| How to Join | Member's Area | Private Library | Search | Sanctuary | Login | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Main Forums | Discussion | Tech Talk | Mature Content | Archives |
A home without a wall, |
|
|
||||||
| How to Join | Member's Area | Private Library | Search | Sanctuary | Login | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Main Forums | Discussion | Tech Talk | Mature Content | Archives |
A home without a wall, |
|
|
|
||||||
| The Alley |
|
Gentlemen, Start Your Vetoes! |
|
Mistletoe Angel 
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816Portland, Oregon |
Bush Is Prepared to Veto Bill to Expand Child Insurance By ROBERT PEAR Published: July 15, 2007 "WASHINGTON, July 14 — The White House said on Saturday that President Bush would veto a bipartisan plan to expand the Children’s Health Insurance Program, drafted over the last six months by senior members of the Senate Finance Committee. The vow puts Mr. Bush at odds with the Democratic majority in Congress, with a substantial number of Republican lawmakers and with many governors of both parties, who want to expand the popular program to cover some of the nation’s eight million uninsured children. Tony Fratto, a White House spokesman, said: “The president’s senior advisers will certainly recommend a veto of this proposal. And there is no question that the president would veto it.” The program, which insured 7.4 million people at some time in the last year, is set to expire Sept. 30. The Finance Committee is expected to approve the Senate plan next week, sending it to the full Senate for action later this month. Senator Max Baucus, the Montana Democrat who is chairman of the committee, said he would move ahead despite the veto threat. “The Senate will not be deterred from helping more kids in need,” Mr. Baucus said. “The president should stop playing politics and start working with Congress to help kids, through renewal of this program.” The proposal would increase current levels of spending by $35 billion over the next five years, bringing the total to $60 billion. The Congressional Budget Office says the plan would reduce the number of uninsured children by 4.1 million. The new spending would be financed by an increase in the federal excise tax on tobacco products. The tax on cigarettes would rise to $1 a pack, from the current 39 cents. Mr. Fratto, the White House spokesman, said, “Tax increases are neither necessary nor advisable to fund the program appropriately.” Democrats in the House would go much further than the bipartisan Senate plan. They would add $50 billion to the program over five years, bringing the total to $75 billion. By contrast, in his latest budget request, Mr. Bush proposed an increase of $5 billion over five years, which would bring the total to $30 billion. White House officials said the president had several other reasons to veto the bipartisan Senate plan. “The proposal would dramatically expand the Children’s Health Insurance Program, adding nonpoor children to the program, and more than doubling the level of spending,” Mr. Fratto said. “This will have the effect of encouraging many to drop private coverage, to go on the government-subsidized program.” In addition, Mr. Fratto said, the Senate plan does not include any of Mr. Bush’s proposals to change the tax treatment of health insurance, in an effort to make it more affordable for millions of Americans. Senator Charles E. Grassley of Iowa, the senior Republican on the Finance Committee, said he would like to consider such tax proposals. But, he said, “it’s not realistic — given the lack of bipartisan support for the president’s plan — to think that can be accomplished before the current children’s health care program runs out in September.” * * It's also important to note that, prior to the 2006 mid-term elections, Bush had only exercised the veto option once; on the issue of embryonic stem-cell research. Now, since using his second veto on the supplemental Iraq spending bill because it contained legislation demanding a phased withdrawal plan be stated, Bush has also threatened vetoes on about 60% of the 2008 appropriations bills by the House which include the following: * 1: The College Cost Reduction Act - H.R. 2669 * Passed July 11, 2007, 4:01 PM in the House, 273-149, with 9 not voting. 2: Homeland Security Appropriations - H.R. 2638 * Passed June 15, 2007, 11:47 AM in the House, 268-150, with 14 not voting. 3: State-Foreign Operations Appropriations - H.R. 2764 * Passed June 22, 2007, 12:31 AM in the House, 241-178, with 13 not voting. 4: Interior-Environment Appropriations - H.R. 2643 * Passed June 27, 2007, 6:12 PM in the House, 272-155, with 5 not voting. 5: The Energy Price Gouging Act – H.R. 1252 * Passed May 23, 2007, 1:30 PM in the House, 284-141, with 7 not voting. 6: The No Oil Producing and Exporting Cartels (NOPEC) Act - H.R. 2264 * Passed May 22, 2007, 4:30 PM in the House, 345-72, with 15 not voting. 7: FY 2008 Defense Authorization Bill - H.R. 1585 * Passed May 17, 2007, 12:48 PM in the House, 397-27, with 8 not voting. 8: FY 2008 Homeland Security Authorization - H.R. 1684 * Passed May 9, 2007, 6:51 PM in the House, 296-126, with 10 not voting. 9: Hate Crimes Prevention Act – H.R. 1592 * Passed May 3, 2007, 1:46 PM in the House, 237-180, with 16 not voting. 10: D.C. Voting Rights Act – H.R. 1905 * Passed April 19, 2007, 2:42 PM in the House, 241-177, with 14 not voting. 11: Rail and Mass Transit Security Act - H.R. 1401 * Passed March 27, 2007, 7:33 PM in the House, 299-124, with 9 not voting. 12: Presidential Records Act Amendments of 2007 - H.R. 1255 * Passed March 14, 2007, 12:34 PM in the House, 333-93, with 7 not voting. 13: Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act of 2007 - H.R. 985 * Passed March 14, 2007, 1:42 PM in the House, 224-197, with 12 not voting. 14: Reauthorizing Clean Water State Revolving Loan Fund - H.R. 720 * Passed March 9, 2007, 2:18 PM in the House, 303-108, with 22 not voting. 15: Employee Free Choice Act- H.R. 800 * Passed March 1, 2007, 3:56 PM in the House, 241-185, with 8 not voting. 16: Requiring Medicare to Negotiate Lower Prescription Drug Prices - H.R. 4 * (supported by 92% of Americans in a November 6th Newsweek poll) * Passed January 12, 2007, 2:22 p.m in the House, 255-170, with 10 not voting. * * I bring this up because in the past four years before the mid-term elections, when the GOP had the trifecta, they and President Bush kept accusing the Democratic minority for being nothing but obstructionists (and certainly they were right to a fair extent). Yet now, as much of the legislation hinted out here has passed with not just unanimous Democratic support, but notable Republican support as well, President Bush is threatening to obstruct over half of what the House has worked to pass this year thus far. So I bring this up as clear evidence that, regardless of what a few have argued here that the administration and some GOP establishment leaders only resort to finger-pointing and obstructionism out of defense for what the Democrats do, this administration has behaved no less partisanesque and obstructionist than the Democrats have in recent years, and are no less willing to play politics with just about anything, including children's health insurance. It truly is a shame how ruthlessly partisan both parties have gotten, but even when the House can find relative common ground on some issues, like in some of the House legislation above that has been threatened a veto, that too gets snared by the tentacles of presidential politics. Sincerely, Noah Eaton "If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other" Mother Teresa |
||
| © Copyright 2007 Nadia Lockheart - All Rights Reserved | |||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Interesting, Noah. You certainly raise some strong questions. Personally, Iwould like to know more about this bill. Just the words "child insurance" can incite one to scream "What the heck is he doing???" but sometimes there are more facts beneath the surface that don't make the headlines, mysteriously. I can cite Kyoto, for example. Certainly to veto a bill like this, Bush is going to have to come out with some reason he considers valid...I will like to see what it is. |
||
Mysteria
since 2001-03-07
Posts 18328British Columbia, Canada |
I would like to hear the reason too Michael. Having lived in the land of almost free health care, this astounds me. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: What you called obstruction, Noah, I call checks and balances. There's a reason we have an adversarial, two-party system, after all. I think the President is just doing his job. In my opinion, the role of government isn't to supplant the family. And that's exactly what I believe government insurance does. We need to stop trying to stuff fish down our citizens' mouths and start teaching them how to fish. On a not unrelated note, private insurance is also evil. Supply and Demand is best represented by two points on a line, not three. quote: Sharon, there is *always* a cost, something I'm quite certain you already know. Hiding the cost doesn't make it free. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
I think it's a conspiracy to give amunition to the creation science crowd. It would be logical to assume according to evolution theory that W would be a better President than his daddy. This way they can point to W and say -- 'splain that'.  My starting position though would be congruent with Mike's, and partially with Ron's, because -- it seems to me that the 'Clean Air Act' pushed through by the Republican led Senate and Congress and signed by Mr. Dub -- didn't have anything to do with clean air at all? Me, if I was a Congressman -- I'd name all my legislation things like -- Get Kitty's out of Trees Aid Act Help for Abused Mothers Act Save Apple Pie Act  Who could vote agin'em? |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. Wait until the Floppy Puppy, Fluffy Kitty Act; then the fur will fly . . . . |
||
|
Mistletoe Angel
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816Portland, Oregon |
Look, I absolutely agree that there's almost always this sort of selfish "What's in it for us?" sort of ulterior motive and partisan posturing behind many pieces of legislation Congress puts together, as we saw for instance with the recent Iraq supplemental bill, where I believe fiscal conservatives had a very strong argument against that piece of legislation in that it was stuffed with pork such as peanut and spinach farmer subsidiaries which could have easily been passed on some separate agricultural legislation (although I disagree with how the President chose instead to use the "If we leave, they'll follow us here" withdrawal argument, which I found utterly lame). The Democrats were utterly making the same mistake as Ted Stevens has there, who of course now is infamously nick-named "Mr. Bridge to Nowhere". Yet, I haven't heard administration officials give a good, forthright reason why they'd want to veto a child's insurance expansion bill yet. If they reject it, they ought to simply just say what's wrong with it, which I would respect their open honesty about it more than simply say they're threatening to veto it. If they want to argue there's too much spending to the bill, then it's fine, that can be argued, although I believe child's health insurance is way too basic and important to be bogged down in political showdowns, and such a fiscal responsibility argument in my opinion is disingenuous when billions more are being funneled into Iraq where there is no exit strategy or change in strategy period beyond "stay the course". This veto threat is tainted with politics, I feel, and what I especially don't get is that, if it truly is, I don't get how the President sees this as a move that will help and/or benefit him and his party, when you have GOP senators like Grassley and Hatch asking that he not issue a veto threat on this and handle the discussion of this bill in a different manner. Sincerely, Noah Eaton "If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other" Mother Teresa |
||
|
Mistletoe Angel
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816Portland, Oregon |
Here he goes again, revving his veto engines full throttle: * Yahoo News: October 3, 2007 Bush vetoes child health insurance plan By JENNIFER LOVEN, Associated Press Writer 8 minutes ago "WASHINGTON - President Bush, in a sharp confrontation with Congress, on Wednesday vetoed a bipartisan bill that would have dramatically expanded children's health insurance. [Edit - Bulk of copyrighted story removed; click on link to read it. - Ron ] * * Polling Report: Health Issues So, despite the bill being able to override a veto in the Senate at least, attract the support of 47 Republicans in the House, attract the support of virtually every governor in the nation regardless of party, have widespread support among health professionals and even businesses, and having the support among 72% of Americans in a latest poll from ABC News/Washington Post.........the president and House Republican leaders had the gall to play politics with something as basic and essential as health insurance for children. Worse yet, he does this behind closed doors; clearly illustrating he KNOWS just how unpopular his decision is and doesn't have the courage to issue his veto publicly for the mere purpose of hoping to elude some sort of inevitable GOP backlash. Washngton Post: October 1, 2007 Finally, he again raises its expenses as an excuse for issuing the veto, yet has the gall to ask for $190 billion more for the war in Iraq ($155 billion more than the proposed SCHIP expansion), where seven out of ten Americans support the expansion of SCHIP, while almost seven out of ten Americans believe Congress should have the proposed $190 billion allocation for the war in Iraq reduced either sharply or somewhat, including 46% of Republicans. * Who's the obstructionist here? Sincerely, Noah Eaton "If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other" Mother Teresa [This message has been edited by Ron (10-03-2007 02:50 PM).] |
||
|
nakdthoughts Member Laureate
since 2000-10-29
Posts 19200Between the Lines |
not sure what is true or not true, on the way home I heard on a radio talk show that the plan that was vetoed would be to increase or give free health care/insurance for children in families making up to $80,000 a year which doesn't sound like a needy family to me. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
ok, I'm confused, Noah. You began this thread on 7/16 talking about Bush planning to veto children's health bill and then you say on 10/3 "Here he goes again!" concerning vetoing the children's health bill. How much mileage are you trying to get? [This message has been edited by Balladeer (10-04-2007 12:56 AM).] |
||
|
Mistletoe Angel
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816Portland, Oregon |
quote: Because, naturally, I have this sense of optimism within me that believes perhaps one will reflect further on the overall issue and then change his or her mind in a genuine manner, and regarding this particular issue, he wouldn't do so, thus I can't help but feel most disappointed. How much mileage, you ask? It really wasn't my intention to seek mileage with this. If anything, the President's powder-blue Chevy pick-up truck actually serves as a credible metaphor for how he has managed this country fiscally during his term; the stick shift is stubbornly jammed on fifth gear, he doesn't seem to understand downshifting, the odometer is broken, and him and his party's establishment who claim they stand for fiscal responsibility don't seem to know how to put the parking brake on. If anything, they've driven the vehicle off the cliff like the famous scene in "Thelma & Louise". Coincidentally enough, Bob Seger once famously sang a song titled "Like A Rock"; a song about an everyday American young man walking tall with purpose, believing in all his dreams, and standing unaffected by the tribulations of life......which would become used in Chevy commerical ads for years. Certainly fiscal responsibility among both Republicans and Democrats in Congress over the last 25 years at least has been "like a rock" in a whole different way; their credibility has plunged like a rock, and for this president, perhaps like a boulder is a more appropriate term. * Arguing fiscal irresponsibility as a primary excuse to oppose this popular piece of legislation just doesn't cut it, when the President is shoving billions of dollars out our nation's door at a time into a war without any exit strategy or plan for victory whatsoever. Our national debt continues to rise, with Congress raising the borrowing ceiling SIX times since 1997 (surpassing the previous borrowing ceiling of 8.965 trillion dollars and, under current tax and spending policies, will reach 231 percent of GDP by 2050, according to a Center on Budget and Policy Priorities analysis of government numbers). We have a rising trade deficit now at over $60 billion. We have a widening deficit with an increasingly competitive China. We have a US dollar hitting a new low versus the euro. And we've had numerous cuts in many of our domestic programs from health insurance to food stamps in order to both pay for the war and make the president's tax cuts permanent. At the moment, you may be sitting back, saying "What fiscal crisis? We've seen new highs in the DOW Industrials index!" The fact is, we may not feel the effects of this immediately, but it'll happen, and the next generation and the one after that will be forced to pay its expenses, as we are literally heaping the burden onto their shoulders. Now I recognize that this is indeed quite a significant expansion in terms of expenses. Nonetheless, I'm arguing two things here: 1) health insurance I believe is a basic necessity that ought to be allowed for all children, and 2) when politicians argue its expenses as an excuse to shoot it down, it pales in comparison to all the money being funneled into Iraq that these same politicians never argue about and fund entirely without complaint. Sincerely, Noah Eaton "If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other" Mother Teresa |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Actually, I'm convinced that when Seger sang Like a Rock he was unknowingly referring futuristically to the heads of Pelosi, Reed, Kerry and the Congress....hey, it serves!  You're right. Bush should get rid of that old stick-shift pickup and get a new SUV or Hummer so he could be like Gore, Kerry, and Edwards.  |
||
|
Mistletoe Angel
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816Portland, Oregon |
Just when I thought many far-right water-carriers had attacked just about anyone who dare disagrees with the administration's position on about anything (the far-left certainly resorts to it quite often as well, as the recent MoveOn "General Betray-Us" ad makes plain), from decorated veterans like Max Cleland, to Michael J. Fox, to even soldiers serving in Iraq who oppose the current war strategy (derided as "phony soldiers" by Rush Limbaugh), they have chosen to expand their attacking range even further, targeting a handicapped 12-year old and his family because of their support of the popular SCHIP expansion legislation. * Baltimore Sun: October 10th, 2007 (The above link details the debate that has developed over whether the Frost family has taken advantage of the state's government-funded health care system or not, some criticisms being less civil than others) * * Is there a most sensible, reasonable argument that can be made regarding the family's intentions? Of course. They could have discussed the issue itself, argue their concerns fearing this could become another bloated entitlement program which is the last thing this country needs, argue and analyze the facts, figures, trends and other factors which there are certainly contradictory experts that have them, and have a civil discussion on the government's role in providing health care to America's citizens. What do Rush Limbaugh, Michelle Malkin, Red State, Powerline and others choose to do instead? Doing what they prefer to do best: ATTACK, ATTACK, ATTACK! Go with the usual routine and, if they feel they have to, they can go further and probe the entire history of his family. Have talk show hosts use whatever they find in their family's history to smear and demonize them with. Find out what the contents of his "Superman" lunchbox is. Find out how many times he has been sent to detention for talking or chewing gum in class. Hide a camera in a rental car outside the school perimeter and secretly film him jaywalking, perhaps. THAT'S really not that distant from what these partisan personalities often do, and they're treating a 12-year old child, his sister who is severely handicapped, and his financially struggling parents NO differently than they have treated true, grown-up political opponents. Think Progress: October 10th, 2007 And what's worse: there's signs that even the GOP leadership is tied to the orchestrated attack machine, with a staffer in Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell’s (R-KY) office reported to have been involved. * Of course, the SCHIP legislation already has received bi-partisan support in Congress, with a slight majority of Republicans even supporting it, and some Republicans and conservatives have expressed their outrage to this standard operating attack machine procedure. Here's my favorite: an editorial from a former Republican blogger named John Cole, who announced he will register as an Independent in response to this: * John Cole (Balloon Juice): October 9th, 2007 * Moderate conservative Joe Gandelman also condemns the attacks: * Joe Gandelman (The Moderate Voice): October 9th, 2007 * * It was bad enough politically for the GOP leadership that not enough of them were willing to offer their votes to the popular SCHIP legislation to help override a veto. Now they have made themselves look more foolish than ever by not only failing to condemn the attacks by Limbaugh, Malkin and others as they did the equally-as-vitriolic MoveOn "General Betray-Us" ad, but perhaps even being more or less involved in the smear campaign. And they still wonder how they lost their majorities in the 2006 mid-term elections, among other reasons. Sincerely, Noah Eaton "If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other" Mother Teresa |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
to even soldiers serving in Iraq who oppose the current war strategy (derided as "phony soldiers" by Rush Limbaugh) Congratulations, Noah. You have lost your credibility. I had always considered you sincere even when we disagree but you are mudslinging like the rest when it suits your argument, even by distorting facts. Rush Limbaugh referred to soldiers who claimed to have been in war zones and actually hadn't been as "phony soldiers", as I'm sure you know. The Democrats, having been trying for years now to try to find some way to get him and his influence off the airwaves picked up on the "phony soldier" phrase and tried to make the argument he refers to all soldiers. They did their best to make a smear campaign out of it, even sending out mass mailings to voters asking all to write their radio stations, demanding Limbaugh be taken off the air. Heard anything about it lately? As soon as Limbaugh took the fight back to them, they folded like a wet deck of cards because they knew their accusations wouldn't stand up under any scrutiny.....and here you are, spouting their rhetoric as gospel when you have to know it is false. People can like rush or despise him but I challenge any individual who has listened to his programs to not say that he is for the country and for the troops. No, he is not a Reed, claiming the war is lost and soldiers are running wild over in Iraq. No, he is not a Kerry who reported the run-amok soldiers committing atrocities in Ghengis Khan fashion. He stands behind the soldiers and it's sad to see you spouting party rhetoric in a misleading way like that. ...and I doubt that Bush stays up at night trying to find ways to go after 12 year old handicapped kids. |
||
|
nakdthoughts Member Laureate
since 2000-10-29
Posts 19200Between the Lines |
financially struggling parents Noah you have got to start reading up more on the issues you rant about~~ This family is by far not financially strapped. I lived in MD at one time (half my life) work there and am in Baltimore often since family lives there. I student taught years ago in the private school where the one child is a student and even if given a free scholarship to the school the value of it is great...one that most cannot afford. The parents had or have a warehouse of value, a home that has increased greatly since bought and probably could work at jobs that would pay more. Property assets aren't included in the total used to determine the need for healthcare. I am not saying they didn't need the help when their children were hurt in the accident, or in need of financial aid for the one who is still in need but having owned his own business he could have had some type of health insurance for his family...before the accident. They do exist at larger deductibles, but still they exist. And you can group together for being self- employed and join a plan. They were not "picking" on the child but on the facts of the parents' income and assets. just my opinion~~ as one who as an adult cannot afford health insurance these last 5 years and have much less in income and assets than that family does. I wonder why when I pay cash up front for my Dr. visits that I don't get the lower price that someone who has insurance does... I don't mean the balance, I mean the original that the insurance company will pay and what the medical centers will accept..it is always less than what I am charged from the Drs and the hospitals. anyway~~ it's a sore subject with me...children are always important but I don't understand why the adults also, who can't afford to have health insurance coverage,can't be given a break so they can be healthy enough to raise their children. M |
||
|
Mistletoe Angel
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816Portland, Oregon |
quote: YouTube: Rush Limbaugh: September 25, 2007 I'm assuming your belief that his comments were taken out of context sprout from his "Morning Update" segment on September 25th, where certainly he is criticizing there specific individuals who have made it appear as though they were in war zones to try and bolster their own arguments against the war. YouTube: Rush Limbaugh: September 26, 2007 (Audio Excerpt) And yet, I'm actually referring to his follow-up comments on the September 26th broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio show. Listen to this audio excerpt in this entirety, which includes the quote he made under question, and decide for yourselves if he expands his belief of "phony soldiers" beyond what he said during his "Morning Update" to ANYONE who advocates U.S. withdrawal from Iraq, period. Right around the 4:17 mark is where Limbaugh mouths "The phony soldiers" Here's the transcript: * LIMBAUGH: Mike in Chicago, welcome to the EIB Network. Hello. CALLER 1: Hi Rush, how you doing today? LIMBAUGH: I'm fine sir, thank you. CALLER 1: Good. Why is it that you always just accuse the Democrats of being against the war and suggest that there are absolutely no Republicans that could possibly be against the war? LIMBAUGH: Well, who are these Republicans? I can think of Chuck Hagel, and I can think of Gordon Smith, two Republican senators, but they don't want to lose the war like the Democrats do. I can't think of -- who are the Republicans in the anti-war movement? CALLER 1: I'm just -- I'm not talking about the senators. I'm talking about the general public -- like you accuse the public of all the Democrats of being, you know, wanting to lose, but -- LIMBAUGH: Oh, come on! Here we go again. I uttered a truth, and you can't handle it, so you gotta call here and change the subject. How come I'm not also hitting Republicans? I don't know a single Republican or conservative, Mike, who wants to pull out of Iraq in defeat. The Democrats have made the last four years about that specifically. CALLER 1: Well, I am a Republican, and I've listened to you for a long time, and you're right on a lot of things, but I do believe that we should pull out of Iraq. I don't think it's winnable. And I'm not a Democrat, but I just -- sometimes you've got to cut the losses. LIMBAUGH: Well, you -- you -- CALLER 1: I mean, sometimes you really gotta know when you're wrong. LIMBAUGH: Well, yeah, you do. I'm not wrong on this. The worst thing that can happen is losing this, flying out of there, waving the white flag. Do you have -- CALLER 1: Oh, I'm not saying that. I'm not saying anything like that, but, you know -- LIMBAUGH: Well, of course you are. CALLER 1: No, I'm not. LIMBAUGH: Bill, the truth is -- the truth is the truth, Mike. CALLER 1: We did what we were supposed to do, OK. We got rid of Saddam Hussein. We got rid of a lot of the terrorists. Let them run their country -- LIMBAUGH: Oh, good lord! Good lord. [...] CALLER 1: How long is it gonna -- how long do you think we're going to have to be there for them to take care of that? LIMBAUGH: Mike -- CALLER 1: How long -- you know -- what is it? LIMBAUGH: Mike -- CALLER 1: What is it? LIMBAUGH: Mike, you can't possibly be a Republican. CALLER 1: I am. LIMBAUGH: You are -- you are -- CALLER 1: I am definitely a Republican. LIMBAUGH: You can't be a Republican. You are -- CALLER 1: Oh, I am definitely a Republican. LIMBAUGH: You are tarnishing the reputation, 'cause you sound just like a Democrat. CALLER 1: No, but -- LIMBAUGH: The answer to your question -- CALLER 1: -- seriously, how long do we have to stay there -- LIMBAUGH: As long as it takes! CALLER 1: -- to win it? How long? LIMBAUGH: As long as it takes! It is very serious. CALLER 1: And that is what? LIMBAUGH: This is the United States of America at war with Islamofascists. We stay as long -- just like your job. You do everything you have to do, whatever it takes to get it done, if you take it seriously. CALLER 1: So then you say we need to stay there forever -- LIMBAUGH: I -- it won't -- CALLER 1: -- because that's what it'll take. LIMBAUGH: No, Bill, or Mike -- I'm sorry. I'm confusing you with the guy from Texas. CALLER 1: See, I -- I've used to be military, OK? And I am a Republican. LIMBAUGH: Yeah. Yeah. CALLER 1: And I do live [inaudible] but -- LIMBAUGH: Right. Right. Right, I know. CALLER 1: -- you know, really -- I want you to be saying how long it's gonna take. LIMBAUGH: And I, by the way, used to walk on the moon! CALLER 1: How long do we have to stay there? LIMBAUGH: You're not listening to what I say. You can't possibly be a Republican. I'm answering every question. That's not what you want to hear, so it's not even penetrating your little wall of armor you've got built up. [...] LIMBAUGH: Another Mike, this one in Olympia, Washington. Welcome to the EIB Network. Hello. CALLER 2: Hi Rush, thanks for taking my call. LIMBAUGH: You bet. CALLER 2: I have a retort to Mike in Chicago, because I am a serving American military, in the Army. I've been serving for 14 years, very proudly. LIMBAUGH: Thank you, sir. CALLER 2: And, you know, I'm one of the few that joined the Army to serve my country, I'm proud to say, not for the money or anything like that. What I would like to retort to is that, if we pull -- what these people don't understand is if we pull out of Iraq right now, which is about impossible because of all the stuff that's over there, it'd take us at least a year to pull everything back out of Iraq, then Iraq itself would collapse, and we'd have to go right back over there within a year or so. And -- LIMBAUGH: There's a lot more than that that they don't understand. They can't even -- if -- the next guy that calls here, I'm gonna ask him: Why should we pull -- what is the imperative for pulling out? What's in it for the United States to pull out? They can't -- I don't think they have an answer for that other than, "Well, we just gotta bring the troops home." CALLER 2: Yeah, and, you know what -- LIMBAUGH: "Save the -- keep the troops safe" or whatever. I -- it's not possible, intellectually, to follow these people. CALLER 2: No, it's not, and what's really funny is, they never talk to real soldiers. They like to pull these soldiers that come up out of the blue and talk to the media. LIMBAUGH: The phony soldiers. CALLER 2: The phony soldiers. If you talk to a real soldier, they are proud to serve. They want to be over in Iraq. They understand their sacrifice, and they're willing to sacrifice for their country. LIMBAUGH: They joined to be in Iraq. They joined -- CALLER 2: A lot of them -- the new kids, yeah. LIMBAUGH: Well, you know where you're going these days, the last four years, if you signed up. The odds are you're going there or Afghanistan or somewhere. CALLER 2: Exactly, sir." * What's more, Limbaugh has a history of attacking the patriotism of those with whom he disagrees. For instance, he rightfully condemned the MoveOn "General Betray-Us" ad, but guest what he called Senator Chuck Hagel (R-NE) on the January 25th broadcast of his syndicated radio program? * YouTube: Archived Audio From January 25th Rush Limbaugh Show Edition Rush Limbaugh: January 25, 2007 Transcript & Video (Login Required) "LIMBAUGH: Does that sound like Cheney is standing up in righteous indignation and pointing his finger at Blitzer and demanding that he shut up and accusing them doing a hit piece? Does it sound like that at all? No, it doesn't. Next question from Wolf Blitzer. "What if the Senate passes a resolution saying this is not a good idea? Will that stop you?" CHENEY [audio clip]: It won't stop us, and it would be, I think, detrimental from the standpoint of the troops, as General Petraeus said yesterday. He was asked by [Sen.] Joe Lieberman [I-CT], among others, in his testimony about this notion that somehow the Senate could vote overwhelmingly for him, send him on his new assignment, and then pass a resolution at the same time and say, "But we don't agree with the mission you've been given." LIMBAUGH: Right. By the way, we had a caller call, couldn't stay on the air, got a new name for Senator Hagel in Nebraska. We got General Petraeus, and we got Senator Betrayus. New name for Senator Hagel. Here's now one final bit -- well, two more. Question from Blitzer: "Here's the problem that you have. The administration, credibility in Congress with the American public, because of the mistakes, because of the previous statements, the 'last throes,' the comment you made a year and a half ago, the insurgency was in its last throes. How do you build up that credibility because so many of these Democrats and a lot of Republicans now are saying that they don't believe you anymore." * Or the September 7 broadcast of the CBS Evening News with Katie Couric, which featured Rush Limbaugh on its nightly "Free Speech" segment, where he said the following: * YouTube: CBS Evening News with Katie Couric: September 7, 2006 Broadcast "But some Americans, sadly, not interested in victory, and yet they want us to believe that their behavior is patriotic. Well, it's not. When the critics are more interested in punishing this country over a few incidents of Abu Ghraib and Guantánamo Bay than they are in defeating those who want to kill us, when they seek to destroy a foreign surveillance program which is designed to identify those who want to kill us and how they intend to do it, when they want to grant those who want to kill us U.S. constitutional rights, I don't call that patriotic. Patriotism is rallying behind the country, regardless of party affiliation, to defeat Islamofascism." * Or on the August 21, 2006, broadcast of his radio show, when he made the following rare disagreement with the president: * "Well, I think we -- it's time to stop dancing around this issue, folks, to tell you the truth. It's time for somebody to tell the people on the left, you're damn right we're questioning your patriotism." * * So, there's a clear pattern here, on Rush's part, of considering all those who disagree with the mission as not standing for the interests of America, considering all Republicans who dare question the war as those who can't possibly be Republican, to believing anyone who criticizes the administration's policy is in many respects unpatriotic. When I not only hear the whole transcript from beginning to end regaridng that "phony soldiers" bit, but also connect the dots from previous broadcasts, it certainly strikes me that Limbaugh was saying just that: that any soldier or veteran who has vocally disagreed with the president's policy is a "phony". quote: I more than doubt that myself, as I believe while his position on the SCHIP expansion is most unfortunate, I believe he is a good person and his veto was naive, but well-intentioned, and by no means malicious or mean-spirited, as I've always believed him to be a caring and protective father and family man outside of office, as well as believe he only wishes the best for all the youth of America, and there's simply disagreement on how we go about accomplishing that. When I say that the "GOP leadership" is perhaps involved in the political smear of Geaeme Frost, I'm actually referring to the Senate Minority Leader's office in particular, as is suggested in the report I cited. Sincerely, Noah Eaton "If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other" Mother Teresa [This message has been edited by Mistletoe Angel (10-12-2007 10:10 PM).] |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. You've lost Noah Accept it . . . . |
||
|
Mistletoe Angel
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816Portland, Oregon |
quote: If you say so! Seriously, though, don't worry about me. Worry about the approximately nine million children (19% of which are already eligible for SCHIP) who will remain uninsured for a while in terms of health coverage because it wasn't good enough for the President and not enough House Republicans were willing to offer their support to override his veto (which I commend the 18 Senate Republicans and 47 House Republicans who stood up and supported this bi-partisan legislation) Worry about Graeme Frost and his family who, thanks to a handful of partisan wackos on the far-right, now have their home address exposed on the web, where some psychopath or anyone in particular could just walk to their door and harrass the family with death threats, undesired media circuses, invasion of privacy, etc. Worry about the fact that Congress is seemingly unable to agree on anything these days, where it seems the only thing that was able to override a veto as of late was a bill condemning MoveOn.org's "General Betray-Us" newspaper ad, while efforts to expand children's health insurance, restore habeas corpus, offer our troops equal rest time between deployments, border security, the beginning of a phased withdrawal from Iraq, etc. gets stalled by one party or the other incessantly, and the American people are who loses the most from this hard-line partisanism. * I, myself, am fortunate to have grown up in a family that is in good health financially, and is well-insured and supported, so I don't believe I've lost anything myself here. Unfortunately, there are millions who are far less fortunate and endure far more adversity than I do, and they are ultimately the ones who lose here because politics reign over principle here.........again. Catholics United: SCHIP Radio Ad Campaign On the contrary, in the longer run, it is some of those who chose to play politics over something as essential as this who will lose come 2008, as a vast majority of Americans know that the president has vetoed the SCHIP expansion bill, staunchly disagree with him on doing so and believe him to be on the wrong side of public opinion here, and outrage and dissent is being heard from many corners, including Catholics United, which has launched a radio advertising campaign targeting ten members of Congress for voting against the SCHIP expansion; arguing that their opposition compromises their "pro-life" principles. According to the press release, the script reads the following: * "I'm the mother of three children, and I'm pro-life. I believe that protecting the lives our children must be our nation's number one moral priority. That's why I'm concerned that Congressman X says he's pro-life but votes against health care for poor children. That's not pro-life. That's not pro-family. Tell Congressman X to vote for health care for children. Call him today at XXXX, that's XXXXX." * That is certainly going to sting a little. Sincerely, Noah Eaton "If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other" Mother Teresa |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
CALLER 2: No, it's not, and what's really funny is, they never talk to real soldiers. They like to pull these soldiers that come up out of the blue and talk to the media. LIMBAUGH: The phony soldiers. Thank you,Noah, for proving my point. MoveOn.org has paraded these soldiers around only to find out that, after investigation, they had not even SERVED in Iraq! These are the soldiers that "come up out of the blue". You have printed nothing here that disagrees with my point. So, there's a clear pattern here, on Rush's part, of considering all those who disagree with the mission as not standing for the interests of America, considering all Republicans who dare question the war as those who can't possibly be Republican, to believing anyone who criticizes the administration's policy is in many respects unpatriotic. When I not only hear the whole transcript from beginning to end regaridng that "phony soldiers" bit, but also connect the dots from previous broadcasts, it certainly strikes me that Limbaugh was saying just that: that any soldier or veteran who has vocally disagreed with the president's policy is a "phony". Yes, Noah, you are connecting the dots alright, but only to paint the picture YOU want to see. A clear pattern? To who? You? That's not surprising. It strikes you....? Of course it does. That's the way you want it to strike you. That doesn't make it so. As I said before, it is not possible for anyone listening to Limbaugh to consider him "anti-soldier" or anti-military. Regardless of the many faults he does have, lack of patriotism and support of the military are not two of them. As I asked before, where are these accusations now? Hear anybody talking about them? Exposure to light sends these creatures back under the rocks. They are much safer picking on Bush or the republicans. When thay go after Rush they better have their facts straight because he is going to call them on it, as he did here. They count on people like you who simply echo their accusations without facts to carry on the sham. In this case there were not even enough of them to make it stick. Better luck next time.... |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Worry about the fact that Congress is seemingly unable to agree on anything these days, where it seems the only thing that was able to override a veto as of late was a bill condemning MoveOn.org's "General Betray-Us" newspaper ad, while efforts to expand children's health insurance, restore habeas corpus, offer our troops equal rest time between deployments, border security, the beginning of a phased withdrawal from Iraq, etc. gets stalled by one party or the other incessantly, and the American people are who loses the most from this hard-line partisanism. You mean the Congress with the 10% approval rating? The democratic congess who said "put us in power and we'll show you what we can do? Yes, I do worry about it. Having been put in power they have shown they can do absolutely nothing except raise the minimum wage....whoopsie doo. Now Pelosi is trying to get a bill passed to limit the number of investigations into illegal aliens until 2010. Why? Because illegals can't vote but they are still counted in the census, which will occur in 2010. That means the states with the largest number of illegal aliens - like California, her own state, will be able to place more representatives in congress based on the large population of illegals. There is your Nancy claning out the swamp. Worry about Congress with people like her and Reed in charge? Here I agree with you completely....we should ALL worry. |
||
|
Mistletoe Angel
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816Portland, Oregon |
quote: The whole purpose of providing the full transcript of both callers #1 and #2 is to show how, in no more than a span of four minutes and thirty-six seconds, Rush goes from demonizing the first caller, who says he's a Republican that also happens to oppose the war in Iraq, as can't possibly being a Republican because he opposes the war, to then talking with a second caller, who is calling to retort the first caller's point, that "real" soldiers want to be over in Iraq, where Limbaugh then agrees that all our troops joined in the first place to be over in Iraq, and thus anyone who disagrees with us being over in Iraq, who also has served, is a "phony soldier". Let me tell you something. My cousin Jeremy Shank, who passed away in Balad, Iraq (a town about 150 miles north of Baghdad) from injuries he suffered in Hawaijah while encountering enemy combatants using small arms fire during a dismounted security patrol on September 6th, 2006, and was assigned to the 2nd Battalion, 27th Infantry Regiment, 3rd Brigade, 25th Infantry Division at Schofield Barracks, Hawaii, dreamed for years to be a soldier, and finally got to enlist in the United States Army, on May 31st, 2005, after receiving a high school equivalency degree, where he graduated Basic Training and Advanced Individual Training at Fort Benning, Georgia shortly after doing so. He was very proud to have served this country from the day he enlisted to the day of his tragic passing, and never had any regrets in that respect for his life decision. St. Louis Post-Dispatch: September 8, 2006 (Original Link Of Source: No Longer On Server) Jeremy Shank was ALSO a longtime critic against this war, along with his father John Shank. A story published last September in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch detailed their anti-war sentiments, which is no longer on the site's server, but I have kept in a personal scrapbook in his memory, as well as a HTML of the article on my hard drive, which said the following: * "A former Belleville man whose teenage son was killed in Iraq this week lashed out at the U.S. involvement there, saying, "We have boys dying for some unguided reason." The dead soldier was Pfc. Jeremy R. Shank, 18. Shank was from Jackson, a town in Cape Girardeau County, about 100 miles south of St. Louis. He died Wednesday in Balad of injuries suffered in Hawijah when he encountered small arms fire during a dismounted security patrol. Shank's father, James Shank, said, "We need to be out of there." He said his son - who enlisted at the age of 17 - told his father as much in angry e-mails and a last phone call in late August. "He was scared and up to his elbows," the elder Shank said. Jeremy Shank left high school early, earned a high school equivalency degree and joined the Army in May 2005, his father said. "He was in a rebellious period and wanted to get out of the house," James Shank said. "But he was proud to be a soldier. It was what he wanted to do ... He was a hell of a kid." He was due to come home on leave in November. Jeremy Shank was stationed at Schofield Barracks in Hawaii and was one of 7,000 25th Infantry Division soldiers who deployed to Iraq in July. He was trained to speak Arabic and was with a striker force, his father said. It was the fourth death in recent days of servicemen in Iraq with ties to the St. Louis region. Earlier this week, Navy Petty Officer 2nd Class Christopher G. Walsh, 30, of St. Louis, was killed in Al Anbar province. Walsh was an emergency medical technician with the St. Louis Fire Department and served as a corpsman attached to a Marine unit. Army Staff Sgt. Michael L. Deason, 28, of Desloge, was killed on Aug. 31 in Ad War, Iraq, after a bomb exploded near his vehicle. Two days before that, Army Sgt. Matthew J. Vosbein was killed in Yusifiyah, Iraq, when a bomb exploded near his patrol. Vosbein was from Louisiana, according to the military, but was to be buried in West Frankfort, Ill., according to published reports." * Iraq War Heroes: Jeremy Shank: Homepage More recent stories are archived on his Iraq War Heroes memorial page, which some hint out more of his father's anti-war sentiments, like this one on the page's third featured article from the bottom: * "If our president pulled the guys out of Iraq today I wouldn't say Jeremy died in vain. But if more and more kids like Jeremy died, I would say he died in vain, because we didn't learn." * There's even some sentiments he's said that even I disagree with, as adamantly as I've opposed this war from the start, such as this is all about fighting the Crusades all over again. * So, because Jeremy Shank proudly served his country every step of the way, did everything that was expected of him, and was decorated with a Purple Heart, a Bronze Star Medal, an Expert Marksmanship Badge, the Combat Infantryman Badge and the National Defense Service Medal......yet also shared many of his father's anti-war sentiments at heart, suddenly makes him NOT a "real soldier" because part of him really didn't want to be over in Iraq, or didn't join the military specifically to go to Iraq, as much as he did love serving our country? Does that make Pat Tillman, a former professional football player who was proud to have enlisted in the United States Army and was assigned to the second battalion of the 75th Ranger Regiment in Fort Lewis, Washington in 2002 (before the war in Iraq began) who also happened to have been a confirmed staunch anti-war and President Bush critic and a avid Noam Chomsky reader, whose death was lied about repeatedly by the Pentagon, and deserved that Silver Star not because of that artificial patriotic window dressing that was made up, nor by courageously expressing his opinions and challenging the foreign policy status quo, but simply because he was Pat Tillman, selflessly serving boldly and honorably for his country............suddenly NOT a "real soldier" because he was a longtime critic of the war and that he enlisted without seeing Iraq would be where he was heading? The New York Times: October 12th, 2007 Does that make retired Lieutenant General Ricardo Sanchez, who used the do the job General Petraeus is currently doing in Iraq as the commander of coalition forces in Iraq from June 2003 to June 2004, also a lifetime registered Republican, who also happened to have harshly criticized the administration’s conduct of the war earlier this week in a gathering of military reporters near Washington as "desperate" and "a glaring and unfortunate display of incompetent strategic leadership within our national leaders.”..............suddenly NOT a Republican simply because he's speaking out aganst the war, and NOT a "real soldier" because he disagrees with us continuing to be over there indefinitely under a stay-the-course strategy, along with a prominent string of other retired generals? * You can believe what you will regarding what Limbaugh really said, but I've heard quite a bit of outrage from volunteers stationed back in Fort Carson, Colorado over his comment, which I have friends there who I regularly communicate with via e-mail, and just because you and others may interpret his comments one way doesn't mean many others will interpret them differently, just as we had different interpretations over some comments John Kerry made before the 2006 mid-term election, and one of my friends there, Weston Wells, even said a group of four soldiers there would like to invite Rush Limbaugh to come to Fort Carson, look them in the eye, and dare tell to their faces that they're phony soldiers because they enlisted not to go to Iraq, but rather for something far more selfless than any single mission: for God and country. Sincerely, Noah Eaton "If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other" Mother Teresa |
||
|
Mistletoe Angel
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816Portland, Oregon |
quote: Gazette.net (Maryland Community Newspapers Online): October 11th, 2007 She was NEVER my Nancy, Michael, as I repeatedly stated here in previous threads, even before the 2006 mid-term election, that I was most skeptical that Pelosi would ever live up to her ridiculous promises of making the 110th Congress the "most honest, ethical, and open Congress in history", especially considering that, as recently as this week, fundraising for Al Wynn (D-MD), one of the fifteen most corrupt representatives in Congress according to corruption watchdog groups. Why Harry Reid was ever considered for Senate Majority Leader without complaint is beyond me, also, given the trail of dirt that seems to follow wherever he goes, from the Laughlin, Nevada bridge investment scheme, to his supposed link to Jack Abramoff, to his profitting from a limited liability company land-parceling scheme, to $3,300 in Christmas condo gifts that came from his own political donation poll, to boxing tickets, etc.......that alone just answered my own disbelief to begin with, where those in the Democratic Party leadership claim they're going to "drain the swamp", yet agree to back perhaps the most corrupt Democratic senator without any productive debate. So, heck yeah we should all worry here when the status quo is a corrupted hybrid of "politics as usual". Sincerely, Noah Eaton "If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other" Mother Teresa |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Wow, this gets so confusing. As far as I can tell, the reference was to Moveon.org's video vets thing. I guess the point of contention is that vets in these videos did not serve in Iraq. Noah: Rush says that vets who are against the war are 'phony soldiers'. Mike: Rush did not say that soldiers are phony. Both are right. At the same time, Rush wants to downplay soldiers who are against the war. Moveon.org wants to emphasize their contribution. Is that not clear? Am I missing something? Problems happen when, amazingly enough, you start to extrapolate from all of this and think or feel: Rush wants to silence all opposition to his stance. Moveon.org will go to any length to advance their agenda. Both may be true, both may be false. It's just that neither institution (yes, Rush is an institution these days)actually said anyting like that. Maybe Moveon.org should be clearer or readers should be more careful. Maybe Rush should be more circumspect or listeners should be more forgiving. But if that happened, I suspect neither institution would be around for very long. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
quote: This is a very good point. I didn't want to see it buried. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Noah, no one, not even Rush, has called your cousin or Pat Tillman "not real soldiers" and I can certainly understand your cousin's father's anguish at the loss of his son as well as I can understand soldiers enlisting and not wanting to go to Iraq. In my time there were many who enlisted that did not want to go to Viet Nam, either. They went, not because they preferred the exciting life of walking through jungles with people shooting at them, but because they were called on to do so. None of this has anything to do with Limbaugh's statement. Here is the Limbaugh statement explaining his comment.. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rm84gOXkZaY&mode=related&search= Here is John Gibson's statement speaking of the Rush railroading.. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iA3KE7naoSA&mode=related&search= Here is the interview with Jesse MacBeth, the "phony soldier" that prompted the Limbaugh comment. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AC7Yk8eMh8E&mode=related&search= The rest is nothing more than Democrat spin, trying to create something that doesn't exist in their moveon.org petri dish. For you it has obviously worked - you are in the vast minority. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Brad, I'm with you. I don't understand that point, either. A long time ago I had a lump on my neck which continued to grow for a long time. When I couldn't ignore it any longer I went to a doctor. I had no health insurance and had not enrolled in the VA yet (another story). At any rate the doctor charged me 200 bucks to confirm that I indeed had a bump on my neck.He then told me we would do a biopsy and other testing and it would cost 1200 dollars, but don't worry because my insurance would pick it up. When I told him I didn't have any, he then changed the charge to 700. I've heard others say they had the same experience. Why a doctor would not do that in another state I don't understand but apparently it is done here, as it should be. (by the way, I enrolled into the VA the next week where the bump was discovered to be a benign tumor, had the surgery the next day and was back home in two days...all at no charge. Thank you, VA) |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
And, of course, Rush edited the transcript and the tape. translation: he made an off the cuff remark and decided that he needed to cover his rear end. The pot calls the kettle black, the kettle calls the pot . . . . |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
quote: And still another excellent point. Can somebody explain to me how this works? |
||
|
nakdthoughts Member Laureate
since 2000-10-29
Posts 19200Between the Lines |
Brad,I know I am a little off topic but even when I had health insurance when working for my husband's company and paying for over 30 years with no claim (I was healthy enough) that when I went for something like a cold I just paid for it over the years) anyway my one Dr would complain that it took a long time for insurance companies to pay. So I would sometimes pay cash ahead of time and would wait to get re-imbursed by the insurance company, except they would pay me 80% or what was "usual and customary" (a term that they must have made up). So I was always out the balance...and all I was doing was trying to make it easier for the Drs office. Now I try not to go to the Drs if I can help it. The last one I went to because I was about to go back to teaching after Xmas and I didn't want to have something contageous~~ he charged me $80 and that was a discount, to listen to my heart, check my throat and tell me to continue doing what I was doing and it took all of 10 minutes of his time. Anyway, health insurance as is home owners insurance are all sore subjects with me...you pay forever, never have a claim and then when you do after years and I mean 20-30 years, they find every excuse not to pay it unless you spend endless hours on the phone complaining and climbing the ladder until you reach a CEO who doesn't like being bothered and finally okays it. Most people give up by then. M |
||
|
Mistletoe Angel
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816Portland, Oregon |
quote: And let me say how I'm sooooo happy the VA offered you the utmost care and support you needed that you and all fellow veterans not only deserve, but need, wholeheartedly.  Some local VA shelters and clinics are struggling financially at the moment on the state level, sadly, and they recently had to close the 66-year old Fort Vancouver Barnes Regimental Chapel in Vancouver, Washington due to funding woes, along with seventeen other long-standing VA facilities in the Northwest. 13,000 patients annually from both Oregon and Washington were served there, veterans make up more than 11% of the Vancouver and Clark County population there, and before it had closed, patient numbers had been increasing more than three times their usual rate there, all of which are despairing numbers and trends. I pray the hundreds of thousands more currently serving, who come home, will be offered the kind of quality care like you and the many others who have served most honorably in previous generations received, as they not only deserve it, we owe it to every one of them. * As an aside, whenever I see John McCain on television, I can't help but always notice that large bump on the left side of his neck due to melanoma, which he has battled for about fifteen years. Indeed it certainly looks like a nasty, malignant cancer gauging by the bump, and I quite often pray for him to continue winning the fight against this terrible ailment.  Sincerely, Noah Eaton "If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other" Mother Teresa |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
yes, I have noticed that, too, Noah. If it's malignant he has major problems for sure...a real shame after all he has been through. Maureen, I agree with your anger completely. There are insurance companies and government offices which have standard practices that they deny the first two claim attempts automatically. They count on the claimant to get so frustrated they give up. It's a vicious, despicable practice. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Hey, Noah! Get you bid in while it's still under a million (talking about the Harry Reid smear letter, signed by Clinton, Obama and 39 other Democrats, designed to "get" Limbaugh) LOL! When will they learn....? |
||
|
Mistletoe Angel
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816Portland, Oregon |
No, this is my opinion on the whole Congressional intervention matter over political discourse from pundits and organizations: * 1) It should never have been allowed in the first place. The fact the US Senate had to publicly denounce the MoveOn ad was ridiculous, as the American people will clearly make up their minds over whether it was appropriate or inappropriate, and MoveOn is merely a partisan group that has every right to its opinions than any other partisan group. 2) SINCE Congress went ahead to condemn one group for bad-mouthing someone in our military, it is in my firmest belief that ALL those who voted FOR the condemnation of MoveOn ought to vote FOR the condemnation of Rush Limbaugh ALSO, while ALL those who voted AGAINST the condemnation of MoveOn ought to vote AGAINST the condemnation of Rush Limbaugh ALSO. * I, myself, am NOT going to latch on that signature/comment gathering effort by the Democratic establishment to condemn Limbaugh, and get involved, as I believe such interventionism is pretty pathetic, in my opinion, regardless of who the pundit or organization is. I will tell you something else, though, and that is what this whole interventionism matter really boils on down to is attempting to control what is acceptable speech and what is not, and neither party is the arbiter of that notion, period. Thus, just on a matter of principle and authenticity, I believe Udall's bill ought to be brought to a vote to, again, keep Congress honest and show who REALLY believes all remarks against military officials and volunteers ought to be condemned, and who was merely seeking political gain. Then, they must not resort to this sort of interventionism again, regardless of who says what on what side of the spectrum, which the public will decide how to react to any of those particular comments. Sincerely, Noah Eaton "If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other" Mother Teresa |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Noah, do you REALLY want me to go through and list all of the slurs against the military by the Democrats? It would take hours and you know it. If MoveOn, then Rush?? You must be joking even comparing the two. MoveOn is a sleaze organization that does nothing more then try to destroy anything it opposes. You must approve of their "General Betrayus" protrayal, then, of a soldier they are not worthy of licking the boots of? Or you want to say that their slurs of the military and the General are basically the same as rush saying that people who claimed to be in the military and/or in Iraq and were not are phony soldiers? Please..... |
||
|
Mistletoe Angel
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816Portland, Oregon |
quote: You have every right to do as you wish. I, meanwhile, could go through and list all of the instances in terms of their voting records the Bush Administration and GOP-led trifecta from 2001 to 2006 used our troops for photo-ops, or voted against some of the needs of our troops.......which that would certainly take hours also. quote: And you're suggesting Rush Limbaugh DOESN'T try and smear anyone he doesn't agree with? Like even calling Senator Chuck hagel "Senator Betray-Us" BEFORE MoveOn.org's disgraceful ad, simply for agreeing with the Democrats on a phased withdrawal from Iraq? * I did NOT approve of their full-page ad accusing General David Petraeus of being "General Betray-Us". They could have easily made an otherwise credible argument without having to resort to that kind of ad hominem name-calling. But I'll tell you something else also, and that is the president knew EXACTLY what he was doing BEFORE he even announced the so-called "surge" strategy in Iraq. The administration understands by now that most Americans are NOT going to take arguments in defense of a stay-the-course policy in Iraq seriously from an unpopular president and administration with approval ratings hovering between 24% and 35%, and anything they mouth will fall on deaf ears in the most part. New York Times: September 10th, 2007 So what to do in this sort of dilemma? As they have been doing since before the war in Iraq ever began, they KNOW that the American public trusts military commanders FAR more than Congress when it comes to the war, including a new New York Times/CBS News poll which shows Americans reiterating that fact by a whopping 68/21% margin. Worse yet, the administration was only trusted by an even more lowly 5%. Thus, they decided to USE a highly-respected and decorated four-star general. David Petraeus, as a puppet, and while the White House as always is in fact writing the reports, they created this PR campaign to make it appear as though Petraeus was the author of the report's findings, because they KNOW anyone who criticizes a highly decorated four-star general would look foolish, even anti-military, in the eyes of the public, and thus believed support for the war in Iraq would grow in result, deceiving the public in believing these popular military commanders came to the conclusion on improvements in Iraq, NOT an unpopular president and his neoconservative peers. Bush has, and continues, to use our troops as backdrops and photo-ops to continue pursuing their ill-fated stay-the-course policy, and while I DO, in fact, condemn the name-calling in MoveOn.org's latest "General Betray-Us" ad and believe it is a below-the-belt attack on him, as Petraeus was merely taking orders from the President, I absolutely believe the administration purposely used him as a shield, and THAT is no less disgraceful than what MoveOn has done, in my view: using military officials as political pawns and devices. * Yes, they are one of the same, I believe, and certainly I've been hearing many of these "phony soldiers" as Rush had accused those who hold views against the war phoning in. Sincerely, Noah Eaton "If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other" Mother Teresa |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Thus, they decided to USE a highly-respected and decorated four-star general. David Petraeus, as a puppet, and while the White House as always is in fact writing the reports, they created this PR campaign to make it appear as though Petraeus was the author of the report's findings, because they KNOW anyone who criticizes a highly decorated four-star general would look foolish, even anti-military, in the eyes of the public, and thus believed support for the war in Iraq would grow in result, deceiving the public in believing these popular military commanders came to the conclusion on improvements in Iraq, NOT an unpopular president and his neoconservative peers. Congrats, Noah. Moveon.org has done its work well. They get people like you to state as fact what they are trying to push without facts....unless, of course, you have facts to prove they used the general as a puppet. I would guess that you don't but just FEEL that it must be that way. I repeat...they have done their work well. |
||
|
Mistletoe Angel
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816Portland, Oregon |
quote: Congratulations.........the White House and Rush Limbaugh have certainly done a good job keeping you in line, deifying seemingly every word they say as gospel. I can honestly say, as it is, that I haven't even VISITED MoveOn.org since October 2004, when they put together a television ad including the video excerpt of when Bush was joking about failing to find "weapons of mass destruction", where he was looking under his desk and joking "None under here!", etc. which before the 2004 presidential election I thought was a most fair and telling ad, and my father contributed $25 to them then to help air the ad. CNN: August 16, 2007 I certainly DON'T need interest groups like MoveOn.org to hold a natural suspicion and distrust of any excuse this administration makes up about our continuing involvement in Iraq. In fact, a majority of Americans in a handful of polls before Petraeus and Crocker appeared in Congress all revealed they "don't trust the upcoming report by the Army's top commander in Iraq on the progress of the war and even if they did, it wouldn't change their mind." They get it: they know the White House wrote the "surge" report, not General Petraeus, and merely used Petraeus as cover in the attempt to hide their own incompetence, and sell the same failed war strategy they had already sold thrice before. Much of this, by the way, isn't because they think lowly of General Petraeus at all. I myself commend Petraeus' service and dedication. He has a most impressive and commendable resume, from earning the General George C. Marshall Award as the top graduate of the U.S. Army Command and General Staff College Class of 1983, to the dozens of deserved badges and medals he has received for his versatile number of talents and experiences in the military. It's rather because Petraeus is being set up as the arbiter of the report, when in fact the report is entirely the doing of the White House, which obviously want to cook the books and statistics to make it sound better than it actually is, including re-defining what "sectarian violence" is so to make it sound like it has plunged 75% since the surge began, or crediting the surge for all the changes in the an-Anbar province despite the fact it was happening before the surge ever began, because Sunni tribal leaders didn't appreciate al-Qaeda meddling with their affairs, thus fought them off. * Most Americans saw, and continue to see, through the political charades of this report, and THAT is why most Americans were rightfully already distrusting toward the report, and NOT having anything to do with disrespecting Petraeus and his service. And certainly they didn't need MoveOn to see the truth: the patterns of failed leadership by this administration on Iraq explained enough. * And while this thread is on the subject of vetoes, perhaps I should remind you of who it was that was intending to veto a piece of legislation that would have given our troops more rest between deployments in Iraq.........until the GOP (minus some courageous Republicans who broke from their party to support the bill including eight GOP senators) decided to filibuster it. Earlier this month, I watched this very powerful, special one-hour edition of "NOW" on PBS that documented the war in Iraq through the eyes of some of our troops serving there, in the Third Infantry's First Brigade from Fort Stewart, Georgia, as well as their families back home, which the children of many of these fathers serving overseas have grown from babies to toddlers, from toddlers to schoolchildren, with their fathers barely ever getting to see them grow up because of their constant redeployment and lack of rest time. One of them, Seargent Mike Obert, was only allowed a rest time of 18 days after recently completing his latest deployment there, and other troops serving in that brigade interviewed expressed similar, limited times off they were allowed. Beyond that, the issue of these troops working with borrowed equipment, as well as having much shorter training than ever there, was brought up often from our young men and women in uniform, while others interviewed agreed that "the more deployments you go on, the more likely you'll get killed due to physical exhaustion and fatigue." Obviously, we all, as Americans, take the protection, physical health and alertness of our young men and women in uniform most seriously. Yet, most of the GOP establishment, on September 19th of last month, chose to vote AGAINST offering them more much-deserved (and much-needed) R&R between deployments, thus leaving our young men and women more weakened than ever by fatigue and stress in the deserts of Iraq. Even more incredible, STILL, is that when you put things into overall perspective, the Pentagon brass, in fact, usually requires TWICE as much rest as deployment, where Webb's bill was actually quite modest in that it was only asking for HALF that much rest. Yet, most of the GOP establishment still say "NO!" This is part of what I was talking about earlier regarding how the GOP may know how to walk the walk when talking about who does and who doesn't support our troops, but when it comes to walking the walk, they actually have a very abysmal record when it comes to their votes. And the aforementioned vote is just one of many votes that highlights that divide between how they talk and how they walk. * The bottom line is, your party lost its majorities in Congress last November NOT because the American public loves the Democrats (most Americans, including myself, are very angry with the Democrats also) but because the GOP chose to deify the President on virtually everything, offering a rubber-stamp to everything from Iraq to his executive power grab, even if it meant compromising some of our democratic cornerstones, and the public responded in sound rejection to this blank-check government. Washington Post: October 1st, 2007 Apparently many in the GOP establishment still don't understand why they lost in 2006 yet, and as they are on the wrong side of public opinion on BOTH the Iraq war and the SCHIP expansion, they will all but certainly lose more seats in the Senate in particular come November of next year (Sununu's seat in New Hampshire, as well as open seats in Colorado and Virginia in particular) Sincerely, Noah Eaton "If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other" Mother Teresa |
||
|
|
⇧ top of page ⇧ |
|
| All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format. | ||
