How to Join Member's Area Private Library Search Today's Topics p Login
Main Forums Discussion Tech Talk Mature Content Archives
   Nav Win
 Discussion
 The Alley
 The times...   [ Page: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  ]
 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74
Follow us on Facebook

 Moderated by: Ron   (Admins )

 
User Options
Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Admin Print Send ECard
Passions in Poetry

The times...

 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


50 posted 09-13-2009 10:25 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



Dear Huan Yi,

          If you have trouble with the plausibility of the birther position, discuss it with Denise, who upholds that position here.  I do not find it plausible myself.

     I do not find it likely that the Republicans helped plan 9/11.  I do believe that they certainly took advantage of 9/11 to further an agenda that I do not approve of, and which I feel has been disadvantageous to the country; but that is a very different thing.

     Nor do I find it likely that The President and all his friends are Communists, Socialists and Marxists.  I say this having known Communists, Socialists and Marxists who stated that that is what they were.  I have also, in the course of my life, known and dealt with the occasional skinhead and nazi, people whom I judged to be so and who claimed to be so as well.  The President and his pals aren't right wing folks either, despite what the right wing talk show folks claim.

     If we want to chuck claims like these around, I suggest we agree on some definitions first, and then see if the people we're discussing actually fit them.  The reality is more important than any of us are, and more important than any of our egos.

     If we actually want to get at the truth, why not actually decide what a socialist is, what a fascist is and what a communist is?   Let's try to decide what the actual questions are that we want to look at.  Let's talk about what we want for the country in terms that are as concrete as possible.  This seems like a more productive way of talking than this sort of painful back and forth slashing.  

    

      
icebox
Member Elite
since 05-03-2003
Posts 4246
in the shadows


51 posted 09-14-2009 12:21 PM       View Profile for icebox   Email icebox   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for icebox

Two more ACORN "sting" video tapes have been released.  One recorded in the Washington DC hoffice and one released this morning that was recorded in the Brooklyn office.  So far the pattern in each office is approximately the same.  ACORN empolyees advising a couple dressed as a pimp and a prostitute on how to circumvent and/or break various laws.
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


52 posted 09-14-2009 01:51 PM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

Just call me intellectually curious about the matter, Bob. When he stops hiding everything pertaining to his life from his birth certificate to his school applications and records and law firm clients, to the tune of over $1 million dollars so far, I'll stop questioning.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


53 posted 09-14-2009 05:10 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

If  ACORN did not have the Obama connection, they would have been disbanded long ago...or, at least, incurred the loss of their government funding.

The time may come when not even Obama's influence will help them or they become another Reverend Wright, who Obama will decide it not being advantageous to continue the association.

That will be a good day for the country....

[This message has been edited by Balladeer (09-14-2009 07:15 PM).]

Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


54 posted 09-14-2009 09:10 PM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

I'm curious, just exactly what do you think these videos tell us about ACORN?  Obama?  Anything?
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


55 posted 09-14-2009 10:35 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



Dear Denise,

           It was Huan Yi who brought up the topic.  You already know my thoughts on the matter and do not take them into consideration.  Should you believe that Huan Yi feels they are a vital and lively issue, you should take them up with him.

     As for the Republicans causing the 9/11 tragedy, I thought then and I think now that the notion is absurd.  The events of 9/11 were used by the Republicans to further the Republican agenda.  Some of the events following 9/11 that I did not like were a result of that, some were a result of Democrats attempting, I think wrongly, to take momentum away from the Republicans by being more hawkish than the hawks.  The department of homeland security has at least some Democratic footprints on it, as does the PATRIOT ACT.

     This doesn't mean that the Democrats shouldn't  repair their mistakes.

      I think that the notion that the Republican Lite folks now holding office being confused with actual socialists and communists requires a willful ignorance about the meaning and history of those terms.  That Right wing talk show hosts are trying to use both these terms and the word "Fascist" in the same bundle of accusations about the same administration shows that these folks are attacking not only the Democrats, but the language of discourse and idea itself.  

    
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


56 posted 09-15-2009 06:26 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Two interesting things happened today.

More tapes on ACORN came out, showing their advising  on how to run child prostitution rings.

The Senate passed a resolution 83-7 to cancel all HUD funding to ACORN.

Interesting stories, no? Well, I watched the network news for any coverage and guess what?...not a word. SO I went to the internet and checked all stories posted for YAHOO, AP, Wall Street Journal, Washington Post and Reuters. How many carried any coverage of it? Zero - nada - zilch.

So I went to google, typed in ACORN, senate and HUD and finally got info on the topics. Who from?

Fox
LATimes
Washington Post
DAllas News
CBN
San Francisco Chronicle

For all of you who feel the network news agencies are non-partisan...who are you kidding? For all of you who wonder why FOX and other independent agencies get such audience participation....who are you kidding?

People have no choice but to listen to FOX and others if they want full reporting. Network news will not give  it to them. They are not deserving of respect and perhaps that's why respect for them continues to fall....and deservedly so.

LR, what do the tapes tell YOU about ACORN? That child prostitution really isn't so bad, perhaps? You are not blind and you're certainly not stupid. You know exactly what these tapes tell any decent person. Well, at least Charlie Gibson found a worthy news lead-in.... The HOUSE rebuke of Wilson for calling out "You lie!" during Obama's press conference. Surely, to Democrats and their network news cronies, that is far more important. What a surprise.....
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


57 posted 09-16-2009 03:40 AM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



     I wouldn't expect every graduate of my College to be a paragon.  I don't expect every member of my political party to be one either.  I do not expect that I need to defend every member of my political party; I know there are as many fools in my political party as in any other political party.  

     When the Acorn folks who gave advice to the people pretending to be pimps and prostitutes came to the attention of the leadership they were fired.  That's pretty much what's you're supposed to do when you find out you have an unethical idiot working for you, isn't it?  When my dad found out one of his employees was stealing from him close to 50 years ago, that's what he did.

     When the Republicans found that they were harboring criminals in their midst, they found the means to pardon them, as in the case of Iran Contra; or they found ways of denying the misdeeds until they could be no longer covered up, as in the case of Jack Abramov.  Occasionally  they were known to commit felonies out of spite, as in the case of blowing the cover of a working CIA agent and destroying her usefulness and the usefulness of her cover, which had been apparently supplying data on Iranian arms production.  Such things compromised the security of the country in what the Republicans had been calling a time of war.  This I understand to be a definition of treason, while I understand some might quibble.

     These are, of course, only a few of the activities the Republicans have defended over the past few administrations.  Going into others would be a waste of time here.

     But I do think it says where the values of the two parties are.  The Republicans are putting a lot of energy into the activities of phony Hos and Pimps, and are trying to see if they can get members of a black grassroots organization to act wacky.  When they succeed, as of course they do, they smear the entire organization.

     When a member of their congressional delegation tells the President "You Lie!" in the middle of a speech, the Party disavows him, he says he's sorry half an hour afterward, and there is not supposed to be any connection drawn at all, even though that congressman goes on talk radio the next day and brags about what he said, and boasts about how many donations and how much financial support he's gotten for having said it.  There is, as much as in many political situations, a double standard at work here.

     Not only was Acorn upset about the idiocy of its employees (my conclusion, here), but it fired them as well.  In the case of the Republicans, I suspect that the Congressman was carrying out Republican policy.  There was no evidence of sanctions that I could see, and lots of evidence of party support.  

     There were lots of murmurings about suppression of free speech.  This is from the party that wouldn't allow the seating of someone at the State of the Union Speech during the Last Administration because the woman in question was wearing a T-shirt that supported a peace initiative.

     And all this aside, we still haven't defined what a socialist is, what a communist is, what a fascist is, and how you can describe somebody as both a fascist and either one of the other two terms at the same time without making a self-contradictory statement.  

     As writers — and I think we all like to think of ourselves as writers — we're obligated to at least try to make sense.

Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


58 posted 09-16-2009 04:19 AM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



Dear Mike,

           I have no objection to people viewing or reading Fox.  My objection is to people viewing or reading Fox exclusively.

     I would recommend that people view or read Fox as a supplement to some more objective news source.  If you dislike the paper of Record in this country, The New York Times, then don't use that as your primary news source.  Try The Christian Science Monitor, or even the Murdoch run but generally considered more objective The Times of London.

     I make a point of saying this because I want to distinguish myself from what "people" say in your posting above, not because I'm trying to tell you what to read.  Only to say that my recommendations are different from those which you believe "people" have.

     The non-Fox sources you speak of are unclear to me.  I would still suggest that it's good to have multiple named sources, and that none of the sources be involved with the publication itself.  I've had this discussion with Denise from time to time as well.

     I am not against right wing sources.  As I've said before, The Economist is one of the world's foremost sources for a lot of military and economic research, and I would trust almost anything they say.  I might disagree with their conclusions, but their facts are pretty much impeccable.  They are clearly well to the right.  I am not so much concerned with where a publication is on the political spectrum, as to what that does to their gathering of facts.  The Economist is good with facts and makes fine arguments I may disagree with, but which are always well reasoned.  The National Review will frequently cherry pick its facts and distort its reasoning to fit its politics.  In my opinion.  They are big on appeals to emotion, which can be effective if you share both the emotion and the point of view.

     I find The Washington Times much the same.  They are funded, or they were at least at one time funded, by The Reverend Moon; and they still may be.  

     The Wall Street Journal, which you briefly trashed (I thought) as one of those main stream press papers, is not a main stream press paper.  It's a Right wing paper these days, and has been for several years, since its purchase by the Murdoch organization.  Before that, only its editorial section was slanted solidly to the right.  If The Wall Street Journal didn't cover the Acorn Story, you might consider that it's a business, and it has to keep its customers happy.  The executives of the nation may not have felt that this particular story was important business news.  The Journal may have it, however, in the Friday or weekend edition, when the focus is not so relentlessly on the business news, and when the Executives have time for tabloid type news.

     The New York Times may have skipped it because it has, at least at times, been limited by its motto — "All the news that's fit to Print."  This story may have been or may not have been.  It depends on what you think the readership of The New York Times would think of that, which may be very different than the Audience of The New York Daily News might think of it.  Two different papers, two different readerships.  I don't think they have a track section or a comic page in the times, either.


Hope you're recovering well,

Bob Kaven

    
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


59 posted 09-16-2009 10:46 AM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Bob, I doubt you will get many travelers to accompany you on your journey down Fingerpoint Lane, although I recognize it as a favored avenue of yours. You can throw in Iran Contra, Abramov, the CIA, Iranian arms production or even those horrific "past eight years" and you still have nothing to do with the a ACORN situation.

When the Acorn folks who gave advice to the people pretending to be pimps and prostitutes came to the attention of the leadership they were fired.  That's pretty much what's you're supposed to do when you find out you have an unethical idiot working for you, isn't it?

That's very benevolent of you, Bob. I'm sure you showed that same benevolence with the Abu Ghrab situation. After all, those were idiotic, renegade lower-ranked soldiers who made Iraqui prisoners strip naked, form pyramids and do all sorts of degrading things. Undoubtedly you said that they were just renegade soldiers that had nothing to do with military procedures and certainly nothing to do with Bush or administrative policies. Since they were all court-martialed, no doubt you applauded the military and the Bush administration for handling the situation, which is what you're supposed to do when you have unethical idiots working for you, isn't it? Wait a minute. Though my drug-induced memory, I seem to recall that you DID blame the military and the BUsh administration. I can easily go back to those threads and reprint what you had to say to clear up any confusion but....is it really necessary? Shoe doesn't fit so well on the other foot, does it?

The Republicans are putting a lot of energy into the activities of phony Hos and Pimps, and are trying to see if they can get members of a black grassroots organization to act wacky.

Really? Which republicans are you referring to? I suppose the filmmaker and his girlfriend who decided to do this could be republicans, although I haven't heard it mentioned. They are certainly not democrats, for sure. WHen you say "the republicans", who exactly are you referring to? trying to see if they can get members of a black grassroots organization to act wacky. Yep, that was the plan. These two thought, "Let's go into ACORN offices and tell them that we need advice on setting up child prostitution houses and get them to act wacky". It worked out well.

Yes, ACORN fired the employees....and in a very interesting way. First, they denied the tapes were valid. Then they fired the employees. Then they cam out and claimed the tapes were innacurate, edited and doctored and they were going to sue. It begs the question that, if the tapes were inaccurate, why fire the employees? That's not the right way to treat loyal employees, is it? Get a glimpse of reality, Bob. Four cities, four different sets of employees, four tapes...and the same result. Now, a reasonable man could assume that, if the same results came from four different areas, there is a strong possibility that they were following standard ACORN policies. Does that sound unreasonable to you, Bob, or do you consider that to be nothing more than coincidence?

The New York Times may have skipped it because it has, at least at times, been limited by its motto — "All the news that's fit to Print."  This story may have been or may not have been.

Hmmm....makes one wonder what news they would consider fit to print. You can't have it both ways, Bob. Here we have two scenarios....

(1) The tapes are valid, an organization which has received tens of millions of dollars in taxpayer funds and is in line to get a lion's share of 8+ trillion in stimulus funds, has been caught by undercover cameras, offering advice on how to cheat the government out of taxes and how to cover child prostitution houses...not THAT is certainly something fit to print, wouldn't you say?

(2) ACORN is innocent. These were nothing more than rogue employees in different cities, not following standard ACORN procedures. The SENATE, however, has rescinded HUD funding to them. Why? Here you have a wonderful organization, doing good for a lot of people, being punished for something they are completely innocent of? That's extremely unfair and outrageous! THAT is certainly something fit to print, wouldn't you say? Either way, you have a newsworthy story.

Why didn't network news cover it? How could they? They found themselves between a rock and a hard place. They could either condemn ACORN, which would really not set well with the Obama administration, especially with the ACORN ties to Obama and Pelosi, or they could condemn the Senate, which would mean condemning the overwhelming majority of democratic senators who voted to rescind the HUD funds. What's a left-wing news organization to do? Exactly what they did do.....nothing.  They are getting very good at doing exacly that. I'd say they have it down to a science.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


60 posted 09-16-2009 11:11 AM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

As far as the Joe Wilson situation is concerned, it's nothing more than a pig in a poke. Was he wrong to demean the decorum of the congress? Of course he was. The Democrats stated it, the Republicans stated that and even Joe Wilson stated that. He called the White House, apologized, and had his apology accepted. End of story, right? Well, not exactly....

WIlson blurted out in a second of emotion. You, who are able to excuse ACORN by blaming everything on unruly employees, seem to have difficulty in excusing Wilson for individually losing his cool.

I suspect that the Congressman was carrying out Republican policy.  

I see. With republicans, it must be an orchestrated conspiracy but, with  democrats, the opposite. Got it, Bob. Your "suspicions" always seem to come with a strong slant to the left, don't they?

WIlson goofed by fracturing protocol and, for that, he apologized. The interesting thing is that his claim was not innacurate. Obama WAS lying. He was making the claim that 47 million uninsured Americans would get health care under his plan and no illegal aliens would. It is a fact that over nine million illegal aliens are included into that 47 million figure so that made his statement a lie, a lie blatant enough to cause WIlson to blurt out at an unfortunate time, without thinking. Want verification that it was a lie? The next day, and from that point forward, Obama figures about uninsured Americans has somehow dropped in the 30+millions from the 47 made in the speech. They have since subtracted the number of illegal aliens from the original figures to cover their bases. The fact that they HAVE changed the figures validates the claim that Obama's comment was indeed a lie at the time.

Now, the peanut farmer has come out to claim Wilson's comment was racial. The senility that he suffered while serving as President has obviously progressed. He has my sympathy.....
Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 10-12-2004
Posts 6334
Waukegan


61 posted 09-16-2009 02:29 PM       View Profile for Huan Yi   Email Huan Yi   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Huan Yi

.
" one week ago today President Obama stood before a joint session of congress pushing his plan to reform health care. Also trying to debunk what he called bogus claims. Take -- listen to what he said. About abortion."
" One more home. Misunderstanding I want to clear up. Under our plant. No federal dollars. Will be used to fund abortions and federal conscience laws will remain in place."
" Well our next guest may not have shouted out you lie after hearing that assertion but he does say the president was not telling the full truth. Moreover this Democrat. Says if something is not done to stop taxpayer dollars from going toward abortions. He has the votes to kill the house bill. Michigan congressman Bart Stupak is a pro life Democrat and a member of the house energy and commerce committee he's my -- that morning congressman. Good morning. All right so we have heard it from President Obama. From Nancy Pelosi and from numerous Democrats that this is a scare tactic tactic being used find -- by those on the right. That is an out and out lie to say that federal funds that any taxpayer dollars could go toward abortions. You you say that's that they are wrong."
" They're the wrong the amendment hr 3200 health care bill that went through the energy and commerce committee that were involved in the amendment process for both through recently July. Actually added amendment called the -- amendment which says. Public funds can be used for abortion and in the public option in particular at least one plan must have abortion coverage in that public option plan.”


http://www.foxnews.com/search-results/m/26436057/abortion-at-issue.htm#q=He alth+Bill+funds+abortion


This Democrat says he told the White House about the amendment
and they knew about it , , , , never the less . . .

I resent that.


.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


62 posted 09-16-2009 03:02 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Looks like Michigan has a decent senator there, John. Telling the president that his claims on not funding abortions in the new health plan is false is not conducive to a Democratic congressman's political health, is it?

In order not to be accused of getting all of my information from Fox News, I'll check for it on the local network news tonight. Surely it will get major coverage, wouldn't one think?
Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 10-12-2004
Posts 6334
Waukegan


63 posted 09-16-2009 05:32 PM       View Profile for Huan Yi   Email Huan Yi   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Huan Yi

Mike,

There's a video on fox of the Dem making
the statement among others on the topic,
(my old home computer couldn't handle it;
I saw it at the office before a dental
appointment where I was properly punished).
I originally saw it referenced on NR.

I resent that though being informed and knowing beforehand
yet the denial was made.  I'm beginning to feel
that Jesse Jackson was wrong; he talks down to everybody.

John

.
Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


64 posted 09-16-2009 06:54 PM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch


quote:
I resent that though being informed and knowing beforehand
yet the denial was made.


Have you read the Capps amendment Huan?
http://energycommerce.house.gov/Press_111/20090730/hr3200_capps_1.pdf

.
Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 10-12-2004
Posts 6334
Waukegan


65 posted 09-16-2009 07:04 PM       View Profile for Huan Yi   Email Huan Yi   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Huan Yi

.


So why is this Democrat making
the statements he's making?

Is everyone but . .
an idiot that can't read
and understand what the words mean?


.
Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


66 posted 09-16-2009 08:15 PM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch


What do you think the words mean Huan?

.
Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 10-12-2004
Posts 6334
Waukegan


67 posted 09-17-2009 01:40 AM       View Profile for Huan Yi   Email Huan Yi   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Huan Yi

.


No, answer my previous question:

"So why is this Democrat making
the statements he's making?"


An elected representative, a Democrat,
intimately involved in the process
makes a statement as to his understanding
and yet I am to believe him wrong.  Am
I to believe that his understanding is
or will not be that of others in power
to execute the bill once it becomes law?
Just how does that work?

.
Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


68 posted 09-17-2009 03:18 AM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch

quote:
An elected representative, a Democrat,
intimately involved in the process
makes a statement as to his understanding
and yet I am to believe him wrong.  Am
I to believe that his understanding is
or will not be that of others in power
to execute the bill once it becomes law?


Nobody is asking you to believe that Stupak is wrong Huan. I asked if you've read the amendment and provided a link, then I asked your opinion regarding what it actually means.

quote:
No, answer my previous question:

"So why is this Democrat making
the statements he's making?"


The question answering seems a little one sided but I'll give you my opinion in the hope that you might reciprocate.

Stupak wants all abortions banned so he's insisting that the amendment allows abortions. Obama wants the health bill to pass so he's insisting that federal funds will not be spent on abortions. Both of them are simultaneously absolutely correct and totally wrong and the evidence is right there in that link I posted.

So - what's your opinion Huan?

.
Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 10-12-2004
Posts 6334
Waukegan


69 posted 09-17-2009 10:27 AM       View Profile for Huan Yi   Email Huan Yi   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Huan Yi

.


"Both of them are simultaneously absolutely correct and totally wrong and the evidence is right there in that link I posted."

Which then leaves things in the eyes
of the beholder in power.

I can see where the representative is coming from.


.
Brad
Member Ascendant
since 08-20-99
Posts 5896
Jejudo, South Korea


70 posted 09-17-2009 10:28 AM       View Profile for Brad   Email Brad   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Brad

In other words:

.-No Exchange participating health
16 benefits plan may discriminate against any individual

17 health care provider or health care facility because of its
18 willingness or unwillingness to provide, pay for, provide
19 coverage of, or refer for abortions.
In section 241(c), add at the end the following new
paragraph:
f:\VHLC\073009\073009.178.xml
July 30, 2009 (1 :29 p.m.)
(44743111)
F:\Pll\NHI\TRICOMM\AMDS\ABORTION-COMBO_l1B.xML
6
1 (3) PROHIBITION OF USE OF PUBLIC FUNDS
2 FOR ABORTION COVERAGE.-An affordability credit
3 may not be used for payment for services described

4 in section 122(d)(4)(A).
Insert at the appropriate place (in the matter immediately
preceding division A) the following section:
5 SEC. 2. APPLICATION OF STATE AND FEDERAL LAWS RE·
6 GARDING ABORTION.
7 (a) No PREEMPTION OF STATE LAWS REGARDING
8 ABoRTION.-Nothing in this Act shall be construed to
9 preempt or otherwise have any effect on State laws regard-
10 ing the prohibition of (or requirement of) coverage, fund-
11 ing, or procedural requirements on abortions, including
12 parental notification or consent for the performance of an
13 abortion on a minor.


And it continues:

14 (b) No EFFECT ON FEDERAl. LAws REGARDING
15 ABORTION.-
16 (1) IN GENERAl-l.-Nothing in this Act shall be
17 construed to have any effect on Federal laws regard-
18 mg-
19 (A) conscience protection;
20 (B) willingness or refusal to provide abor-
21 tion; and
22 (C) discrimination on the basis of the will-
23 ingness or refusal to provide, pay for, cover, or
f:\VHLC\073009\073009.178.xml
July 3D, 2009 (1 :29 p.m.)
(44743111)
F:\Pll\NHI\TRICOMM\AMDS\ABORTION-COMBO_IIB.xML
7
1 refer for abortion or to provide or participate in
2 training to provide abortion.


Grinch is right. Abortion is not covered.

Do you read it differently?

Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 10-12-2004
Posts 6334
Waukegan


71 posted 09-17-2009 11:26 AM       View Profile for Huan Yi   Email Huan Yi   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Huan Yi

The representative made particular reference to this,
(see the video interview
http://www.foxnews.com/search-results/m/26436057/abortion-at-issue.htm#q=abortion


):

7 (1) ASSURED AVAILABILITY OF VARIED COV-
.8 ERAGE THROUGH THE HEAIjTH INSURANCE EX-
9 cHANGE.-The Commissioner shall assure• that, of
10 the Exchange participating health benefits plan of-
11 fered in each premium rating area of the Health In-
12 surance Exchange-
13 (A) there is at least one such plan tha~
14 provides coverage of services described in sub-
15 paragraphs (A) and (B) of section 122(d)(4);
.

Now I don’t understand why we’re saying he doesn’t know
What he’s talking about.
.


“[The House Commerce and Energy Committee] created a legal fiction, a paper separation between federal funding and abortion: Federal funds will subsidize the public plan, as well as private health plans that include abortion on demand; but anyone who purchases these plans is required to pay a premium out of his or her own pocket (specified in the Act to be at least $1.00 a month) to cover all abortions beyond those eligible for federal funds under the current Hyde amendment. Thus some will claim that federal taxpayer funds do not support abortion under the Act.
But this is an illusion. Funds paid into these plans are fungible, and federal taxpayer funds will subsidize the operating budget and provider networks that expand access to abortions. Furthermore, those constrained by economic necessity or other factors to purchase the "public plan" will be forced by the federal government to pay directly and specifically for abortion coverage. This is the opposite of the policy in every other federal health program. Government will force low-income Americans to subsidize abortions for others (and abortion coverage for themselves) even if they find abortion morally abhorrent.”
http://www.usnews.com/blogs/god-and-country/2009/08/13/us-catholic-bishops-healthcare-bill-funds-abortion.html


.
.
Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


72 posted 09-17-2009 01:32 PM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch

Brad,

You are right but so is Huan.

The amendment says that abortions that are already funded under Medicare - those deemed to be necessary under current law, will be funded under the proposed government plan. It also says that those not currently funded will not be included in any government plan. It then goes on to say that private plans can include or prohibit any type of abortion - even elective - but that no part of a subsidy paid towards that plan by the government can be used to fund an abortion not covered under present law. It then throws in an insistence that there will be at least one of each type of health plan available in the health exchange to allow individuals to choose the plan that suits them

The above portion of the amendment is ok, apart from the fact that it's a little redundant due to the fact that current legislation already has all those points covered - it's how Medicare and private health plans already work. If they'd have left it at that I'd have simply pointed out that it was a waste of time and money but they didn't.

The energy and commerce committee added this little gem:

quote:
6 (3) COVERAGE UNDER PUBLIC HEALTH INSURANCE OPTION.-The public health insurance option shall provide coverage for services described in paragraph (4)(B). Nothing in this Act shall be construed as preventing the public health insurance option from providing for or prohibiting coverage of services described in paragraph (4) (A).

(4) ABORTION SERVICES.-
(A) ABORTIONS FOR WHICH PUBLIC FUNDING IS PROHIBITED.
(B) ABORTIONS FOR WHICH PUBLIC FUNDING IS ALLOWED.


That's the bit that's got Stupak all hot under the collar, it's basically saying that the public option can provide A but not B then the highlighted bit seems to say that they can provide either.

What Stupak isn't saying though is that it doesn't really matter what the highlighted bit says because the amendment is shackled to the existing law governing federal funding of abortions. They might just as well have said:

"Nothing in this Act shall be construed as preventing the public health insurance option from providing for or prohibiting coverage of services described in paragraph (4) (A) because what is allowed and not allowed is governed by another law that takes precedent."

It's a classic case of design by committee. The amendment is unnecessary and a complete waste of time and money.

So who's right?

Obama is right in that no elective abortions will be funded by federal funds, Stupak is right in that special cases, which are already funded under present law, will continue to be funded.

The confusion is created because neither of them has defined what they mean by abortions.

Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


73 posted 09-17-2009 02:25 PM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch


quote:
Now I don’t understand why we’re saying he doesn’t know
What he’s talking about.


Who's saying that?

.
Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 10-12-2004
Posts 6334
Waukegan


74 posted 09-17-2009 04:15 PM       View Profile for Huan Yi   Email Huan Yi   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Huan Yi

I'm confident the representative is concerned about this:

“[The House Commerce and Energy Committee] created a legal fiction, a paper separation between federal funding and abortion: Federal funds will subsidize the public plan, as well as private health plans that include abortion on demand; but anyone who purchases these plans is required to pay a premium out of his or her own pocket (specified in the Act to be at least $1.00 a month) to cover all abortions beyond those eligible for federal funds under the current Hyde amendment. Thus some will claim that federal taxpayer funds do not support abortion under the Act.

But this is an illusion. Funds paid into these plans are fungible, and federal taxpayer funds will subsidize the operating budget and provider networks that expand access to abortions. Furthermore, those constrained by economic necessity or other factors to purchase the "public plan" will be forced by the federal government to pay directly and specifically for abortion coverage. This is the opposite of the policy in every other federal health program. Government will force low-income Americans to subsidize abortions for others (and abortion coverage for themselves) even if they find abortion morally abhorrent.”


.
 
 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
All times are ET (US) Top
  User Options
>> Discussion >> The Alley >> The times...   [ Page: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  ] Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Print Send ECard

 

pipTalk Home Page | Main Poetry Forums

How to Join | Member's Area / Help | Private Library | Search | Contact Us | Today's Topics | Login
Discussion | Tech Talk | Archives | Sanctuary



© Passions in Poetry and netpoets.com 1998-2013
All Poetry and Prose is copyrighted by the individual authors