires of socialism.

Derwood · 10-19-2010, 06:54 PM

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/20/us...1&pagewanted=1

sorry if this has been posted already.

dc_dux · 10-20-2010, 01:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tully Mars

Oh I have little doubt they (GOP) will do all kinds of nasty ass BS to make Obama's life a living hell. I just don't see impeachment in the mix.

I agree that impeachment hearings would be highly unlikely. Thats not to say that some of the new Tea Party crowd wont introduce impeachment resolutions....they just wont reach the level of Judiciary Committee hearings.

The real issue is subpoena power...a power that is limited to the chairman of committees.

Darrell Issa, the current ranking member of the House Govt Oversight Committee has already said he would flood the administration with subpoenas if he assumes the chairmanship....on everything from the stimulus bill and health reform bill to alleged White House ties to ACORN and the White House role (wtf?) in the British "Climategate" controversy.

Much like the last Republican chairman of that committee who issued around 1,000 subpoenas of the Clinton administration between 1994 and 2000 (including a subpoena of the records of Socks, the Clinton cat and the Vince Foster suicide- murder by Hilary's cohorts!)...as opposed to the less than 50 subpoenas issues of the Bush administration in 2007-08 by Henry Waxman.

aceventura3 · 10-20-2010, 07:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

I agree that impeachment hearings would be highly unlikely. Thats not to say that some of the new Tea Party crowd wont introduce impeachment resolutions....they just wont reach the level of Judiciary Committee hearings.

The real issue is subpoena power...a power that is limited to the chairman of committees.

Darrell Issa, the current ranking member of the House Govt Oversight Committee has already said he would flood the administration with subpoenas if he assumes the chairmanship....on everything from the stimulus bill and health reform bill to alleged White House ties to ACORN and the White House role (wtf?) in the British "Climategate" controversy.

Much like the last Republican chairman of that committee who issued around 1,000 subpoenas of the Clinton administration between 1994 and 2000 (including a subpoena of the records of Socks, the Clinton cat and the Vince Foster suicide- murder by Hilary's cohorts!)...as opposed to the less than 50 subpoenas issues of the Bush administration in 2007-08 by Henry Waxman.

If what you describe above is an abuse of subpoena power, did democrats abuse subpoena power when Bush was in the WH?

What I said then was that Bush needed to defend executive privilege and maintain a proper balance of power with Congress. I seem to recall many here saying the Bush administration was being the most secretive in history and actually abusing his power - although most President's aggressively defended their executive powers when challenged. I fully expect, and I would want the Obama administration to do the same thing. It is far to easy for Congressional leaders to overstep the boundaries for short-term political gain. The integrity of the office of President needs to be preserved regardless of who is President. The voters will resolve any problems or affirm the administrations agenda in 2012.

dc_dux · 10-20-2010, 08:56 AM

ace....Bush's claims of executive priviliege far exceeded any recent president, going back at least to Reagan.

Those before Bush limited such claims to direct communications between the president and subordinates in the White House and executive branch.....based on the court's ruling re: Nixon.

Bush claimed executive privilege for ANY communications between ANY senior policymakers ANYWHERE in the executive branch, regardless of whether the president was personally in the loop. His claims never reached the court, but based on the Nixon precedent, would, IMO, have been denied.

I agree with you that executive privilege (communications between a president and subordinates) has to be protected....but so does checks and balances.

---------- Post added at 12:56 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:50 PM ----------

In the two years, 2007-08, I dont know of any example where the Democrats abused the power in a manner similar to the Republican subpoenas of Clinton.

Perhaps you have examples of those you think were an abuse of power.

aceventura3 · 10-20-2010, 09:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

ace....Bush's claims of executive priviliege far exceeded any recent president, going back at least to Reagan.

Those before Bush limited such claims to direct communications between the president and subordinates in the White House and executive branch.....based on the court's ruling re: Nixon.

Bush claimed executive privilege for ANY communications between ANY senior policymakers ANYWHERE in the executive branch, regardless of whether the president was personally in the loop. His claims never reached the court, but based on the Nixon precedent, would, IMO, have been denied.

I agree with you that executive privilege (communications between a president and subordinates) has to be protected....but so does checks and balances.

---------- Post added at 12:56 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:50 PM ----------

In the two years, 2007-08, I dont know of any example where the Democrats abused the power in a manner similar to the Republican subpoenas of Clinton.

Perhaps you have examples of those you think were an abuse of power.

We've been through many examples during Bush's term, feel free to do a search. But, just to refresh your memory we disagreed on the dismissal of US Attorneys and the investigations that followed. If Obama fired US Attorneys, I would support his right to do so and I would stand against a politically charged investigation. Another involved the Valerie Plame investigation.

I am consistent on these issues, during the Clinton administration I thought the Starr investigation leading to the Lewinski controversy and the impeachment was an abuse of Congressional power. At the time I even changed my party affiliation to Libertarian, in part, for that reason. I wonder if the folks on your side will be consistent if Republicans gain control in Congress?

dc_dux · 10-20-2010, 11:00 AM

ace...you didnt address the issue of the different approaches to executive privilege by Bush and his predecessors...by attempting to apply it to any executive branch communications between any officials and not just the president.

In the case of the US attorneys, the issue was not the president's right to fire the attorneys. That was never in dispute. It was the manner in which it was done, including members of the administration potentially lying under oath (suggesting reasons for firing related to performance and willfully and falsely demeaning the reputation of the attorneys) during the hearings.

In the Plame case, you really think a communication between Rove and Libby, and not involving the president directly, should be covered by executive privilege? I dont and I dont think the courts would either, but the administration plan was not to test the limits, but to stall until they left office.

Both of the above involved potential criminal offenses and IMO, were legitimate areas of investigation and subpoena.

In any case, Bush's broad claims of executive privilege were excessive...at least in terms of all other recent presidents and I would hope Obama would be more in line with the Reagan/Clinton approach.

And I would hope the incoming Republican majority, if that is the case, is more in line with the Democrats issuing less than 25 (I said 50 earlier, that was wrong) subpoenas of Bush administration in two years than the previous Republican issuing nearly 1,000 subpoenas of the Clinton administration in five years.

aceventura3 · 10-20-2010, 01:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

ace...you didnt address the issue of the different approaches to executive privilege by Bush and his predecessors...by attempting to apply it to any executive branch communications between any officials and not just the president.

I am not sure what you want. The issue is not a new one. Each time the issue has come up the circumstances have been unique.

Quote:

In the case of the US attorneys, the issue was not the president's right to fire the attorneys.

Did the President terminate them? I thought it was done in the line of command. If the President had discussions on the topic or gave his o.k., that is his prerogative. The conditions of employment for the US Attorneys as I understand it, is "at will", meaning they can be terminated without cause.

Quote:

That was never in dispute. It was the manner in which it was done, including members of the administration potentially lying under oath (suggesting reasons for firing related to performance and willfully and falsely demeaning the reputation of the attorneys) during the hearings.

There should not have been hearings on the issue. In hind-sight it is now clear Congress should have focused on more important issues.

Quote:

In the Plame case, you really think a communication between Rove and Libby, and not involving the president directly, should be covered by executive privilege?

Yes. Even though what happened to Plame was "big boy" politics at its worst, she engaged in the game and I consider her to be a sophisticated participant, not a victim. You don't just walk up to a grizzly bear and punch it in the nose and think you can walk away with no consequences.

Libby fell into a perjury trap, I would suggest Obama administration officials avoid the b.s. Libby was subjected to - plead the 5th, claim executive privilege or simply give vague responses, whatever to avoid the trap. All of your arguments used for the action against Libby, can easily and will most likely be used against Obama administration officials. I thought it wrong with Libby and will think it will be wrong if done in the future.

I would error on the side of protecting WH communication, period.

Quote:

I dont and I dont think the courts would either, but the administration plan was not to test the limits, but to stall until they left office.

Both of the above involved potential criminal offenses and IMO, were legitimate areas of investigation and subpoena.

I believe in probable cause as opposed to blind fishing expeditions looking for criminal activity and I never support set ups or sting type operations - in a broader sense I find that to be an abuse of government power. Any citizen can fall victim to the power of the government under those circumstances. the government can always find something, I don't care who you are.

Quote:

In any case, Bush's broad claims of executive privilege were excessive...at least in terms of all other recent presidents and I would hope Obama would be more in line with the Reagan/Clinton approach.

We disagree regarding Bush. I will maintain my same view on the subject in the future with Obama or others in the WH.

Quote:

And I would hope the incoming Republican majority, if that is the case, is more in line with the Democrats issuing less than 25 (I said 50 earlier, that was wrong) subpoenas of Bush administration in two years than the previous Republican issuing nearly 1,000 subpoenas of the Clinton administration in five years.

The number is not relevant, one can lead to a stand-off and a true test of the balance of power. And if it is one, I expect any sitting President to defend executive privilege. The integrity of the office, national security and other issues are at stake.

{added}

I am curious on you view of the Justice Dept. handling of the alleged Black Panther voter intimidation case? Should this matter be further investigated? Were political considerations involved in decisions made on how this matter would be handled? Was administration officials involved in any decisions? At what level? How would we know? Should administration people be put under oath?

dc_dux · 10-20-2010, 02:13 PM

Ace..nevermind.

Once again, you avoid the questions posed and go off on tangents.

aceventura3 · 10-21-2010, 07:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

Ace..nevermind.

Once again, you avoid the questions posed and go off on tangents.

No, it is not a "me" problem, it is a "you" problem. I responded to each of your points, starting by clearly stating that I did not understand what you were looking for, normal people interested in a true dialogue would have used that as an opportunity to clarify - you did not, it was your choice, your issue. I concluded long ago, that when you get stumped and frustrated with your inability to respond - you try to make it a problem with me or you play the victim role. Sometimes the truth hurts and often it is a good thing when friend or even a foe is willing to share painful truths. Good luck.

dc_dux · 10-26-2010, 08:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

No, it is not a "me" problem, it is a "you" problem. I responded to each of your points, starting by clearly stating that I did not understand what you were looking for, normal people interested in a true dialogue would have used that as an opportunity to clarify - you did not, it was your choice, your issue. I concluded long ago, that when you get stumped and frustrated with your inability to respond - you try to make it a problem with me or you play the victim role. Sometimes the truth hurts and often it is a good thing when friend or even a foe is willing to share painful truths. Good luck.

Ace, its no problem.

I just find it amusing that you consistently fall back on the "I don't understand" defense when someone with whom you disagree posts factual information that is contrary to your understanding and attempt to divert the discussion with unrelated questions of your own....and not just with me.

Its quite simple...the facts are not disputable. In recent years, the Republicans have taking extreme positions in both the White House and Congress (when in the majority) when it comes to checks and balances between the branches of government. Even you should be able to understand this.

Bush, with claims of executive privilege that were far more sweeping than any other president ever by including ANY communications between ANY high level administration officials....and probably unconstitutional.

And the Republican majority Congress in the Clinton years with more than 1,000 subpoenas of the administration.....far more than the handful by the Democrats in Bush's last years or anytime previously.

In both cases, their acts tipped the scales of checks and balances away from previous and accepted practices.

---------- Post added at 12:43 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:33 PM ----------

added:

What would be funny about many of the Tea Party backed Republican candidates if it were not so alarming to the extreme would be their professing to restore Constitutional values when in fact they only demonstrate their ignorance of the Constitution.

Baraka_Guru · 10-26-2010, 09:53 AM

Now this is interesting.

Tea Party Vow to Police Vote Fraud Is Called Scare Tactic – NYTimes.com

Is this voter vigilantism? Is it widespread? Is it going to be over the next few days?

roachboy · 10-26-2010, 09:58 AM

so it appears that not only is the financial network that's taken shape and animates the idea of the tea party made up entirely of the same old deep pockets far right political operatives that have been behind the other "new" rights since the clinton period, it is seems that the tea party itself doesn't actually do too much.....

read on:

Quote:

Gauging the scope of the tea party movement in America

By Amy Gardner
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, October 24, 2010; 12:01 AM

In an unruly, unpredictable and chaotic election year, no group has asserted its presence and demanded to be heard more forcefully than the tea party. The grass-roots movement that was spawned with a rant has gone on to upend the existing political order, reshaping the debate in Washington, defeating a number of prominent lawmakers and elevating a fresh cast of conservative stars.

But a new Washington Post canvass of hundreds of local tea party groups reveals a different sort of organization, one that is not so much a movement as a disparate band of vaguely connected gatherings that do surprisingly little to engage in the political process.

The results come from a months-long effort by The Post to contact every tea party group in the nation, an unprecedented attempt to understand the network of individuals and organizations at the heart of the nascent movement.

Seventy percent of the grass-roots groups said they have not participated in any political campaigning this year. As a whole, they have no official candidate slates, have not rallied behind any particular national leader, have little money on hand, and remain ambivalent about their goals and the political process in general.

"We're not wanting to be a third party," said Matt Ney, 55, the owner of a Pilates studio and a founder of the Pearland Tea Party Patriots in Pearland, Tex. "We're not wanting to endorse individual candidates ever. What we're trying to do is be activists by pushing a conservative idea."

The group, with 25 active members, meets to discuss policies and listen to speakers, Ney said. "We provide opportunities for like-minded people to get together," he said.

The local groups stand in contrast to - and, in their minds, apart from - a handful of large national groups that claim the tea party label. Most of those outfits, including FreedomWorks and Tea Party Express, are headed by longtime political players who have used their resources and know-how to help elect a number of candidates.

The findings suggest that the breadth of the tea party may be inflated. The Atlanta-based Tea Party Patriots, for example, says it has a listing of more than 2,300 local groups, but The Post was unable to identify anywhere near that many, despite help from the organization and independent research.

In all, The Post identified more than 1,400 possible groups and was able to verify and reach 647 of them. Each answered a lengthy questionnaire about their beliefs, members and goals. The Post tried calling the others as many as six times. It is unclear whether they are just hard to reach or don't exist.
ad_icon

Mark Meckler, a founding member of the Tea Party Patriots, said: "When a group lists themselves on our Web site, that's a group. That group could be one person, it could be 10 people, it could come in and out of existence - we don't know. We have groups that I know are 15,000 people, and I have groups that I know are five people."

'We can't always agree'

There is little agreement among the leaders of various groups about what issue the tea party should be most concerned about. In fact, few saw themselves as part of a coordinated effort.

The most common responses were concerns about spending and limiting the size of government, but together those were named by less than half the groups. Social issues, such as same-sex marriage and abortion rights, did not register as concerns.

If anything tied the groups together, it was what motivated their members to participate. Virtually all said that economic concerns were a factor, and nearly as many cited a general mistrust of government. Opposition to President Obama and Democratic policies was a big factor, but only slightly more so than dissatisfaction with mainstream Republican leaders.

Eleven percent said that Obama's race, religion or ethnic background was either a "very important" or "somewhat important" factor in the support their group has received.

While the tea party groups may lack a unifying direction or vision at the moment, the results show that they are ripe for action. A remarkable 86 percent of local leaders said most of their members are new to political activity, suggesting that they could be turned into a potent grass-roots force heading into the 2012 elections.

Of course, their general lack of interest in politics also suggests that they could just as easily recede, particularly if the economy improves.

The tea party's biggest successes this year have come only after one of a handful of well-funded national groups swooped in to mobilize local support. In upset victories in Alaska and Delaware, for instance, the Sacramento-based Tea Party Express spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on advertising for Republican Senate candidates Joe Miller and Christine O'Donnell, respectively.

Other national groups, such as FreedomWorks and Americans for Prosperity, have also built organizations and spent millions of dollars on advertising, high-profile bus tours or other direct campaign tactics.

Some of the local group leaders may find such tactics distasteful. Fifty-seven percent said they want to operate as a network of independent entities. And many organizers said the lack of coordination and the independence of the groups are what drew them to the movement, even if it is a liability when it comes to turning their beliefs into action.

"It's both an advantage and a disadvantage," said Joe Lisante, 43, a family doctor and a founder of Miami County Liberty, a group near Dayton, Ohio.

"If you're an opponent of the tea party, we're not an easy target," he said. "Some of the groups want to take on prayer in school. Some of them want to take on voter education. Some want to be endorsing candidates. But there is no particular person, at least in the state of Ohio, who is the president of the tea party; it just doesn't exist. That's a disadvantage for us because we can't move quickly on things. We can't always agree."
ad_icon

From one member to thousands

Many of the groups that were interviewed claim hundreds of members and some boast thousands, but most said they have fewer than 50. A number of them appear to be limited to family or friends - the Northern Connecticut Patriots, for instance, counts seven members; the Southeast Wyoming Tea Party Patriots has one.

Jeff Lafferty, 48, a landscaper in Cheyenne, Wyo., said he formed the Southeast Wyoming Tea Party Patriots in April after growing increasingly concerned about such federal actions as the bank bailouts and the stimulus bill. But Lafferty attracted just one person to his only meeting, in part because a 9/12 Project tea party group in Cheyenne was already active, he said. Moreover, he said he has since grown disillusioned with the movement and the signs that some of its members are motivated by racism against Obama. Not only is his group no longer functioning, he said, but it "never was."

Donna Riner, 52, a medical practice manager, founded the five-member San Carlos Tea Party, in San Diego, which has met just once. "I just invited friends and family members," Riner said. "I wanted them to know what the tea party represents. It's about smaller government and less taxes. I wanted them to go on the national lists and join and give money to some of the big groups that support the people I believe in."

The tea party has been accused of racism by its political opponents after comments from some prominent members and signs at several major rallies this year that attacked Obama for either his race or the false belief that he is a Muslim. At rallies, for instances, organizers have kicked out questionable members and have sought to project a more tolerant image.

But the interviews found that Obama's race is, in fact, important in more than one in 10 tea party groups.

Andy Stevens, 68, a video producer and a founder of the Tea Party Patriots in Anacortes, Wash., said he described Obama's race and and religion as "somewhat important" to members of his group because they remain troubled by what they see as the president's un-American and un-Christian behaviors.

In Stevens's view, those include Obama's "socialist" policies and intentional failure to mention "the creator" when talking about inalienable rights.

"There are questions that don't get answered, like citizenship and his birth certificate," Stevens said. "I don't know why questions keep popping up all the time. If something is irrefutable, the questions wouldn't keep popping up."

The groups clearly do not identify with any particular national leaders, an indication that there is no tea party front-runner to take on Obama in 2012. When asked to name a national leader who best represents their views, more than a third of the groups said "no one."

Former Alaska governor Sarah Palin (R) received the most mentions, with 14 percent, followed by talk-show host Glenn Beck with 7 percent and South Carolina Sen. Jim DeMint (R) with 6 percent.

One question remains: If most tea party groups don't engage in political campaigning, what exactly do they do?

Lisante, from Miami County, Ohio, said his meetings generally start with the Pledge of Allegiance, followed by a prayer, and then a speaker and a skit - the most recent was about the bank bailout. (Lisante said it was very funny.) The point, he said, is not to organize political action but to educate members and encourage them to become active on their own.

"Basically, we say: 'Listen, guys: You can no longer be the one who doesn't vote,' " Lisante said. " 'If you want to have an impact, you've got to show up.' "

Database editor Dan Keating contributed to this report.

washingtonpost.com

but it also seems that there's more to the accusations of racism than sympathizers would have one believe.

it's astroturf.

why on earth is anyone taking these people seriously?
why is there **any** danger of a shift to the right?

partly the failure of the obama administration to be clear and consistent about it's message.
partly the gain-power-at-any-cost approach of the right/far right.
partly the illusion generated by the conservative media that the tea party is more than an astroturf movement.

but another thing seems to be fear about what's happening, fear about the future---deep structural change and ideological problems piled one atop the other...

washingtonpost.com

and a political/discursive universe that's been constructed around managing opinion rather than around democratic process.

Shadowex3 · 10-26-2010, 11:48 AM

Some teapartiers near me have recently begun bringing this up and quoting it:

Quote:

Communist Goals (1963) Congressional Record--Appendix, pp. A34-A35 January 10, 1963

Current Communist Goals EXTENSION OF REMARKS OF HON. A. S. HERLONG, JR. OF FLORIDA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Thursday, January 10, 1963 .

Mr. HERLONG. Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Patricia Nordman of De Land, Fla., is an ardent and articulate opponent of communism, and until recently published the De Land Courier, which she dedicated to the purpose of alerting the public to the dangers of communism in America.

At Mrs. Nordman's request, I include in the RECORD, under unanimous consent, the following "Current Communist Goals," which she identifies as an excerpt from "The Naked Communist," by Cleon Skousen:

[From "The Naked Communist," by Cleon Skousen]

1. U.S. acceptance of coexistence as the only alternative to atomic war.

2. U.S. willingness to capitulate in preference to engaging in atomic war.

3. Develop the illusion that total disarmament [by] the United States would be a demonstration of moral strength.

4. Permit free trade between all nations regardless of Communist affiliation and regardless of whether or not items could be used for war.

5. Extension of long-term loans to Russia and Soviet satellites.

6. Provide American aid to all nations regardless of Communist domination.

7. Grant recognition of Red China. Admission of Red China to the U.N.

8. Set up East and West Germany as separate states in spite of Khrushchev's promise in 1955 to settle the German question by free elections under supervision of the U.N.

9. Prolong the conferences to ban atomic tests because the United States has agreed to suspend tests as long as negotiations are in progress.

10. Allow all Soviet satellites individual representation in the U.N.

11. Promote the U.N. as the only hope for mankind. If its charter is rewritten, demand that it be set up as a one-world government with its own independent armed forces. (Some Communist leaders believe the world can be taken over as easily by the U.N. as by Moscow. Sometimes these two centers compete with each other as they are now doing in the Congo.)

12. Resist any attempt to outlaw the Communist Party.

13. Do away with all loyalty oaths.

14. Continue giving Russia access to the U.S. Patent Office.

15. Capture one or both of the political parties in the United States.

16. Use technical decisions of the courts to weaken basic American institutions by claiming their activities violate civil rights.

17. Get control of the schools. Use them as transmission belts for socialism and current Communist propaganda. Soften the curriculum. Get control of teachers' associations. Put the party line in textbooks.

18. Gain control of all student newspapers.

19. Use student riots to foment public protests against programs or organizations which are under Communist attack.

20. Infiltrate the press. Get control of book-review assignments, editorial writing, policy-making positions.

21. Gain control of key positions in radio, TV, and motion pictures.

22. Continue discrediting American culture by degrading all forms of artistic expression. An American Communist cell was told to "eliminate all good sculpture from parks and buildings, substitute shapeless, awkward and meaningless forms."

23. Control art critics and directors of art museums. "Our plan is to promote ugliness, repulsive, meaningless art."

24. Eliminate all laws governing obscenity by calling them "censorship" and a violation of free speech and free press.

25. Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio, and TV.

26. Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as "normal, natural, healthy."

27. Infiltrate the churches and replace revealed religion with "social" religion. Discredit the Bible and emphasize the need for intellectual maturity, which does not need a "religious crutch."

28. Eliminate prayer or any phase of religious expression in the schools on the ground that it violates the principle of "separation of church and state."

29. Discredit the American Constitution by calling it inadequate, old-fashioned, out of step with modern needs, a hindrance to cooperation between nations on a worldwide basis.

30. Discredit the American Founding Fathers. Present them as selfish aristocrats who had no concern for the "common man."

31. Belittle all forms of American culture and discourage the teaching of American history on the ground that it was only a minor part of the "big picture." Give more emphasis to Russian history since the Communists took over.

32. Support any socialist movement to give centralized control over any part of the culture--education, social agencies, welfare programs, mental health clinics, etc.

33. Eliminate all laws or procedures which interfere with the operation of the Communist apparatus.

34. Eliminate the House Committee on Un-American Activities.

35. Discredit and eventually dismantle the FBI.

36. Infiltrate and gain control of more unions.

37. Infiltrate and gain control of big business.

38. Transfer some of the powers of arrest from the police to social agencies. Treat all behavioral problems as psychiatric disorders which no one but psychiatrists can understand [or treat].

39. Dominate the psychiatric profession and use mental health laws as a means of gaining coercive control over those who oppose Communist goals.

40. Discredit the family as an institution. Encourage promiscuity and easy divorce.

41. Emphasize the need to raise children away from the negative influence of parents. Attribute prejudices, mental blocks and retarding of children to suppressive influence of parents.

42. Create the impression that violence and insurrection are legitimate aspects of the American tradition; that students and special-interest groups should rise up and use ["]united force["] to solve economic, political or social problems.

43. Overthrow all colonial governments before native populations are ready for self-government.

44. Internationalize the Panama Canal.

45. Repeal the Connally reservation so the United States cannot prevent the World Court from seizing jurisdiction [over domestic problems. Give the World Court jurisdiction] over nations and individuals alike.

Cimarron29414 · 10-26-2010, 12:01 PM

Shadowex3,

While I have no doubt, the tea partiers that you saw were quoting this exact text, I'll bet dollars to doughnuts that that text is not what was read into record in 1963. I wouldn't know how to prove that, but I would love to get you the actual text so you could hand it to them and go, "Guys...this is what was said. That shit is just made up."

Baraka_Guru · 10-26-2010, 12:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shadowex3

Some teapartiers near me have recently begun bringing this up and quoting it:

None of this should come as a surprise.

roachboy · 10-26-2010, 12:22 PM

cimmaron--i can see why that'd make you uncomfortable, given that the john birch society is part of your conservative american heritage. but if you search on the title of that lovely bit of hysteria, you'll find that it's real (anything can get read into the congressional register by a congressperson who is so inclined, and the ultra-right is sadly not new) and it's making the tea party rounds.

consider it a gift from daddy koch.

Cimarron29414 · 10-26-2010, 12:40 PM

Woah! How many doughnuts did you bet? I owe you. Maybe it is the current political arena, but I just thought some of them sounded too....modern, perhaps? I tried searching for it on Snopes and truthorfiction, and couldn't find it so I gave up.

I guess I'll back up a step and say, I'd love to see those items listed in some 1963 Communist Manifesto. Me thinks Mrs. Nordman may have used some artistic license. I just don't believe the Communists were so thorough in enumerating the steps to their diabolical plan!

Edit: Number 23, for example. Really? That was a part of the plan?

roachboy · 10-26-2010, 12:59 PM

haven't you read any early 60s bircher literature?

it's hilarious.

and it'd still be funny were it not the case that the same nitwit sensibility had crawled back out from under some rock, with the full support of the grand old party, now a fine institution of good ole amurican red-baiting as an indication of the pathetic situation the right should, by ANY rational calculation, find itself in as a result of its own bloody appalling record of holding power.

Cimarron29414 · 10-26-2010, 01:33 PM

I went to a gun show a year or so ago and some ya-hoo with a booth shoved a pamphlet in my face that had stuff like this. Basically, I took it to a party and we all sat around drinking beer and reading it out loud. Some of it had us falling out of our chairs with laughter. I don't think it was John Birch Society though. These guys are always there and they get a booth in the middle of an aisle center so that you HAVE to walk past them. Honestly, I don't understand how they get in there. The booths are always full (which implies the organizers could be selective) and they don't sell anything - they just throw a magazine at you and try to recruit you. They are so out of place.

If I go to the show in the spring (and remember) I'll look to see who it is and report.

Admittedly, you hear a lot of whispers at shows of the bogeyman taking guns - but this literature is exponentially worse. Coincidentally, I just received my 50th copy of the S.B. 2099 hoax. This thing has been going around for 10 years now.

ASU2003 · 10-26-2010, 03:30 PM

It's been a few years since I've read the Communist Manifesto in high school, but I don't remember them having those goals. Now, communism in theory and communism in practice are two different things, yet if some country actually did it right with modern technology, support from the people, and no Cold War, it might work. We have to look at how the Native Americans lived, yet prevent the tribe/gang mentality that leads to problems.

roachboy · 10-26-2010, 04:57 PM

it isn't marx. it's some country yahoo hallucinating what he imagines marx to have said. that doesn't mean some bircher didnt manage to get it read into the congressional record. and that it's in the congressional record only means that someone read it into the congressional record. it coulda been at 2 in the morning with a tape recorder in attendance. probably was.

i'm not quite sure where the "hoax" part comes in.
i have books on my shelf about 10 feet from me from the early 60s written by bircher schizophrenics that say close to the same thing.
it's about the particular hallucinations of the john birch society. it's about the fast-and-loose-with-the-facts world of the american right. straight line.

Cimarron29414 · 10-27-2010, 06:18 AM

Oh, sorry: S.B. 2099 is a somewhat famous hoax email undoubtedly written by some Bircher which states that there is a bill currently before Congress which will require you to register all your guns on your 1040 annually and that you will have to pay $50/year for each one.

It is a bunch of partial truths. There was a similar bill called S 2099 which went to a Senate committee in 2000 and has remained in committee since. It will never leave committee. The point is only that it would be impossible to deny that fear mongering similar to the 1963 record is still generated in different forms.

roachboy · 10-27-2010, 06:53 AM

well, it's not my favorite hoax. my favorite claimed that metallica wanted to copyright the chord change E major F major. it said that this was their signature and anyone else using it would confuse their fans.

i thought that it was a hoax when i heard that the family of john cage was trying to enforce copyright on cage's 4'33" because, if taken to a limit, it meant that if you did nothing for 4'33" you owed the cage family royalties. but that was not a hoax. at the same time, you need to actually perform the piece 4'33" to owe royalties. you can't accidentally owe them. or something.

loquitur · 10-29-2010, 08:55 AM

Doesn't anyone find it significant that as recently as three years ago, Christine O'Donnell wasn't trimming her pubes?

Shadowex3 · 10-29-2010, 01:48 PM

Not really, no.

Willravel · 05-09-2011, 08:33 PM

It's finally time to lay to rest the proposition that the Tea Party is only about fiscal issues.

Quote:

2010 Tea Party Candidates Elected On Jobs - Give Us 916 Anti-Abortion Bills

The Bait And Switch Of The Tea Party

Jobs! Jobs! Jobs! That was the rallying call for the Tea Party movement candidates in their mid-term push to take over and rule the world. Three topics affected are insurance coverage of abortion, restriction of abortion after a specific point in gestation and ultrasound requirements. As well, legislators offer no answers with respect to initiatives to expand access to women’s reproductive health services.

If I didn’t know better, I’d swear that these people don’t care about women in general, and specifically the right of a woman to choose when and if she wants to be a mother, or a mother again. But I digress…

In addition to these 916, there are more than 120 other bills that have been approved by at least one chamber. The trend shows a more hostile approach to abortion rights than ever. More than half of the bills introduced are for the purpose of restricting abortion access. Last year it was barely over one third.

2010 Tea Party Candidates Elected On Jobs - Give Us 916 Anti-Abortion Bills - National atheism | Examiner.com

Quote:

Tea Party Leader: We'll Take The Debt Ceiling Hike If You Put Gay Troops Back In The Closet

The two sides of the debate over whether the tea party is at heart a socially conservative movement or a fiscally conservative one smashed together Monday morning at a press conference in Washington, where a tea party leader told reporters he'd be willing to accept a bump in the debt ceiling if Republicans promise to put an end to "military effeminzation."

Speakers from the Cato Institute's Dan Mitchell to a man dressed as George Washington to Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) -- who sent a written statement that was read aloud -- told a small crowd of reporters that House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) and his GOP leadership team were ignoring their tea party mandate by supporting an increase in the federal debt limit. They called on Republicans in the House to attach strict spending riders onto any deal they make with an Obama administration desperate to avoid government default.

Tea Party Leader: We'll Take The Debt Ceiling Hike If You Put Gay Troops Back In The Closet | TPMDC

Attacking women's rights and gay rights, the Tea Party demonstrates conclusively and for all time that it's nothing but a Republican party in a stupid costume. Not even the most hard line Tea Party supporter can deny the simple truth now.

I'll be happy when this chapter in American history is closed. I'd be even more happy if this were omitted from the book altogether.

10-02-2010, 11:40 AM	#321 (permalink)
Cimarron29414 Still Free Location: comfortably perched at the top of the bell curve!	tully, My point in describing my relationship with this man is to enforce the fact that this is first hand knowledge. This isn't the "my brother's best friend's uncle worked at a hospital who knew a guy who came in and..." For clarity, Randy is not homeless. He rents a room from a church. As for his bills, I could not pretend to know the exact details of how the hospital absorbed his medical bills. I could presume they were written off as an unpaid debt and that, consequently, those who receive treatment pay a higher premium for that treatment which "covers" his expenses. The fact of the matter is that, upon admission, they asked for his insurance. He didn't have any - and one look at him would tell you he couldn't afford to pay for a quad bypass. They treated him anyway - with the best possible care. As for your assertion: the link provided had the information I needed to better understand where you were coming from. Now that I understand where you are coming from, I concede that my story doesn't have much relevance to your point. I agree with you that a lack of health insurance coverage means that children with preventable issues don't get picked up in annual checkups and become serious health problems. I also agree that we should suspend ALL financial contributions to all foreign nations until our national debt is paid off and our citizens have the care our government previously committed to them (whether I agree if that's in their purview or not.) However, that means not a penny of federal money to Haiti, Somalia, the UN, Mexico, Iraq, Afghanistan etc. Are you okay with that? __________________ Gives a man a halo, does mead. "Here lies The_Jazz: Killed by an ambitious, sparkly, pink butterfly." Last edited by Cimarron29414; 10-02-2010 at 11:46 AM..

10-13-2010, 11:08 AM	#325 (permalink)
Tully Mars Living in a Warmer Insanity Super Moderator Location: Yucatan, Mexico	I wondered about Miller when he was asked about ending SS and then it was pointed out his parents are on SS. He kind of balked and said something that basically amounted to "well they need it, but it needs to be phased out." I guess when his family no longer needs help from the evil government then these program should be killed. Of course with 8 kids that may take a while. He's also claimed the porks got to stop. That seems like a bold statement in state that receives more pork then any other. __________________ I used to drink to drown my sorrows, but the damned things have learned how to swim- Frida Kahlo Vice President Starkizzer Fan Club Last edited by Tully Mars; 10-13-2010 at 11:16 AM..

10-13-2010, 03:07 PM	#327 (permalink)
Tully Mars Living in a Warmer Insanity Super Moderator Location: Yucatan, Mexico	Seem odd to start "somewhere" by replacing these hypocrites with other hypocrites. __________________ I used to drink to drown my sorrows, but the damned things have learned how to swim- Frida Kahlo Vice President Starkizzer Fan Club

10-19-2010, 02:27 PM	#331 (permalink)
Tully Mars Living in a Warmer Insanity Super Moderator Location: Yucatan, Mexico	I don't see that happening. __________________ I used to drink to drown my sorrows, but the damned things have learned how to swim- Frida Kahlo Vice President Starkizzer Fan Club

10-19-2010, 05:12 PM	#333 (permalink)
Tully Mars Living in a Warmer Insanity Super Moderator Location: Yucatan, Mexico	Oh I have little doubt they (GOP) will do all kinds of nasty ass BS to make Obama's life a living hell. I just don't see impeachment in the mix. __________________ I used to drink to drown my sorrows, but the damned things have learned how to swim- Frida Kahlo Vice President Starkizzer Fan Club

10-19-2010, 01:15 PM	#330 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	I fully expect if there is a Speaker Boehner there will be impeachment investigations. To expect otherwise is highly naive.

10-19-2010, 04:39 PM	#332 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	Think of how galvanized the Republican base was when President Clinton was dragged before the people and treated like trash under the minor pretense of lying under oath about having an extramarital affair. That destroyed for many people all that President Clinton built up, all the successes he had. And it was utter bullshit, of course. Bush won (well, he was actually chosen, but he did get a lot of votes) partially because the Republicans had convinced the people that Democrats, especially those associated with Clinton, were somehow more immoral than Republicans. Imagine that in 2012. Imagine birth certificate investigations or smoking weed in college and the rest of the circus returning, and then Mitt Romney or some other white-bread Republican running on family values and religious morality in 2012 coming out swinging. President Obama would have a real fight on his hands whereas now he is the clear front runner against all contenders.

10-19-2010, 06:21 PM	#334 (permalink)
Baraka_Guru warrior bodhisattva Super Moderator Location: East-central Canada	They don't need impeachment, they just need to pull America from the fires of socialism. __________________ Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing? —Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön Humankind cannot bear very much reality. —From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

10-19-2010, 06:54 PM	#335 (permalink)
Derwood Who You Crappin? Location: Everywhere and Nowhere	http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/20/us...1&pagewanted=1 sorry if this has been posted already. __________________ "You can't shoot a country until it becomes a democracy." - Willravel

10-20-2010, 08:56 AM	#338 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	ace....Bush's claims of executive priviliege far exceeded any recent president, going back at least to Reagan. Those before Bush limited such claims to direct communications between the president and subordinates in the White House and executive branch.....based on the court's ruling re: Nixon. Bush claimed executive privilege for ANY communications between ANY senior policymakers ANYWHERE in the executive branch, regardless of whether the president was personally in the loop. His claims never reached the court, but based on the Nixon precedent, would, IMO, have been denied. I agree with you that executive privilege (communications between a president and subordinates) has to be protected....but so does checks and balances. ---------- Post added at 12:56 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:50 PM ---------- In the two years, 2007-08, I dont know of any example where the Democrats abused the power in a manner similar to the Republican subpoenas of Clinton. Perhaps you have examples of those you think were an abuse of power. __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire Last edited by dc_dux; 10-20-2010 at 08:52 AM..

10-20-2010, 11:00 AM	#340 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	ace...you didnt address the issue of the different approaches to executive privilege by Bush and his predecessors...by attempting to apply it to any executive branch communications between any officials and not just the president. In the case of the US attorneys, the issue was not the president's right to fire the attorneys. That was never in dispute. It was the manner in which it was done, including members of the administration potentially lying under oath (suggesting reasons for firing related to performance and willfully and falsely demeaning the reputation of the attorneys) during the hearings. In the Plame case, you really think a communication between Rove and Libby, and not involving the president directly, should be covered by executive privilege? I dont and I dont think the courts would either, but the administration plan was not to test the limits, but to stall until they left office. Both of the above involved potential criminal offenses and IMO, were legitimate areas of investigation and subpoena. In any case, Bush's broad claims of executive privilege were excessive...at least in terms of all other recent presidents and I would hope Obama would be more in line with the Reagan/Clinton approach. And I would hope the incoming Republican majority, if that is the case, is more in line with the Democrats issuing less than 25 (I said 50 earlier, that was wrong) subpoenas of Bush administration in two years than the previous Republican issuing nearly 1,000 subpoenas of the Clinton administration in five years. __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire Last edited by dc_dux; 10-20-2010 at 11:20 AM..

10-20-2010, 02:13 PM	#342 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	Ace..nevermind. Once again, you avoid the questions posed and go off on tangents. __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire

10-26-2010, 09:53 AM	#345 (permalink)
Baraka_Guru warrior bodhisattva Super Moderator Location: East-central Canada	Now this is interesting. Tea Party Vow to Police Vote Fraud Is Called Scare Tactic – NYTimes.com Is this voter vigilantism? Is it widespread? Is it going to be over the next few days? __________________ Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing? —Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön Humankind cannot bear very much reality. —From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot Last edited by Baraka_Guru; 10-26-2010 at 10:11 AM..

10-26-2010, 12:01 PM	#348 (permalink)
Cimarron29414 Still Free Location: comfortably perched at the top of the bell curve!	Shadowex3, While I have no doubt, the tea partiers that you saw were quoting this exact text, I'll bet dollars to doughnuts that that text is not what was read into record in 1963. I wouldn't know how to prove that, but I would love to get you the actual text so you could hand it to them and go, "Guys...this is what was said. That shit is just made up." __________________ Gives a man a halo, does mead. "Here lies The_Jazz: Killed by an ambitious, sparkly, pink butterfly."

10-26-2010, 12:22 PM	#350 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	cimmaron--i can see why that'd make you uncomfortable, given that the john birch society is part of your conservative american heritage. but if you search on the title of that lovely bit of hysteria, you'll find that it's real (anything can get read into the congressional register by a congressperson who is so inclined, and the ultra-right is sadly not new) and it's making the tea party rounds. consider it a gift from daddy koch. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

10-26-2010, 12:40 PM	#351 (permalink)
Cimarron29414 Still Free Location: comfortably perched at the top of the bell curve!	Woah! How many doughnuts did you bet? I owe you. Maybe it is the current political arena, but I just thought some of them sounded too....modern, perhaps? I tried searching for it on Snopes and truthorfiction, and couldn't find it so I gave up. I guess I'll back up a step and say, I'd love to see those items listed in some 1963 Communist Manifesto. Me thinks Mrs. Nordman may have used some artistic license. I just don't believe the Communists were so thorough in enumerating the steps to their diabolical plan! Edit: Number 23, for example. Really? That was a part of the plan? __________________ Gives a man a halo, does mead. "Here lies The_Jazz: Killed by an ambitious, sparkly, pink butterfly." Last edited by Cimarron29414; 10-26-2010 at 12:43 PM..

10-26-2010, 12:59 PM	#352 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	haven't you read any early 60s bircher literature? it's hilarious. and it'd still be funny were it not the case that the same nitwit sensibility had crawled back out from under some rock, with the full support of the grand old party, now a fine institution of good ole amurican red-baiting as an indication of the pathetic situation the right should, by ANY rational calculation, find itself in as a result of its own bloody appalling record of holding power. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

10-26-2010, 01:33 PM	#353 (permalink)
Cimarron29414 Still Free Location: comfortably perched at the top of the bell curve!	I went to a gun show a year or so ago and some ya-hoo with a booth shoved a pamphlet in my face that had stuff like this. Basically, I took it to a party and we all sat around drinking beer and reading it out loud. Some of it had us falling out of our chairs with laughter. I don't think it was John Birch Society though. These guys are always there and they get a booth in the middle of an aisle center so that you HAVE to walk past them. Honestly, I don't understand how they get in there. The booths are always full (which implies the organizers could be selective) and they don't sell anything - they just throw a magazine at you and try to recruit you. They are so out of place. If I go to the show in the spring (and remember) I'll look to see who it is and report. Admittedly, you hear a lot of whispers at shows of the bogeyman taking guns - but this literature is exponentially worse. Coincidentally, I just received my 50th copy of the S.B. 2099 hoax. This thing has been going around for 10 years now. __________________ Gives a man a halo, does mead. "Here lies The_Jazz: Killed by an ambitious, sparkly, pink butterfly." Last edited by Cimarron29414; 10-27-2010 at 10:57 AM..

10-26-2010, 03:30 PM	#354 (permalink)
ASU2003 immoral minority Location: Back in Ohio	It's been a few years since I've read the Communist Manifesto in high school, but I don't remember them having those goals. Now, communism in theory and communism in practice are two different things, yet if some country actually did it right with modern technology, support from the people, and no Cold War, it might work. We have to look at how the Native Americans lived, yet prevent the tribe/gang mentality that leads to problems.

10-26-2010, 04:57 PM	#355 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	it isn't marx. it's some country yahoo hallucinating what he imagines marx to have said. that doesn't mean some bircher didnt manage to get it read into the congressional record. and that it's in the congressional record only means that someone read it into the congressional record. it coulda been at 2 in the morning with a tape recorder in attendance. probably was. i'm not quite sure where the "hoax" part comes in. i have books on my shelf about 10 feet from me from the early 60s written by bircher schizophrenics that say close to the same thing. it's about the particular hallucinations of the john birch society. it's about the fast-and-loose-with-the-facts world of the american right. straight line. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

10-27-2010, 06:18 AM	#356 (permalink)
Cimarron29414 Still Free Location: comfortably perched at the top of the bell curve!	Oh, sorry: S.B. 2099 is a somewhat famous hoax email undoubtedly written by some Bircher which states that there is a bill currently before Congress which will require you to register all your guns on your 1040 annually and that you will have to pay $50/year for each one. It is a bunch of partial truths. There was a similar bill called S 2099 which went to a Senate committee in 2000 and has remained in committee since. It will never leave committee. The point is only that it would be impossible to deny that fear mongering similar to the 1963 record is still generated in different forms. __________________ Gives a man a halo, does mead. "Here lies The_Jazz: Killed by an ambitious, sparkly, pink butterfly."

10-27-2010, 06:53 AM	#357 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	well, it's not my favorite hoax. my favorite claimed that metallica wanted to copyright the chord change E major F major. it said that this was their signature and anyone else using it would confuse their fans. i thought that it was a hoax when i heard that the family of john cage was trying to enforce copyright on cage's 4'33" because, if taken to a limit, it meant that if you did nothing for 4'33" you owed the cage family royalties. but that was not a hoax. at the same time, you need to actually perform the piece 4'33" to owe royalties. you can't accidentally owe them. or something. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

10-29-2010, 08:55 AM	#358 (permalink)
loquitur Junkie Location: NYC	Doesn't anyone find it significant that as recently as three years ago, Christine O'Donnell wasn't trimming her pubes?