Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Gary
climber
Desolation Basin, Calif.
|
|
|
Jan 28, 2011 - 10:12am PT
|
GOP to Teabaggers: F*#k you, go away!
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-tea-party-20110128,0,3387154.story?track=rss&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+latimes%2Fnews%2Fpolitics+%28L.A.+Times+-+Politics%29
Although dozens of Republicans sailed into office with the help of the conservative "tea party" movement last year, finding a self-identified "tea party Republican" on Capitol Hill is harder than you'd think.
The first meeting of the Senate Tea Party Caucus on Thursday attracted just four senators — out of 47 GOP members — willing to describe themselves as members. The event was as notable for who wasn't there as who was.
Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), once a tea party favorite, has for now declined to join the caucus, whose first meeting was organized by Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.).
Sen. Ron Johnson, a Wisconsin Republican whose campaign sprung from the small-government movement, has said he's unsure if he'll join. Sen. Pat Toomey (R-Pa.) showed up to address the group of activists, but then hustled out of the room, ignoring reporters' questions about whether he was in or out.
The reluctance shows how the purposefully disjointed movement and its crop of outspoken and controversial leaders, although a powerful force in the campaign that spurred Republicans to a big midterm victory, are still viewed as risky allies even for conservative politicians.
|
|
corniss chopper
climber
not my real name
|
|
|
Jan 28, 2011 - 11:54am PT
|
DR F - Our country is broke. To start fixing it the Govt must spend less.
You worthless eaters are going to be forced into the fantastic lifestyle of getting by on your own, just like the rest of us.
Up to the challenge Dr F?
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
|
Jan 28, 2011 - 03:10pm PT
|
WHY is it that every idea you can come up with, Fattrad, along with your Republican leadership, supports DEATH over LIFE?
Because like a lot of right wingers, he's scared shitless of the bogeyman.
|
|
bookworm
Social climber
Falls Church, VA
|
|
|
Jan 28, 2011 - 04:48pm PT
|
proof that libs hate children:
Child-only health plans endangered
By: Sarah Kliff and J. Lester Feder
January 27, 2011 01:29 PM EST
Health insurers in 34 states have stopped selling child-only insurance policies as a result of the health reform law, and the market continues to destablize.
According to a survey of state insurance departments by Republican Senate committee staff and obtained by POLITICO, states that have seen carriers exit the market include those that have been ardent supporters of the health reform law, like California and Oregon. Twenty states now have no insurers offering child-only policies.
Since September, the health reform law has barred insurers from withholding policies to children under 19 who have a pre-existing condition. Rather than take on the burdensome cost of writing policies for potentially-pricey medical conditions, many carriers decided to leave the market altogether.
The Department of Health and Human Services responded by changing the rule to allow states to institute an open enrollment period for child-only health insurance plans. The move was meant to stop subscribers from jumping on plans only when they were diagnosed with a medical condition.
But the regulation seems to have done little to stop carriers from leaving the market.
“We only know of one company [a local affiliate of Blue Cross Blue Shield] offering child-only health insurance,” Dan Honey, Deputy Commissioner for Life and Health in the Arkansas Department of Insurance, said Thursday. “The actual law federal law requires no underwriting for pre-existing conditions, which means guaranteed issue. Of course once HHS came out with that directive, that’s when a lot of companies started balking.”
One of the largest insurance markets in the country, Texas, has seen all their carriers drop child-only health insurance, as have other large states including Florida and Illinois.
Other states that no longer have carriers selling child-only plans include Alaska, Arizona, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Minnesota, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Utah, West Virginia and Wyoming, according to the investigation by GOP staff on the Senate Health, Labor and Pensions Committee.
Sen. Mike Enzi (R-Wyo.) pressed Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius on the issue at a Thursday morning hearing.
“It’s absolutely devastating,” Enzi said. “The outcome is predictable as a result of the drafting that would allow people to buy a policy on the way to the emergency room.”
When asked for what “specific steps” she would take to remedy the situation, Sebelius pushed back against the notion that the new regulation would lead to widespread disruption.
|
|
Gary
climber
Desolation Basin, Calif.
|
|
|
Jan 28, 2011 - 05:46pm PT
|
I believe You LIE, FATTRAD because I DON'T believe you are an Idiot. I believe you are up to your ass in a hole and your future depends on sucking up to your leadership so that you can CONTINUE to profit from the "investing" of THEIR money.
That's probably why he has to lie about being a CPA.
|
|
Ken M
Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
|
|
|
Jan 28, 2011 - 07:28pm PT
|
I think it's time to start making it socially unacceptable to vote Republican. No more "respectful differences" with your friends or family members--if they vote Republican, ask them if they support withdrawing aid to 13-year-old rape victims (or the mentally I'll, disabled, threatened, or just plain terrified). If they're like "Well, no...I don't focus on that stuff. I just want a tax cut," it behoooves us all to tell them, "You're willing to tolerate financial coercion of rape victims for your pathetic little tax cut? F*#k you!"
The best part is, this isn't even a cost-saving measure. If Medicaid doesn't pay for the abortion, then they're paying for the birth which is ALWAYS more expensive. They're also paying benefits for the child for the next 18 years.
If the Framers had wanted 13 year-old rape victims to have an abortion, they would have put it in the Constitution.
'The GOP, supporting child rape since 2011'.
|
|
corniss chopper
climber
not my real name
|
|
|
Jan 28, 2011 - 08:17pm PT
|
Since Liberals have confessed to the obscene position that they see no wrong with requiring Conservatives to give up their hard eared money as taxes to support the millions of lazy Leftist entitlement leeches..
..the reverse situation must logically be agreeable. Which is the enslavement of the entitlement classes into factory sweatshops to work at producing whatever we deem is profitable for our side.
Whats good for the goose is good for the gander
Not so fun anymore is it Lib's?
|
|
corniss chopper
climber
not my real name
|
|
|
Jan 28, 2011 - 11:46pm PT
|
Dr F - all the people taking Government aid are exactly like a climbing
partner who insists you haul his lazy ass up the pitch after you lead it.
Dead weight haul the whole way.. Not just a little tension at the crux.
And this goes on pitch after pitch, day after day, on a route that goes
on forever.
Now there just happens to be a knife in your pocket...
|
|
Ken M
Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
|
|
|
Jan 29, 2011 - 03:00am PT
|
LEB says:
We have created huge classes of dependent people who literally now would perish without the various entitlements.
The whole dynamics is sort of like when you feed some nice deserving kittys.....
It is almost as though things have reached a proportion where the numbers of productive people versus the numbers of people dependent on them has maxed out.
LEB, I've truncated the non-relevant portions of your post. In the first, you make the point, which I think you believe honestly, that we have these classes who would perish without the entitlements. Let me concede your point for the purposes of discussion. If that is true, termination of such entitlements are a sentence of death.
You should be aware that "those people" quite disproportionately are representeded by minorities, and as such, such "termination programs" have the feel of a genocide. That may not be the "intent" buy you should understand that it looks that way, from an outcomes standpoint.
In the second paragraph, you compare these dependents to animals. This is an unfortunate comparison, following on the heels of a genocide argument, as it tends to dehumanize and devalue "those people." Once again, appearance of words matter.
In your third paragraph, you make the economic argument that the time to begin the termination programs is about here. This is incredibly far from the truth, when you consider the astonishing transfer of national wealth from the middle and lower class to the upper elite. When it is suggested that those astonishingly wealthy people give up a LITTLE of their wealth, to the benefit of survival of the poorest, it is described as "obscene". In fact, the wealth of this country, compared to any other country IN HISTORY, is astonishing.
|
|
Ken M
Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
|
|
|
Jan 29, 2011 - 03:05am PT
|
Since Liberals have confessed to the obscene position that they see no wrong with requiring Conservatives to give up their hard eared money as taxes to support the millions of lazy Leftist entitlement leeches..
Wrong. The position is requiring OBSCENELY WEALTHY to give up *a little* of their generally not particularly earned money to support the millions of those that are prevented from earning a meaningful living by the policies of those same wealthy oligarchs.
|
|
Ken M
Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
|
|
|
Jan 29, 2011 - 03:16am PT
|
Corniss, inasmuch as pretty much every American can be shown to have benefitted financially from some gov't program, you have a pretty fair argument to convert the country to a monarchy, as all of us would lose the right to vote. You too.
Note that you didn't advocate ILLEGAL benefits. you advocate ANY benefits.
Like when you deducted expenses, dependents, exemptions, deductions, etc, etc. When you benefitted from a gov't supported loan. The VA. FHA home purchase. When the firemen put out the fire in your house. Any.
|
|
bookworm
Social climber
Falls Church, VA
|
|
|
Jan 29, 2011 - 07:48am PT
|
egypt? who cares about the people of egypt?
here's how a real secretary of state speaks truth to power:
http://www.verumserum.com/?p=20976
so much for hopenchange
|
|
Jaybro
Social climber
Wolf City, Wyoming
|
|
|
Jan 29, 2011 - 09:56am PT
|
Hey Fattrad, I have a question. Not strictly political, just for information.
Why do we send money to Israel? The most? Seems like they are pretty ontop of things and boast to the world of their agressive self-sufficiency. Why then, do they need our welfare?
Same question for Egypt.
Maybe send that in email, as it may be a week before I click on this thread again.
|
|
shut up and pull
climber
|
|
|
Jan 29, 2011 - 11:05am PT
|
RACIST LIBERALS RUNNING THE TOP LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY IN THE COUNTRY! GEE, WHAT A SURPRISE.
FROM POWERLINE TODAY:
The corruption of the Department of Justice under Barack Obama and Eric Holder is one of the saddest of many sad stories that have emerged from the Obama administration. Under Obama, the Department has been politicized to a degree this country has never experienced; certainly not in its modern history.
Yesterday the Civil Rights Commission released its final report on its investigation of the New Black Panthers case. That case presented the question--seemingly not a difficult one--whether it is permissible for political partisans, at least one of them an official of the Democratic Party, to wield weapons and make threats outside a polling place on election day for the purpose of deterring members of an opposing political party from voting.
Yet it seems that Barack Obama and Eric Holder approve of such threats of violence and want them to continue in the future, as long as the clubs are wielded on behalf of the Democratic Party. Thus, they quashed the prosecution of the New Black Panthers that had been commenced by professionals at DOJ. The Civil Rights Commission has now completed its investigation of the Obama administration's conduct in the New Black Panthers case and its findings are shocking. Jennifer Rubin, now writing for the Washington Post, reports:
"The statements indicate several points: 1) the New Black Panther Party case brought by career Justice Department employees was meritorious on the law and the facts; 2) there is voluminous evidence of the Obama administration's political interference in the prosecution of the New Black Panther Party case; 3) there is ample evidence that the Obama administration directed Justice Department employees not to bring cases against minority defendants who violated voting rights laws or to enforce a provision requiring that states and localities clean up their voting rolls to prevent fraud; 4) the Justice Department stonewalled efforts to investigate the case; and 5) vice chairman Abigail Thernstrom has, for reasons not entirely clear, ignored the evidence and tried to undermine the commission's work."
Jennifer quotes Civil Rights Commissioner Todd Gaziano, who describes the Obama administration's obstruction of the investigation:
"After a year of DOJ's intransigence and baseless refusals to comply with our subpoenas, two Department attorneys bravely defied orders to testify before the Commission: the former Civil Rights Division Voting Section chief, Christopher Coates, and a lead trial attorney in the NBPP case, J. Christian Adams. Their testimony and the sworn affidavits from former DOJ staff portray a pervasive culture of hostility to race-neutral enforcement of civil rights laws in the Civil Rights Division. The detailed allegations include: a former section chief who doctored a memo to try to prevent a meritorious case from being filed against black defendants, racially offensive statements by several supervisors and staff, and repeated instances of harassment and intimidation directed against anyone willing to work on lawsuits against minority defendants."
The Obama Justice Department, in other words, is both racist and lawless.
|
|
shut up and pull
climber
|
|
|
Jan 29, 2011 - 11:09am PT
|
REMEMBERING REAGAN.
FROM POWERLINE TODAY:
Ronald Reagan's 100th birthday is February 6. The Examiner has a series of appreciations titled "Ronald Reagan at 100." Michael Barone's contribution reminds me how deep Reagan's roots went into our history. Here are a few excerpts:
The way to make a living, he decided, was in the new mass medium of radio. Dixon is 100 miles straight west of Chicago, and the signals of Chicago's clear channel radio stations come in loud and clear. And in the 1920s, stations in Chicago, not New York or Los Angeles, were the great innovators, presenting the first situation comedies, sportscasts and national convention coverage. Listening to the radio in his parents' homes in Dixon, Dutch Reagan was at the cutting edge of innovative mass media. ...
Only three presidents since 1900 have won popular vote majorities more than once: Franklin Roosevelt, Dwight Eisenhower and Ronald Reagan. On the surface, all three seemed men of great geniality, but in fact none of them had any really close friends or anyone in whom they fully confided, except for Reagan -- and his confidante was his wife, Nancy. Beneath the smiles there was a certain cold, inaccessible calculation. ...
"I think it would be hard to be president without having been an actor," he once said. His greatest performance may have been after he was shot. In the process of losing half his blood, he insisted on walking into the hospital and buttoning his jacket, before collapsing on the floor when he was out of camera range.
After all these years, Ronald Reagan's stature continues to grow, to the point where even Barack Obama, who is about as ideologically hostile to Reagan as one could be, tries to wrap himself in the Reagan mantle.
|
|
Douglas Rhiner
Mountain climber
Truckee , CA
|
|
|
Jan 29, 2011 - 12:18pm PT
|
CMac should ban you for such bad language, bright people do not have to resort to name calling.
Jeff....... by your logic you should be banned and are not a very bright person.
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Jan 29, 2011 - 01:03pm PT
|
Dr F, all the people taking Government aid are exactly like a climbing
partner who insists you haul his lazy ass up the pitch after you lead it. -- CC
What a narrow-minded blow hard.
Certainly, some folks take advantage of Gov't welfare, but many kind folks couldn't survive without it. The food stamp program has surged recently. Do you wonder why?
The Goldman Sachs CEO tripled his income this last year. Did you pay any attention to the settlement they made with the SEC over their Avalon scheme? Why not point fingers at the folks who are really stealing from our Gov't?? And I'm talking a tune of hundreds of Billion$, not the chump change that the Tea Party Express focuses on.
Why don't folks look at the real thieves? Because Beck, Palin, Fox, and the MSM don't want you to look over there. That's their bread & butter, ya know.
|
|
Ken M
Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
|
|
|
Jan 29, 2011 - 01:06pm PT
|
Again, I proposed no remedies. I simply outlined the dynamics of the problems. I did never suggest terminating benefits to anyone who would perish without them.
I said we created a very unhealthy dynamic - via motives which were good, bad or otherwise. I did not then follow with a proposal for how we should remedy the situation although looking for solutions would probably be a good idea.
Animals are not bad entities. A huge number of people on this forum love animals to include dogs, cats, etc. We don't find kitties unappealing or hateful at all. My kitty sleeps on my bed with me every night. I love my dog intensely and hug her all the time. If she is cold when we are camping she sleeps pressed up right against us for warmth. Animals are a very positive entity to huge numbers of people on this forum.
First you define a problem clearly and accurately, then you look for solutions.
Except that youve used this cat analogy a number of times, in which the point of your post was: don't feed the cats!
When you state that you did not suggest terminating benefits for people who would perish without them, you apparently don't quite realize that when you have repeated called for cutting back government budgets, but leave alone defense and other conservative priorities, YOU ARE ADVOCATING TERMINATING SUCH BENEFITS.
Are there abuses? Yes. Should they be examined? Yes. However, this is NOT the approach of your party. It is wholesale slashing of support structures and safety nets, that particularly effect children, disabled, and the ill.
How do they go out and get better paying jobs?
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!