Anyone who gets his info from "The Nation" would wear the shirt because it hides the dirt.

It would be nice if people who knew what they were doing could get together and make suggestions outside of politics.

It's great that we have the best healthcare in the world for those that can afford it, but we have to have some concern for those that can't afford it. Especially the basics. If we can afford to save a Greek, we should be able to give an American a mammogram at a reasonable price.

Okay Bee, got me dead to rights. I used the term tread in reference to you latest tirade against another one of my opinions. Mea-Culpa on that point and just so we're on the same page, let's look at how my alleged emotional straw man attack against you started and let's look at the syntax used to determine who's emotionally over the edge and who's not.


















Oh well, maybe this source won't have right wing connections.

INDEPTH: HEALTH CARE
Introduction
CBC News Online | February 16, 2006

One Supreme Court decision may have done more to change health care in Canada than three major reports and a first ministers conference that ended with a $41-billion infusion into the system.

On June 9, 2005, the high court struck down a Quebec law that prohibited people from buying private health insurance to cover procedures already offered by the public system.

"Access to a waiting list is not access to health care," two of the justices wrote in their decision.

The Quebec and federal governments asked the high court to suspend its ruling for 18 months. Less than two months after its initial ruling, the court agreed to suspend its decision for 12 months, retroactive to June 9, 2005.

In the provincial government's response in February 2006, Premier Jean Cherest said the private sector could play a role in health care in Quebec, but said he remained committed to public health care. He also said Quebec will introduce guaranteed wait times for procedures including some radiation treatments and cardiac surgery, as well as knee and hip replacements and cataract operations.

The ruling has impact only on Quebec, but it could eventually lead to some of the biggest changes since former Saskatchewan premier Tommy Douglas was credited with fathering medicare. Most Canadians take government-funded health care for granted today, but when it was first introduced in Saskatchewan in 1962, most of the province's doctors responded by going on strike to protest against "creeping socialism."

The strike lasted three weeks - public support for the doctors had collapsed, persuading the doctors to accept a deal with the government. Within five years, government-funded health care spread across the country.

While most Canadians - 80 per cent according to Statistics Canada - are satisfied with their access to the health care system, many experience long waits to see a specialist, get diagnostic tests and undergo elective surgery. Others find themselves facing huge bills for prescription drugs they need to survive.

A long wait for hip replacement surgery was what prompted the Quebec case that wound up before the Supreme Court.

George Zeliotis argued his yearlong wait for surgery was unreasonable, endangered his life, and infringed on the charter's guarantee of the right to life, liberty and security. The second plaintiff, Dr. Jacques Chaoulli, wanted the court to overturn a Quebec provision preventing doctors who don't operate within the medicare plan from charging for services in public hospitals.

Once upon a time, there were few complaints about lengthy waits for treatment. It was a time when the federal government provided about a third of the money the provinces spent on health care.

But as government belts tightened to deal with record budget deficits in the early 1990s, complaints about access to health care increased. The federal government – with Paul Martin as the finance minister in charge of the books – drastically cut the amount of money it transferred to the provinces to cover health-care costs.

By the time another former Saskatchewan premier - Roy Romanow - released his landmark report on fixing medicare in 2002, Ottawa had slashed its share to about 16 per cent of the total. Romanow recommended an immediate infusion of federal dollars, to bring Ottawa's share up to 25 per cent.

With Romanow's landmark report under their belts, the nation's first ministers gathered in Ottawa in February 2003 for a meeting that was described as the most important session on health care since Canada adopted medicare. The prime minister, premiers and territorial leaders got together to try to turn some of Romanow's recommendations into action.

In the end, they agreed on several improvements:
• $16-billion, five-year Health Reform Fund for primary care, home care and catastrophic drug coverage
• $13.5 billion in new federal funding to the provinces over three years
• $2.5 billion cash infusion for 2003
• $600 million for information technology
• $500 million for research
The premiers said they were signing on reluctantly and that much of the money had already been promised. In the end, they said, they were getting about half of what Romanow recommended. The territorial leaders, on the other hand, didn't even sign the agreement. They argued that Ottawa was being inflexible - the north would be receiving the same amount of money per capita as the rest of the country, despite the much higher costs of delivering health care in Canada's most remote regions.

To a large degree, the 2004 federal election turned into a debate about the future of health care in Canada. The Liberals accused the newly united Conservatives of plotting to turn medicare into a two-tiered system where those who could afford to pay more would be able to buy speedier access to the system.

The Liberals campaigned on a pledge to fix the system, while keeping it a system accessible to all. Their commitment:
• Ensuring stable, predictable long-term funding.
• Implementing a National Waiting Times Reduction.
• Creating a National Home Care Program.
• Developing a national strategy for prescription drug care.
• Respecting the Canada Health Act.
Less than two months after the election, Prime Minister Martin convened a first ministers conference on health care. It was to last three days. Alberta Premier Ralph Klein stuck around for only the first day.

In the end, the conference lasted longer than planned, with most of the work done behind closed doors. There was a deal that provided for a $41-billion infusion into the system over 10 years.

Among the key parts of the agreement:
• $3.5 billion over two years in additional transfers to the provinces and territories.
• An "escalator clause" that automatically boosts transfers by six per cent a year to keep up with rising health costs.
• $4.5 billion over six years for a special fund to reduce waiting times for treatment.
In addition, a National Wait Times Strategy will be developed for five priority areas: cancer care, cardiac treatment, diagnostic tests such as MRIs, joint replacements and cataract surgeries. The provinces have agreed to meet nationally-set benchmarks on waiting times, which are to be set by December 2005.

There may have been smiles and handshakes around the table, but the deal may not have been enough to persuade the Supreme Court that the health-care system was off the critical list.


And yes Bee, it is possible to want an answer to our social ills while insisting on accountability because once any program is started and people become totally dependent on it, it become easier for poilticians to throw more money, ours, at any related problems than to fix it. And yes, it irks me that because my eighty year old mother in Florida is not Haitian or some other pet minority or foreign poster children, she can't get anywhere near as much of the social benefits as they do and so we, her children, some retired, pay for what is not covered so that others, including ILEEEGALs as you sacrcastically put it, can have the free access granted by liberals.

As for my emotionally driven attacks, please review my posts and see if I have been consistently emotionally driven and totally closed to dicussing anything with anyone. I surrender to the forum.

Takin' bets on the nature of her response?

Nope, that's a suckers bet.

I'd be interested to know your response to my response about how free market principles aren't exactly applicable to the medical industry.

As is responding to your tirade about Canadian healthcare.

Once again, I'll say:



When you are ready to discuss UHC in this country, I'll be happy to do it.

Until then, go ahead and effectively block discussion of American UHC. I will say this. you are determined to keep up with the distraction, the insincere mea culpas, and the accusations of others calling you "heartless" when in fact no one has done so.

I put up enough factual info to blow your distractions and straw man arguments out of the water. I don't see that doing so again is even remotely interesting.

[shrug]

Rene, does that mean you agree with those parts of what I said?

So do his few remaining followers.




He even lies about the fish he catches. Pathological liar stuff. [shakes head]


Republicans have effectively lowered the bar so low on ethical behavior and expectations, that Saddam and Castro are looking reasonable.

That is going to be their legacy for the next 10 years at least.

I remember that fish story of his---



Hmmmm..... ....oh really, George? The world record perch was caught way back in 1865--in New Jersy---and it weighed 4.3 pounds*

*http://www.dnr.state.md.us/dnrnews/pressrelease2006/031606a.html

Another thing I loved about that was that Georgie boy considered catching a big fish the high point of his presidency---

Really, George? That was the high point?

Let's compare how 3 presidents answered the question:

"What would you consider the high point of your presidency?

Jimmy Carter: "The Camp David negotiations."

Bill Clinton: "The resolution of the Kosovo Crisis."

And drum roll, please.......

George Bush: "That time I caught a big fish on my ranch."**


**And he lied about that!

The pond is artificial and stocked with fish



What is it about these guys and killing pets?.

Got some thought processes generating ideas there. Had to read it more than once to make sure I was understanding it, in between getting distracted.



If we were talking just coverage for those stuck with Medicaid/Medicare or the uninsured, the 10% abuse/fraud figure wouldn’t hurt as much. Go universal with mandatory national enrollment and I’m outside of my comfort zone again for more than one reason. The percentage of acceptable fraud at 10% could equate to something around 3+ million people and hundreds of millions of dollars? I’m also leery of the mandatory forced enrollment in any universal/social plan with any possibility of someone, who’s now not part of the uninsured problem and is paying for their own health insurance coverage they need, having that right or ability taken away or charged more for such service, than they do now.

But, you do make some very good observations and I would suggest that your requirement for mandatory enrollment in some form of health insurance, whether private or a pseudo-government universal plan is a reasonable one that should be pursued. At least some states are pursuing that requirement now and maybe the monies doled out to the states by the fed could be better served in such plans.

If there was a pseudo-government program along the lines of yours, I’d like to have it include allowing insurance providers to compete for individual or subsidized premiums, along the line of open seasons, and allowing for the individuals to pick from a list of provider which meet establish coverage guidelines, much as they do with the federal employees programs.

As for the costs associated with hospitals investing in high cost technologies, I support them. Although an argument can be made for increasing cost associated with hospitals investing in technologies to compete for clientele, the more of those machines and technologies, the better for a lot of us in the long run with shorter wait times to get at them. When it comes to costs, we should also look to see how much of an impact malpractice insurance rates and litigious settlements account for the fifty dollar q-tip charge. (deliberately exaggerated…slightly)

I am for finding a way to include those without health insurance now without lowering the bar of standards enjoyed by those already insured. Somewhere, in the middle ground there’s a solution that meets everyone’s needs. Besides, once everyone has some form of health insurance, we can then dismiss the lack of health insurance benefits as a reason not to work.

We can then discuss a flat tax?



Not entirely. It means I intended to reply, got distracted and accidentially hit the Add Reply button when I had to get off of the machine to do a honey do. It's a hundred and five today and I'm trying to reheck this forum and another during my brief cool down breaks and errand runs.

That must be a radioactive pond he's got---cuz he said the perch he caught almost twice as big as the world's record---

And btw---a short time after he got back, his staff went back to the Official White House Transcripts and altered the response he gave in the German newspaper--they changed "perch" to "bass"...

I am not sure that he ever caught a fish.

Says something about the current administrations attitude, ya think?

Catching fish in a barrel, shooting caged birds, fleecing innocent sheeples.

Talking about fish, that's really some red herring you keeping fishing with. It is possible to have choice and UHC. They have both in England.



You mean expand the Federal Employees insurance to low income household? Gee, that's exactly what Edwards proposed. What a coincidence.

The more complex you make the plan, the bigger the bureaucracy will be to administer it .



That's not really part of the problem. It's far costlier to shield the bad doctors from accountablilty.






Heaven forbid the government lie or waste tax-payer dollars on things people actually need.

Fraud could be kept below 3 million people because that's not where the fraud lies. Most of it is committed on the doctor/hospital/billing dept. end, which is made easy and compounded by our present sytem.

It's not, you know, that people are rushing out to have unnecessary angiograms or proctoscope exams. The bulk of the fraud lies in providers billing for procedures tests and services not performed at all. The money goes into the provider's pocket, sometimes with a kickback to the fake patient but usually without the patient's knowledge. The ease of this type of fraud comes from the billing process, which produces (a) bills that might as well be written in Greek for all that a patient can understand what's being billed for and say "no, I didn't receive that test." ( The use of no-claim-form-needed insurance plans that are marketed to consumers by touting as their primary benefit that patients DON'T have to review bills and sign that yes, they receieved that test; and © the use of emergency rooms and clinics by the poor, government-insured, (MediCaid, CHIPS, Indigent Medical Services) in lieu of a family doctor. This makes it difficult to detect docs/hospitals whose prescribing and ordering patterns would stand out as red flags under other circumstances.

As for your ref to 3 million people, I think you're confusing fraud in disability status and malingering, car insurance and worker's comp fraud, with general medical "fraud, waste and abuse". Those are separate issues from regular fraud, though they usually go hand in hand and are made easier, not harder, by our present system. As it is, someone who claims a work injury, fake disability, or staged car accident is directed to docs who specialize in such cases and work with sleazy attorneys, and the "victims" kickback usually comes in the form of SSI payments or worker's comp wage substitutes. Were coverage universal, such fraud would be reduced, not increased, because the "normal" pattern would be for regular family docs to be treating most of these cases, and a doc who seemed to have an unusually large number of such cases would stick out. Under our present system, with Medicaid, worker's comp etc. being the "insurance coverage" of last resort and being paid at lower rates than regular coverage, such patients are concentrated in the practices of certain docs/clinics who accept such lower fees, making a pattern of abuse harder to detect.




You might want to take note that Medicaid, Medicare and other govt-funded programs actually have LOWER fraud and abuse rates (and overhead) than private plans, simply because private plans can simply raise premiums to cover such costs, just as dept. stores raise overall prices to cover losses due to shoplifting. Since raising prices isn't an option for gubmint programs, the incentives are diff and efforts to detect fraud are somewhat more diligent.



Probably the only way a universal basic program can be instituted. The private insurance industry is so powerful that the only way to GET universal coverage will be to let them pocket the booty. Even though the private "competative" system is the most expensive. One alternative that's been proposed is regional single-payer, with competitive bidding for a 5-year contract to admnister a region's program, but that's a nonstarter because it would reduce the insurance companies not bidding on those regional basic program administration contracts to competing for what would be, in effect, the crumbs left over--the folks willing to pay more, out of pocket, for cadillac coverage.

This is really the problem Canada is encountering in trying/considering allowing private additional coverage to reduce those waits: Not enough people willing to pay for the cadillac coverage when push comes to shove, and not enough demand to stimulate an actual, real, competitive market for that minority of the population willing and able to pay. That's how its come to happen that such Cadillac-desiring patients simply fly to the US, and pay out of pocket, for their Cadillac care.

It should be noted that Canada, Europe, Japan, etc. introduced their universal coverage back in the 1960s and 1970s, before the technology boom took off and the cost spiral began as new, effective and more expensive treatments became available. As a result, their citizens have come to expect universal coverage as a normal right. We, on the other hand, did not follow suit, and instead allowed OUR system, which is pretty much unique in the industrialized world, to develop our employer-as-payer system that is now becoming unravelled and contributing to our competitve disadvante vs. countries with such universal systems, or third world countries who simply don't provide medical care.

A retrofit is always harder.



That $50-dollar Q-tip (or not absurd but real, $40 single dose of Tylenol or Advil, is a result of that cost-shifting I mentioned. The 50 buck Q-times are what covers the cost of the lose on the MRI machine.



There is hope on that point. The majority of people are seeing the price of their coverage incrased, the "reliability" of their coverage dimiishing (lose job/change job, lose coverage), and increasingly finding themselves either actually uninsured, or anxious that they may be uninsured. That's the force behind the growing pressure for univeral coverage. We aready have a two-tiered system, but it's more and more becoming tiers of "cadillac" and "none", rather than basic and deluxe that would be more desirable and less costly overall.



Don't tempt me. I'm a flat taxer of the most extreme sort, and the board will SCREAM if I once again launch into an explanation of my plan for complete conversion to flat tax based on all income, in lieu of all corporate taxes, excise taxes, sales taxes, inheritance taxes. and NOT exempting the poor frm the system, but rather giving them a disincentive to vote themselves generous benefits they don't have to pay for..

My pet project is doing away with deficit spendning and social engineering via tax code by putting tax rate on autopilot and removing Congress and deficits entirely. Whatever the gubmint spent last year would automatically determne the universal flat tax rate for the following year, thereby stripping government of its ability to game the system, and proving the average citizen with a direct an promp motivation to REALLY push for spending control. End the smoke and mirrors and accounting tricks that are feeding the runaway budgets.

It's nice to have an intelligent, detailed discussion on these issues, instead of the usual vapid rich against poor ranting.

Refreshing. These are the type of discussions I normally have with my friends from all leanings. We sometimes hypothetically solve the ills of our society or the world and sometimes we laugh and agree to disagree or pursue it again later. Yet, we remain genteel. That is the disadvantage of trying to discuss sometimes sensitive subjects over an impersonal electronic forum where one's attempts to discuss opinions is done without the benefit of subtle body language or facial expression clues as guides in how far to proceed and/or when it’s best to let something rest until it’s appropriate to bring it back up.

Goodnight.

Sorry to have missed you and; to think, I skipped almost three days of tough posting (long that is) reading for retortablility just to say hi. SO little time. G'night, noice.

Re: fish lies - I think Bushie caught a Bass, but the Germans translated that as a Perch.

That's what the White House says---and that the was the reason they used when they changed the W.H. Transcripts....

I do know that it was widely reported that he said "perch"---however, I wasn't there--I guess it gets down to who do you trust and who do you think has more has more credibility....this particular POTUS or a reporter for a German newspaper?

If that' the case then he most definitely said "perch".


Either way, to answer that question with a fish story is incredibly stupid. It's probably the truth though. It was the high point of his presidency.

Give judges a peek at secrets


Courts don't have to roll over for the executive branch's claims of secrecy.


By Louis Fisher
June 14, 2006

THE JUSTICE Department told a federal judge Monday that a challenge to the National Security Agency's controversial domestic eavesdropping program must be thrown out of court because the secrets involved are just too sensitive.

"The evidence we need to demonstrate … that it is lawful cannot be disclosed without that process itself causing grave harm to the United States' national security," said the government's lawyer, Anthony J. Coppolino.



This is not the first time the Justice Department has invoked what is known as the "state secrets privilege." It was used, for instance, to dismiss the case of an FBI whistle-blower, and again to derail the case of an African American CIA officer who charged discrimination in the agency. It was used in the case of Khaled Masri, the German citizen who alleges he was detained while on vacation and held for five months in Afghanistan, where he was shackled and beaten before being released as a case of mistaken identity.

Each time, the courts have agreed to dismiss the proceedings simply because the Justice Department says that trying the cases would reveal state secrets.

But that's not the way it has to be.

The fact is that the branch of government that runs the courtroom and decides questions concerning privilege and the introduction of evidence is the judiciary, not the executive branch. Judges have a constitutional duty to function as neutral referees to allow each side to present its case fairly. A court that automatically accepts the government's argument about state secrets, without ever looking at the documents in question, aligns the judiciary with the executive branch and eliminates any chance of a fair trial.

The "state secrets privilege" reached the Supreme Court in 1953 in United States vs. Reynolds, a case in which the widows of three civilians who died in the crash of a B-29 bomber sought damages. They asked the government to give them the accident report and the statements of three surviving crew members. Lower courts held that the government must surrender the secret documents to the trial court or lose the case. The judge would examine the documents in his chambers to determine if the government's demand for secrecy was valid.

Refusing to release the documents, the government lost at the district and appeals court levels. But when the case got to the Supreme Court, the justices reversed course and accepted the government's argument about state secrets — without ever looking at the documents. Even having the judge examine the evidence alone in his chambers could jeopardize national security, the majority ruled. When the documents were declassified in the 1990s, it became evident that the Supreme Court had been misled: The documents contained no state secrets.

In his authoritative 1940 treatise on evidence, John Henry Wigmore concluded that the executive branch is entitled to protect state secrets but that in cases in which classified information is at issue, it is up to the judge to decide whether such evidence qualifies as legitimately secret, and thus legally privileged. A court that "abdicates its inherent function of determining the facts upon which the admissibility of evidence depends will furnish to bureaucratic officials too ample opportunities for abusing the privilege," Wigmore warned.

I believe that Wigmore was right and that the Supreme Court decided the Reynolds case wrongly. Some federal judges agreed, and they have continued to recognize their obligation to examine disputed documents in their chambers before passing judgment on matters of evidence and privilege.

In 1971, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit argued that "an essential ingredient of our rule of law is the authority of the courts to determine whether an executive official or agency has complied with the Constitution and with the mandates of Congress which define and limit the authority of the executive."

Claims of executive power "cannot override the duty of the court to assure that an official has not exceeded his charter or flouted the legislative will," the court said.

The executive branch may assert a right to keep its secrets, but this must not be viewed as an absolute right, only a privilege granted by the court when appropriate. Otherwise, even in the age of terrorism, there can be no judicial independence and no fair trial for Americans who would challenge their government.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commen...omment-opinions

What does he stock his pond with?







I gues they're all " barsch "

Religious Leaders Urge U.S. to Ban Torture

By Alan Cooperman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, June 13, 2006; Page A04

Twenty-seven religious leaders, including megachurch pastor Rick Warren, Nobel laureate Elie Wiesel and Cardinal Theodore E. McCarrick of Washington, have signed a statement urging the United States to "abolish torture now -- without exceptions."

The statement, being published in newspaper advertisements starting today, is the opening salvo of a new organization called the National Religious Campaign Against Torture, which has formed in response to allegations of human rights abuse at U.S. detention centers in Iraq, Afghanistan and Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.


Titled "Torture is a Moral Issue," the statement says that torture "violates the basic dignity of the human person" and "contradicts our nation's most cherished values." "Nothing less is at stake in the torture abuse crisis than the soul of our nation. What does it signify if torture is condemned in word but allowed in deed?" it asks.

The signers come from a broad range of denominations and include notable religious conservatives, such as the Rev. Ted Haggard, president of the National Association of Evangelicals; Archbishop Demetrios, primate of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America; and the Rev. William J. Byron, former president of Catholic University.

By suggesting that recent abuse of prisoners may not be just an aberration but a reflection of U.S. policy, the statement contains an implicit challenge to the Bush administration, according to some signers.

"I'm not persuaded that this issue has been put to bed yet by the Bush administration," said David P. Gushee, a philosophy professor at Union University in Tennessee who wrote an influential article against torture this year in Christianity Today, an evangelical magazine. "I'm worried that we still don't truly know what is going on in all our detention centers around the world."

Deputy White House press secretary Dana Perino said the administration has "the utmost respect for all these religious leaders." But, she said, "I'll simply repeat what the president has said many times, which is that this government does not torture, and we adhere to the international conventions against torture. That is our policy, and it will remain our policy."

On its Web site, the National Religious Campaign Against Torture urges Congress and the president to "remove all ambiguities" by prohibiting secret U.S. prisons around the world, ending the rendition of suspects to countries that use torture, granting the Red Cross access to all detainees and not exempting any arm of the government from human rights standards.

McCarrick said last night that he had signed on to "the general principle" that torture is unacceptable but had not seen the new organization's specific proposals. Gushee said he is "not sure that everyone who signed the statement would concur with that platform," though he said he, personally, does.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...6061201484.html

Titled "Torture is a Moral Issue," the statement says that torture "violates the basic dignity of the human person" and "contradicts our nation's most cherished values." "Nothing less is at stake in the torture abuse crisis than the soul of our nation. What does it signify if torture is condemned in word but allowed in deed?" it asks.

Hilarious---and a little sad.

What's sad about it is---although it's absolute absurdism---it's not outside the realm of possibility...not even a little bit.

Got it in 1.

Jesus Christ, you pigs are amazing. Everything you say or do is for the next election. You scumbags trumpet the cause of freedom and democracy yet muzzle your political opposition at home for a couple of votes. So you are going top play the super-duper patriots AGAIN? What a god damned joke. A media trick. That's real good. A complete lie, but then again your party is.






Republicans in both chambers of Congress have scheduled events and votes on Iraq all week — the Senate as it debates a defense spending bill, the House as it holds a full day of debate today on a resolution on Iraq.

Officially, the House debate will be the first time the chamber has argued the pros and cons of the invasion and occupation of Iraq since the war began more than three years ago. But Democrats, who have repeatedly called for debate on the war, have denounced this week's events as little more than a political trap to embarrass them and force acquiescence with the administration's policy.

The resolution expresses support for U.S. troops and a commitment to combat terrorism. It also unequivocally asserts that the conflict in Iraq is part of a "global war on terror" — an assertion that Democrats and some Republicans dispute.


More bullsheit and lies from you pigs. I hate Republicans. I just despise them. Git out yer lapel pins and Confederate flags boys.

Bush hammered that assertion Wednesday. "If we fail in Iraq, it's going to embolden Al Qaeda types," he said. "It will weaken the resolve of moderate nations to stand up to the Islamic fascists. It will cause people to lose their nerve and not stay strong."

Rep. Neil Abercrombie (D-Hawaii) complained Wednesday that House leaders were not going to permit Democrats to offer amendments to the resolution, forcing them into a position of either voting against supporting the troops or for the Republican formulation of the war.

"Our hands are tied — literally — on the floor of the people's House," Abercrombie said at a news conference, his hands tied together with yellow rope to symbolize his frustration. "Do not put us through the farce and the fraud of a pseudo-debate."

House Majority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) was unsympathetic.

"That is not a 'gotcha.' They have a decision to make. That is what we get elected to do," Boehner said.

Damned users and manipulators. They have certainly guaranteed I'll never vote for any of the slime again.



http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na...dlines-politics

Sure Jonah, tell us about the party of death. Tell us about the party of torture. Tell us about the party of war. What's that? Ohhhhh, you weren't talking about REPUBLICANS? They certainly qualify as the PARTY OF DEATH. And the party of war and torture.


But back to the column. This scumbag wants war. Domestic. All out. Take no prisoners. And he's gonna push as many buttons as it takes to incite his party's base into a rabid reaction. It doesn't matter that they are resonsible for the death of uncounted 1000s in Iraq, that's irrelevant because they are anti-abortion. They can kill as many people as they want who are already born. They can kill newborn children with bullets and bombs yet STILL claim the mantle of righteousness because they're anti-abortion.

What a double standard. what apack of two-faced hypocrites. Anything for the war party, eh Joe?


Jonah Goldberg: Abortion rhymes with death
Let's cut the euphemisms and start debating abortion for real.
June 15, 2006

PRINCETON professor Robert George, one of the nation's leading moral philosophers, recently visited the Vatican for an audience with the pope. He faced an age-old dilemma: "What's a good gift for the pope?" George settled on Ramesh Ponnuru's new book, "The Party of Death."

Ponnuru, my close friend and colleague at National Review, has written the first serious defense of life for a general audience in decades. The book is a humane, sustained and, most of all, respectful argument about preserving life from abortion, eugenics and euthanasia.


"Respectful!?" I can hear the shrieking now. "It's called 'The Party … of … Death.' " Indeed, the mere title has enraged some. Time magazine's in-house blogger Andrew Sullivan spent days denouncing Ponnuru and the book admitting he hadn't read a word.

The title is provocative — deliberately so. Media thumb-suckers lament that Ann Coulter's outrageous rhetoric gets her heard. Karen Tumulty of Time noted that Coulter "very shrewdly recognizes that the level of discourse now has become so loud and so angry that you have to go that much further over the top than you did the last time to get anybody to listen to you." So here's Ponnuru with a supposedly over-the-top title, but the "Today" show hasn't called. Maybe if he wore a blond wig?

The title offends not because it is unfair but because it is blunt. Ponnuru cuts through the bunker of euphemisms we hide behind to avoid dealing with topics like abortion.

Some people are also vexed by the word "party," thinking it explicitly means Democrats. It doesn't (though it certainly includes many). Ponnuru uses the term "party of death" the way the Nation uses "the war party" to describe hawks everywhere. But "death" is the important word. Abortion, right or wrong, is a "choice for death." That's neither my description nor Ponnuru's but liberal philosopher Ronald Dworkin's. No serious person disputes that abortion kills something. The debate is over what it kills, and who gets to decide.

Which reintroduces the nation's ambivalence. Most Americans, it's often said, are against most abortions. Most oppose killing an 8-month-old fetus. Far fewer oppose killing a 2-day-old embryo.

Except in a tactical sense, most abortion-rights and antiabortion activists don't care what Americans think. Both sides believe that such decisions shouldn't be subject to the whims of the electorate. We don't put the criminality of murder or assault up for a vote, abortion foes say, so what's the difference? Abortion-rights supporters similarly see democracy as a distraction. Voters don't decide when I can have my appendix out; why should we let them decide when a woman can have her "uterine contents" removed?

That's where the Supreme Court comes in. Right now, abortion-rights defenders have their ideal legal regime. But don't say that too loudly. Ever since 1973, Roe vs. Wade has been cast by the media as some sort of grand compromise between the "extremes." But as Ponnuru methodically demonstrates, this isn't true. Roe and its companion case, Doe vs. Bolton, make abortion-on-demand a constitutional right up until moments before the birth. States may regulate abortion in the second and third trimesters, says the court, but not if they run afoul of the mother's "health." That sounds reasonable. But "health" can mean anything falling under the elastic category of the patient's overall well-being. Pollsters often compound the confusion by asking Americans if they support Roe even as they mischaracterize it as a decision that protects abortion rights only in the first three months of pregnancy.

On many issues, we're told that what the nation needs is a full and frank "conversation." But not on abortion. Supposedly nonpartisan experts insist that the GOP should just drop the subject — even though opposition to abortion has helped make the GOP the majority party in the U.S.

Others are willing to talk about abortion but say, "Keep religion out of it." The New Republic's Peter Beinart, echoing the philosopher John Rawls, says abortion opponents should only make arguments "accessible to people of different religions, or no religion at all." This sounds reasonable too. But once religious views are declared illegitimate — a stance that would have surprised Martin Luther King Jr. — any unwelcome position can be branded "religious" and therefore out of bounds. Ponnuru scrupulously sticks to nonreligious arguments. But that hasn't stopped critics from charging that his motives are unacceptably religious, while others have complained that he is too coldly rational. It seems Ponnuru's real sin isn't how he says things but that he says them at all.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commen...l=la-util-op-ed







I believe this is true for the radical rightwingers. To achieve the same level of shock they used to get with declarations of killing the enemy and converting him to Christianity and there's nothing wrong with detention camps in America they have to go waaaaaaay beyond anything ever considered acceptable. If they swiftboated Kerry can you imagine what they'll do with this election? You see the dirty tricks they are pulling to keep Democrats from getting subpoena power. It's going to get much worse.

Translation for you ignorant, inbred rednecks:

If yew dare tew vote again this her bill, yew muss be a copperhead trrrsst... by god and General Robert E. Jesus.


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060615/ap_on_go_co/us_iraq

Endangered Republicans play down party label

By John Whitesides, Political Correspondent 1 hour, 40 minutes ago

STAMFORD, Connecticut (Reuters) - Republican Rep. Christopher Shays (news, bio, voting record) cites his differences with
President George W. Bush, produces a chart outlining his moderate voting record and pledges his independence from party leaders in Congress.


His Connecticut colleague, Republican Rep. Rob Simmons, says working with Democrats comes naturally in a district where voters favored Democratic presidential nominee
John Kerry over Bush by 10 percentage points in 2004.

For Shays, Simmons and other Republicans running for Congress in Democratic-leaning or swing districts in November, playing down their party label and playing up their independence has become a matter of political survival in a year when "Bush" can be a dirty word.

"This would not be a close election if
George Bush was popular. This would not be a close election if there wasn't a war in
Iraq," said Shays, who is embroiled in a tight race with Democrat Dianne Farrell.

"The president isn't doing well, and that's hurting me," the 19-year House veteran, who distances himself from Bush but enthusiastically supports the Iraq war, told Reuters.

Simmons, who has faced a tough re-election fight every year since entering Congress in 2000, emphasizes service to his constituents and his ability to bring federal dollars and projects home to his eastern Connecticut district.

"The reality of my district is if we play partisan politics we lose," said Simmons, who takes pride in representing one of the most Democratic districts in Republican hands in the country.

As Republicans in Democratic-majority districts, Shays and Simmons are prime examples of the sort of incumbents Democrats must beat in November if they hope to pick up the 15 seats needed to reclaim control of the House of Representatives.

Democrats have worked hard to link both men to Bush and Republican leaders in Congress, hoping voter unhappiness with the Iraq war, high gas prices and corruption scandals will make the elections a referendum on national Republican leadership.

"Chris Shays is a Republican, and that R after his name is important because he supports the Republican leadership. If he goes back to Washington, his first vote will be for
Dennis Hastert as speaker," Farrell said in an interview in her Westport headquarters.

"He enables the majority to pursue its agenda, and its agenda is out of step with the citizens of this district," said the former Westport mayor, who lost a close race against Shays in 2004 but is back for a rematch.

Republicans want to keep the focus off Bush and on Shays, Simmons and other incumbents like Mike Fitzpatrick and Jim Gerlach in Pennsylvania, Heather Wilson in New Mexico, Clay Shaw in Florida, Anne Northup in Kentucky and Charles Bass in New Hampshire -- all Republicans in districts carried by Kerry in 2004.

NOT ABOUT BUSH

"This race is not about George Bush, it's about me," Simmons told Reuters.

"We have put together a coalition of supporters over the years that reflect the values of the district and get me elected as long as I deliver the goods," he said.

Simmons and Shays talk with pride about local projects they helped fund and "earmarks" -- pet local projects inserted in spending bills -- they have sponsored. Simmons's biggest coup was helping keep a submarine base in his district off the
Pentagon's base closing list last year.

But his Democratic opponent, former state legislator Joe Courtney, has turned another local issue against Simmons, criticizing his vote for a bill last year that could allow a controversial liquefied natural gas terminal in Long Island Sound.

Courtney lost a tough race to Simmons in 2002 but is back for another try this year. He said the difference in voter mood is palpable in Democratic-leaning Connecticut, where Bush's approval rating hovers in the low 20s.

"All politics is local, but in 2006 local politics is national. If you pull up to a gas pump in Willimantic and you are paying $3 a gallon, that's a national issue," Courtney said.

"These issues are hitting people at home and they are paying attention. Campaigning in this climate is night and day from campaigning in 2002," he said.

"On the issues that really matter -- the war, gas prices, health care and the economy -- Simmons is 100 percent pro-Bush, and we have a much stronger effort this time to hammer that message home."

The Iraq war has figured prominently in the race between Shays and Farrell in the wealthy Connecticut suburbs north of New York City, with Shays embracing the war as a necessary part of an international battle against Islamic terrorists.

Shays, who has traveled to Iraq 12 times to gather information since the war began, admits the majority of voters in his district don't support the war.

"I am willing to lose an election on this issue," he said. "If we don't wake up and confront these terrorists, we are going to pay the price in ways you can't imagine."

Farrell does not support an immediate withdrawal of troops or setting timetables for leaving Iraq, but said "it might be time to start talking about a regionalized government there."

She said Shays's support for Republican fiscal policies and the Republican leadership have made him out of touch with district voters.

"With Republicans in control, people are much more sensitive to the idea of checks and balances and not having a rubber-stamp Congress," she said.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060615/ts_nm/connecticut_dc

Senate panel OKs flag desecration amendment
Measure could be within one vote of passage

Thursday, June 15, 2006; Posted: 12:32 p.m. EDT (16:32 GMT)


Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tennessee, speaks at a Capitol event Wednesday for the amendment.



WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Senate Judiciary Committee gave a nod Thursday to a constitutional amendment to protect the American flag from desecration, moving it to the Senate floor where vote-counters on both sides say it could be within one vote of passing.

The 11-7 vote sent the amendment to the floor. Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tennessee, has said the measure will get a Senate vote this month.

To be considered during the patriotic season between this week's Flag Day and the Fourth of July, the amendment's substance and timing is designed to appeal to veterans during this year of midterm elections. (Watch why the flag flap is popping up now -- 1:48)

"The Congress shall have power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States," the amendment reads. To become the Constitution's 28th amendment, the language must be approved by two-thirds of those present in each chamber, then ratified within seven years by at least 38 state legislatures.

The House a year ago passed the bill 286-130, more than the required two-thirds of those present to pass. Vote-counters on both sides of the issue say the amendment has commitments of support from 66 senators, one fewer than the required 67 votes if all 100 members of the chamber are present.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California was the lone committee Democrat to vote for the measure, saying its language was designed to both protect the flag and First Amendment free speech protections.

The committee also rejected an amendment by Sen. Joe Biden, D-Delaware, to replace "desecration" with specific types of defilement. Using the word desecration, he said, would leave the government too much power to define the term.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/06/15/fla...t.ap/index.html

Thats a great one. Hilarious.

I'm surprised Shay's is in trouble, but I read that when Democrats run "against Bush" or bring his policies up when running against Republicans, they poll better.

Whereas I admire Shay's conviction regarding Iraq, I disagree with the premise that it's his "job" to vote his conscious. His job is to represent his constituents, whho do not support the Republican Agenda. It's more than just the war, it's everything else, as well.

There is also something to having a system of checks and balances. Just mention that someone votes partyline with the President, and that is enough to make peoplee think twice about voting Republican at all.

Ah, so. Now I got a handle on you, bee. Forget consciousness. Just do your job by taking a daily pulse on what the majority (of them what voted you in) say they think at around noon and press the button. What a cusch job. I believe even a clip/paster could pull that off for a couple of years. Of course there would arise those pesky decisions about port security, mass transit, crack babies, and such, that don't play all that well in Peoria.

I'll thank you not to attribute your twisted and moronic interpretations to me. That isn't what I said and frankly, idiots that don't know the difference between "non-graded" classrooms and not receiving grades aren't really worth my time to enlighten.

If you can't grasp the meaning of a defined term, I'd hardly expect you to understand my position on anything. It's quite beyond your limited capacity.

What is that dumbfock's deal anyway? Riddle-girl.

Roserose suffers from the same malady that the other RW zealot members of the lunatic fringe suffer from: Absolute confidence in their own supposed superiority .

Like judy taking all the credit for her childrens education (or most likely lack of one), they seem to think they are infallible.

Little things like their incredible lack of judgement in picking a moron for president and backing some of his more assinine policies don't figure into their delusional image of their own grandeur.

Of course, everyone else sees them for what they are: Incompetent blowhards that don't have two brain cels to rub together betweeen them.

[shrug]

That's the problem with a segment (although it is shrinking) of the Republican Party. Their absolute belief in their own superiority. Unfortunately, things being as they are, they have no actual reason to feel that way, and in the back of their minds, they know this to some point.

That is why all they can do is hurl insults, taunt the majority that know better, and agree with each other on logical fallacies that most 8-year-olds would see through. Thus their bandwagon/pile-on behavior, and lack of any original thought. Classic bully behavior. Bullies aren't generally the shapest tacks in the box.

They call it "wit." Most others would call it idiotic hubris..

The arrogance is unbelievable.

Comical, actually.

If it resulted in a backlash it would be. But the US public loves to have it's ego stroked and would rather be brainless and allow them to commit whatever crime is neccessary for the power play of the day.

As long as they say God bless 'merca and stroke that swelled american ego then they'll be guaranteed a big chunk of the vote.

I think we haven't begun to see the backlash yet.

But they will.


They've been hitting the majority of people pretty hard for the last 5 years.

People are going to start hitting back.

but remember the homos.


Our citizens are arrogant and stupid. Republicans will push the right buttons and avoid any accountability or personal responsibility by using dirty tricks and distractions. It works. Anything to win. I'm sorry to say I don't have much faith in the intelligence or honor of our citizens.

Not anymore.

It's happened before. It will happen again. Those that fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it. I think there's some life in America, yet.

I like that. Thanks.