BS: Keeping Democrats honest

Subject: RE: BS: Keeping Democrats honest
From: akenaton
Date: 22 Jan 07 - 03:40 PM

I know a shrink who reckons he can get you off dictionaries.

Subject: RE: BS: Keeping Democrats honest
From: Don Firth
Date: 22 Jan 07 - 05:18 PM

Pardon me, that's eight key bills the new Democratic house has passed within the promised 100 hours. And with thirteen hours to spare. Now it's up to the Senate.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Keeping Democrats honest
From: GUEST,Started the thread
Date: 22 Jan 07 - 09:14 PM

Eight key bills. Let's see them. Is this that bogus minimum wage and speech-killing crap they were rattling on about? List the bills.

Subject: RE: BS: Keeping Democrats honest
From: Ebbie
Date: 22 Jan 07 - 10:06 PM

If you're so on top of things, Guest/startedthethread, you already know.

Subject: RE: BS: Keeping Democrats honest
From: Amos
Date: 22 Jan 07 - 10:23 PM

Ake:

My apologies -- I was not referring to you.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Keeping Democrats honest
From: Peace
Date: 22 Jan 07 - 10:38 PM

Here they are. All eight of the proposals.

And with that post I have to go. Night, all.

Subject: RE: BS: Keeping Democrats honest
From: GUEST,Started the tread
Date: 22 Jan 07 - 10:42 PM

No, I want to see a breakdown of these "key" bills. I want to know what's so key about them.

The privately-owned Federal Reserve in the U.S. announced last year it was going to double the amount of paper money floating around the world. Double the number of U.S. bills in just two years. So that means...what? Figger this out. Double the number of dollars = dollar is worth half. In just two years.

And then here come the Democrats with the bullshit diversion of raising the minimum wage. The privately-owned Federal Reserve is emptying the bladder of the U.S. economy, and the Democrats are going to make sure the last couple or drops are shaken onto the people.

The Democrats are hiding the truth behind a totally transparent screen. The value of your dollar will be cut in half in two years, but you'll be told you're getting a raise. Incredible.

If you don't know this stuff, it's because you don't WANT to know.

I hope Firth is working away with his flatulence transcriber listing those 8 "key" bills.

Subject: RE: BS: Keeping Democrats honest
From: GUEST,Started the thread
Date: 22 Jan 07 - 10:43 PM

Thanks, Peace. Cross-posted.

Subject: RE: BS: Keeping Democrats honest
From: Don Firth
Date: 22 Jan 07 - 10:46 PM

GUEST,Started the thread, buy a goddam newspaper once in a while. Or turn on the radio. Or the television. Or check the internet.

For someone who bitches and complains as much as you do, you sure don't know a helluva lot.

DO try to keep up to date, there's a good fellow. . . .

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Keeping Democrats honest
From: katlaughing
Date: 24 Jan 07 - 03:03 PM

This week...Rep. Jim McGovern will introduce new legislation, "The Safe and Orderly Withdrawal Act of 2007," calling for the safe and orderly withdrawal of all U.S. troops from Iraq within 30 days of enactment to be completed within 180 days. The withdrawal would be paid for by already appropriated funds and all funds for deployment of U.S. troops would be terminated upon completion of the withdrawal. More:
http://pdamerica.org/articles/news/2007-01-22-19-06-36-news.php

Hmmm...wonderful what those Democrats will do.

Subject: RE: BS: Keeping Democrats honest
From: GUEST,Dickey
Date: 30 Jan 07 - 03:38 PM

A deal in the desert for Sen. Reid?

"BULLHEAD CITY, ARIZ. — It's hard to buy undeveloped land in booming northern Arizona for $166 an acre. But now-Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid effectively did just that when a longtime friend decided to sell property owned by the employee pension fund that he controlled.

In 2002, Reid (D-Nev.) paid $10,000 to a pension fund controlled by Clair Haycock, a Las Vegas lubricants distributor and his friend for 50 years. The payment gave the senator full control of a 160-acre parcel in Bullhead City that Reid and the pension fund had jointly owned. Reid's price for the equivalent of 60 acres of undeveloped desert was less than one-tenth of the value the assessor placed on it at the time.

Six months after the deal closed, Reid introduced legislation to address the plight of lubricants dealers who had their supplies disrupted by the decisions of big oil companies. It was an issue the Haycock family had brought to Reid's attention in 1994, according to a source familiar with the events...."

Subject: RE: BS: Keeping Democrats honest
From: Peace
Date: 30 Jan 07 - 03:39 PM

Dishonesty in politics? I AM shocked.

Subject: RE: BS: Keeping Democrats honest
From: GUEST,Dickey
Date: 31 Jan 07 - 09:53 AM

"...Last month, Rezko was indicted for his role in an alleged pay-to-play scheme designed to fatten Gov. Blagojevich's political fund. Rezko also was accused of bilking a creditor....
...Obama and Rezko have been friends since 1990, and Obama said the Wilmette businessman raised as much as $60,000 for him during his political career. After Rezko's indictment, Obama donated $11,500 to charity--a total that represents what Rezko contributed to the senator's federal campaign fund...." [after he was elected]

More here

Subject: RE: BS: Keeping Democrats honest
From: Amos
Date: 31 Jan 07 - 11:14 AM

"U.S. Sen. Barack Obama expressed regret late Friday for his 2005 land purchase from now-indicted political fundraiser Antoin "Tony" Rezko in a deal that enlarged the senator's yard.


"I consider this a mistake on my part and I regret it," Obama told the Chicago Sun-Times in an exclusive and revealing question-and-answer exchange about the transaction.
"

Did you leave this part out because it was too honest for you?


A

Subject: RE: BS: Keeping Democrats honest
From: GUEST,Started the thread
Date: 12 Mar 07 - 10:31 PM

Officials said Speaker Nancy Pelosi and other members of the leadership had decided to strip from a major military spending bill a requirement for Bush to gain approval from Congress before moving against Iran.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070312/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_iraq_26

Subject: RE: BS: Keeping Democrats honest
From: Peace
Date: 12 Mar 07 - 10:53 PM

Do I recall saying that Pelosi would amount to NO FRIGGIN' GOOD!

Subject: RE: BS: Keeping Democrats honest
From: Amos
Date: 12 Mar 07 - 11:12 PM

Oh please. After Ken de Lay's endorsement of slave labor and enforced abortions in Saipan, Bush wholesale bloodbath and complete inversion of the national surplus, and Abramoff's lusting grabbery spree bilking the tribal elders in dozens of tribes across the continent of tens ofmillions of dollars, you're going to have to do better than that to convince me there is a serious situation among Democrats. What you are doing is tantamount to fear-mongering, in an effort to scrabble for some kind of cheap factional angle with no concern for the public weal yourself.

By all means, expose graft and shine the light on evil. But don't go doing it on a partisan ballyhoo basis. It is tedious and counterproductive. I predict you will find some more, and it will not stop, because power corrupts human beings in general, with delightful rare exceptions. Blow all the whistles you like, but do it from a sense of decency, not a lust for slander.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Keeping Democrats honest
From: fumblefingers
Date: 13 Mar 07 - 10:30 PM

Amos: "Oh please..."

A spate of words, somewhat.

Subject: RE: BS: Keeping Democrats honest
From: GUEST,Started the thread
Date: 14 Mar 07 - 12:30 AM

No factional angle here. The Democrats are acting against the public interest. So are the Republicans.

The people of America voted overwhelmingly to limit the power of the Bush crime cabal. The Democrats now have the ability to keep those gangsters from wielding unchecked power, but Pelosi and the others have chosen to go along with the program. And in doing so, they're condemning tens of thousands of Americans to death on foreign battlefields. They are setting the stage for millions of deaths in America, too. The road they're clearing for the MINORITY party leads to martial law, and that's unconstitutional. It's also worth fighting against, to the death. Tens of millions of us have already made the choice on that issue. So the crunch has come, and the Democratic leaders are stepping onboard with Bush, while the weak-kneed Democratic base makes excuses. The Republican leadership has just been outed as a club of AGGRESSIVE HOMOSEXUAL PEDERASTS, so heaven HELP us now that the historically degenerate Democrats are back in power. You people WANT to sacrifice America's children on battlefields. You HATE life. You support reaching into the womb and annihilating it, and then if a child DOES make it into the world, you can't wait to blow it up. I don't think you perverts CAN be kept honest. The pederast Republican leadership knows EXACTLY what makes you tick, and they know EXACTLY how to get you to follow along in their slime trail--THEY JUST PROMISE THAT YOU CAN KILL ALL THE BABIES!

Subject: RE: BS: Keeping Democrats honest
From: GUEST,Started the thread
Date: 21 Mar 07 - 11:53 PM

From the best Democrat out there. Cynthia McKinney wants to know where the change is:

Well, it seems that George Bush and Democratic Leaders were right.

They confidently told us that not only would Democrats fund the surge, but that the Democrats would not stop action in Iran, too.

Now, we are not surprised when the unelected, illegitimate Administration of George Bush ignores us, but we are shocked that the Democratic majority in Congress chose war over us as we say Bring our troops home now!

The answer is clear: Our country has been hijacked.

What about a livable wage for America's workers?

What about the right of return for Katrina survivors?

What about repealing the Patriot Act, the Secret Evidence Act, and the Military Tribunals Act?

Why is impeachment "off the table"?

Our country is bankrupt yet this institution, the Pentagon, has "lost" 2.3trillion dollars!

I want that money back . . .

For jobs . . . for health care . . . for education . . . for our veterans!

The Democrats have become so timid they won't even repeal the Bush tax cuts as a strategy to deal with a bankrupt nation.

Seems the story is the same: more money for war, but we can't feed the poor.

It's hard to believe, but now the Democrats are full partners in George Bush's wars.

And by funding his wars, the Democratic Congress is explicitly complicit.

Complicit in war crimes! Complicit in torture! Complicit in crimes against humanity! Complicit in crimes against peace!

The FBI spied on us; Condoleezza, Dick, and George lied to us.

In 1957, Dr. King observed that "Both political parties have betrayed the cause of justice."

And so it must be repeated today.

Our beloved America is dividing again into two Americas. Our struggle is for nothing less than the soul of our country.

We want an America that is respected in the commonwealth of man; we want our values to shine like a beacon throughout the world.

As an American of conscience, I hereby declare my independence from every bomb dropped, every threat leveled, every civil liberties rollback, every child killed, every veteran maimed, every man tortured.

And I sadly declare my independence from the leaders who let it happen.

We will not stop. We will win. We will take our country back!

http://www.allthingscynthiamckinney.com/node/22

Subject: RE: BS: Keeping Democrats honest
From: Barry Finn
Date: 22 Mar 07 - 12:48 AM

That someone I'd vote for. Me too, I'd also like my money back!

Barry

Subject: RE: BS: Keeping Democrats honest
From: akenaton
Date: 22 Mar 07 - 03:55 AM

"Oh where have all the De--ems......Long times a pa---ssin'"..Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Keeping Democrats honest
From: GUEST,Started the thread
Date: 25 Mar 07 - 01:31 PM

...The bill is a labored attempt by the Democratic leadership to pose as opponents of the Iraq war, while in practice ensuring its continuation. The vote to authorize war funding flies in the face of the will of the electorate, which expressed its desire to end the war and its opposition to the policies of the Bush administration in last November's congressional elections, overturning Republican control in both houses of Congress.

In remarks following the vote, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi went out of her way to declare her party's support for the US military and the so-called "war on terror," calling the bill "a giant step to end the war and responsibly redeploy our troops out of Iraq" so they could concentrate on Afghanistan, "where the war on terrorism is."

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2007/mar2007/dems-m24.shtml

Subject: RE: BS: Keeping Democrats honest
From: GUEST,Started the thread
Date: 29 Apr 07 - 10:59 PM

The Democrat's Debate:

...the debate began just hours after the Senate approved a supplemental spending bill that will provide the White House with an additional $124 billion to continue the fighting and occupations in both Iraq and Afghanistan.... "The Congress has voted, as of today, to end this war," Clinton declared.

...Blaming the Iraqi people for the devastating civil war that has resulted from the US invasion and the shattering of Iraqi society, Clinton said the Iraqi government had to provide "security and stability without our young men and women in the middle of their sectarian civil war."

...Biden has been the most strident proponent of partitioning Iraq into ethno-religious statelets, dividing Kurds, Shiites and Sunnis. Such a proposal is a prescription for ethnic cleansing and mass killings on a scale not seen since the partitioning of India in the 1940s....

...Barack Obama said he had opposed the war from the start and then attempted to justify his repeated votes to fund it as hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and more than 3,300 US soldiers have been killed. He claimed that the troops needed the best military hardware possible in order to "come home safely."

This support for militarism stems from the fact that the Democratic Party speaks for the same financial oligarchy as the Republicans....

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2007/apr2007/deba-a28.shtml

Subject: RE: BS: Keeping Democrats honest
From: GUEST,Started the thread
Date: 11 Aug 07 - 09:31 AM

Rep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., has called for reinstating the draft as a way to end the Iraq war.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8QUECGG1&show_article=1

They not only "surged" the war, they now want to feed your children to it.

Subject: RE: BS: Keeping Democrats honest
From: kendall
Date: 11 Aug 07 - 10:23 AM

Congress is powerless to end the war. They have only ONE course of action, to stop funding it.Can you imagine what would happen over there if the troops were not funded? It would be a bloodbath and the democrats would be held responsible.
The republicans have been in control for years, now, someone whose name we don't know expects them to make things right in the space of a few months.

A pox on all of those self serving phonies.

Subject: RE: BS: Keeping Democrats honest
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 Aug 07 - 10:50 AM

Yeah, they are powerless to end it. It's bigger than them. As always.

Bearded Bruce had it right. The title of this thread is funny, because it might as well be, as he says...

"Keeping fish dry"

You can't make the Democrats honest. You can't make the Republicans honest. You can't make fish (living fish, that is) dry.

Why? Because "This support for militarism stems from the fact that the Democratic Party speaks for the same financial oligarchy as the Republicans...."

Exactly. Just like in Imperial Rome. The financial oligarchy runs the $ySStem and the $ySStem is founded upon making war. The politicians are just temporary errand boys and girls on the payroll of the $ySStem.

The only time such $ySStems are interrupted (for awhile) is when they go bankrupt or they lose a GREAT war to another such $ySStem.

Germans and Japanese know a lot about that from their own bitter experience.

Subject: RE: BS: Keeping Democrats honest
From: Bill D
Date: 11 Aug 07 - 11:03 AM

The Republicans, by not reigning in Bush earlier, have gotten us so deep into this quagmire that now all they can do is try to lie & fake their way until the next election, because the Democrats will 'probably' win it, and then they (the Repubs) can blame whatever happens on the Dems!

This IS a 'no-win' situation. We can't win a war against insurgents...they can plant IEDs for years. And *IF* we leave, they can spend their time killing each other in sectarian in-fighting.
Bush simply did not LISTEN to experts who tried to tell him that Iraq...and the Middle-East in general...operates on different rules, and that WE ARE NOT LIKED very much, even by those for whom we do a favor. There IS no plan for victory...or for controlled withdrawal. The 'plan', in so far as there is ANY plan, is to stretch this 'surge' until the elections, then let the Democrats take responsibility for the mess when we try to get out......and it will probably work.

Subject: RE: BS: Keeping Democrats honest
From: GUEST,Started the thread
Date: 11 Aug 07 - 01:32 PM

The Democratic "surge" in spending was uncalled for. They increased war spending. This had nothing to do with "cutting off funds." They INCREASED spending, after Americans voted them into power to end the war. Now the Democrats are saying that not only your money but your forced servitude will be needed.

The Democrats are inheriting just what they want from the Bush gang -- a perpetual war and spy/torture powers to facilitate social engineering. If this were not so, they would be working to end the war and repeal the spy/torture policies instituted by the Bush people. They are making no serious effort to do either.

Subject: RE: BS: Keeping Democrats honest
From: Bill D
Date: 11 Aug 07 - 02:20 PM

sorry, but both your data and your logic are deficient. You don't know what "the Democrats" want, OR what they are trying to do, just because you don't like what you see. Not dancing to your preferred tune does NOT logically mean they are guilty of the sleaziest of motives. It 'could' mean they are dense & incompetent, but even that does not follow.

You are flatly ignoring the legislative limitations on Congress, and especially what they can do without a larger majority. What good would it do to waste ALL the Senate's time introducing bills that the Republicans would only block?

I get so damn tired of ridiculous tirades by folks who assume that any action...or LACK of action...that they disapprove of can be attributed to evil motives and power grabbing. etc.

Subject: RE: BS: Keeping Democrats honest
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 Aug 07 - 03:32 PM

"The 'plan', in so far as there is ANY plan, is to stretch this 'surge' until the elections, then let the Democrats take responsibility for the mess when we try to get out......and it will probably work."

Yup, you got that right, Bill. ;-) That's how party politics works. If it were the Democrats who got us into this war, as in Vietnam, it would be the same story...only the other way around. They would let the Republicans take responsibility for the mess after they got voted out, like they did in '68.

They can both be depended on to always blame the other one for whatever goes wrong. It's what they live to do, after all. They've been set up like two championship football teams to oppose one another in that fashion and keep the public amused (or infuriated?), while the League itself moves merrily on from season to season.

I'd be a fan...but I don't like football very much.

Subject: RE: BS: Keeping Democrats honest
From: Bobert
Date: 11 Aug 07 - 04:17 PM

Actually, if the Dems were truely into ending the Iraq wra, they could... Here's how: Suspend the 60 votes need to end a filibuster and then pass a bill requiring that Bush un-occupy Iraq by _________...

This doesn't cut off funds... It sets a date when the last of the troops will be removed...

(But, Bobert, could the Dems really do this???)

Yes, they have the power to do it just not the will... Rememeber in the last Congress the Repubs threatening to suspend the 60 vote rule??? It almost happened but the Repubs thought it would make them look bad...

I don't think it would make the Dems look bad seein' as they would be carrying oput the wishes of such a high percentage of Americans...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Keeping Democrats honest
From: Ron Davies
Date: 11 Aug 07 - 04:33 PM

Why still agonize about this? The Maliki government will fall soon, certainly well before the 2008 election. Then it will be obvious, even to the most obtuse Bushites, that there's no point to staying in Iraq. Except in "Kurdistan". And no matter what anybody says, the US will stay in "Kurdistan"--both for oil and because the Kurds want us to.

It's also interesting that "Guest Started" is horrified at a draft--but fine with the current situation--where the folks on the bottom of the economic pile do the fighting---and the dying.

Subject: RE: BS: Keeping Democrats honest
From: Bill D
Date: 11 Aug 07 - 05:28 PM

"Suspend the 60 votes need to end a filibuster .."

Well, Bobert...with the 1 vote majority, they would need to be VERY sure of every vote before they try something like that. It would be extremely awkward to have one of their own decide not to go along, and give the Republicans a 2 vote win...and crowing rights for months!

   Yeah, I know...all they'd need is a couple of Republican defections to get this done, but voting with the Dems to end a filibuster might be a death sentence for any Republican Senator who hopes to run again.... now where are the Bill Proxmire and Wayne Morse types when you need them?

I wonder if they could get Arlen Spector?

Subject: RE: BS: Keeping Democrats honest
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 Aug 07 - 05:32 PM

A draft would be good, I think, because it would soon arouse such a degree of protest from the general American public (now that it was affecting more of them directly) that the war would become insupportable for any administration to pursue for much longer. Therefore, I hope they institute a new draft ASAP.

One question, Ron. Why would the fall of the Maliki government necessarily mean the departure of American occupying forces? Going by the Vietnam record (Diem, Thieu and all the others) cannot the fall of one useless semi-puppet government in an American satellite state simply lead to the rapid creation of another in its place? I think they would probably come up with something. At least they would certainly try to. Maybe they could import one of the Saudi Bin Ladens (You know? The good ones?) to head it.

Subject: RE: BS: Keeping Democrats honest
From: DougR
Date: 11 Aug 07 - 07:13 PM

We ain't gonna have no stinkin' draft, L.H.!

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Keeping Democrats honest
From: Bill D
Date: 11 Aug 07 - 07:36 PM

Well, Doug, you are probably correct....but if this 'war' keeps on, we ain't gonna have no stinkin' army, either! You can't expect re-enlistments and 'good' new recruits if sweating 3-4 tours in the desert...and maybe being blown up...is all they can look forward to.

There are good, loyal soldiers over there, but a good portion of them MUST see the futility of trying to 'help' a country who won't try.

Subject: RE: BS: Keeping Democrats honest
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 Aug 07 - 10:16 PM

Awww...darn! You think not, Doug? I trust the instincts of drafted citizen soldiers to recognize that a war is a bad idea a lot more than I trust the judgement of a volunteer army. It takes volunteers a bit longer to realize they've been had, cos their pride is at stake.

Subject: RE: BS: Keeping Democrats honest
From: Bobert
Date: 12 Aug 07 - 07:19 PM

Bill,

Ya' know what, I'd have 100% more faith in the Dems if that ***at least*** tried to suspend the rules on the 60 votes needed to cut off a fillibuster... I read the other day that Repubs have used the fillibuster, or threat of, more times since the Dems took control of Congress 6 months ago than the Dems ahd used in the last 2 years???

Yeah, at least this would show the American people some courage of conviction...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Keeping Democrats honest
From: katlaughing
Date: 19 Sep 07 - 02:47 PM

The Dems did something good today, while the GOP did their usual, voted against allowing a vote to re-establish habeas corpus.From HERE:

The roll call is online, but I'd highlight a couple of things. First, every Democrat in the Senate supported restoring habeas, including conservative Dems from red states who are up for re-election. There is a patriotic party that's still willing to stand up for American principles; it's called the Democratic Party.

Second, six Senate Republicans had the decency to break party ranks on the issue: Sens. Snowe (Maine), Sununu (N.H.), Specter (Pa.), Hagel (Neb.), Lugar (Ind.), and Smith (Ore.).

Keep in mind, this was just the vote to allow a vote. It's one thing for conservatives to oppose habeas corpus, but these guys wouldn't even allow an up-or-down vote on a basic principle of Western Civilization.

Subject: RE: BS: Keeping Democrats honest
From: GUEST,Started the thread
Date: 20 Sep 07 - 08:10 PM

Show votes. The Dems vote with the Reps on the big issues (Real I.D. Act, PATRIOT Act, the Iraq war), then they have a little show vote for the people back home every once in a while. A sham.

MEANWHILE, lead Democratic contender for the white house reveals a streak of fascism that none of the "fascist" Republicans would DARE show:

WASHINGTON - Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton said Tuesday that a mandate requiring every American to purchase health insurance was the only way to achieve universal health care but she rejected the notion of punitive measures to force individuals into the health care system.

"At this point, we don't have anything punitive that we have proposed," the presidential candidate said in an interview with The Associated Press. "We're providing incentives and tax credits which we think will be very attractive to the vast majority of Americans."

She said she could envision a day when "you have to show proof to your employer that you're insured as a part of the job interview — like when your kid goes to school and has to show proof of vaccination," but said such details would be worked out through negotiations with Congress.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070918/ap_on_el_pr/clinton_ap_interview_6

I mean, one of you democrats needs to really, really explain this to me. Clinton says the burden of providing health insurance will be shifted from the employer to the employee? She says you will be FORCED to give your money to an insurance company? She says punishment for non-compliance is an option? TELL me how this serves the interests of the "common" person.

-----------

"hmmm....budget time again. Shelter...check. Food...dog food, but check. Utilities...I can burn the other two dining chairs when it gets cold again, so...check. That's it. I got by for another month, and I even have a little left ov... Wait a minute. Health insurance. Lemme see, it looks like...damn. Only got enough for 17 days. 17 days if I go with Clinton Fidelity. They're a little higher but you get sexual enhancement drugs. Bush Security's been running some good TV ads, though. "An offer you can't refute." Man that GW makes me laugh. So let's see...Bush or Clinton, Bush or Clinton. Glad I have two choices. Arf."

Subject: RE: BS: Keeping Democrats honest
From: Alba
Date: 20 Sep 07 - 09:26 PM

Why waste a day in Congress debating Health Care and War and small stuff like that when you can take time out, of what I assume is a rather slow time for these Folks, and tackle the REAL issues facing this Country. Enough time out in fact to go through the rigmaroll of putting forward a resolution regarding a Political ad and then passing a vote condemning Political free speech! duh!

Meanwhile the Prez sayz that the "Democrat Party" (it's Democratic Party numb nuts) is more afraid of irritating Left wing Groups than they are of irritating the US Military...now what the F*** does that mean?
What has one got to do with the other and why would any American be "afraid" of their OWN Military?
Strange Politics.
Yeah honesty is the best politics, sorry Policy.
What a sorry time in American Political History we are living in.

J

Subject: RE: BS: Keeping Democrats honest
From: katlaughing
Date: 21 Sep 07 - 12:21 AM

Alba, too fucking right! What a waste of a day in Congress!!


HillarycareII is not quite as simplistic as stated above. There's a good analysis at Slate with other related articles linked at the bottom of the article. From that article, I found out about what sounds like a very interesting book:

Overtreated: Why Too Much Medicine Is Making Us Sicker and Poorer (Hardcover)
by Shannon Brownlee

From Publishers Weekly

Starred Review. Contrary to Americans' common belief that in health care more is more—that more spending, drugs and technology means better care—this lucid report posits that less is actually better. Medical journalist Brownlee acknowledges that state-of-the-art medicine can improve care and save lives. But technology and drugs are misused and overused, she argues, citing a 2003 study of one million Medicare recipients, published in the Annals of Internal Medicine, which showed that patients in hospitals that spent the most were 2% to 6% more likely to die than patients in hospitals that spent the least. Additionally, she says, billions per year are spent on unnecessary tests and drugs and on specialists who are rewarded more for some procedures than for more appropriate ones. The solution, Brownlee writes, already exists: the Veterans Health Administration outperforms the rest of the American health care system on multiple measures of quality. The main obstacle to replicating this model nationwide, according to the author, is a powerful cartel of organizations, from hospitals to drug companies, that stand to lose in such a system. Many of Brownlee's points have been much covered, but her incisiveness and proposed solution can add to the health care debate heated up by the release of Michael Moore's Sicko. (Sept.)
Copyright © Reed Business Information, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Subject: RE: BS: Keeping Democrats honest
From: Peace
Date: 21 Sep 07 - 11:09 AM

Guest STT:

"The difference between a Republican and a Democrat is the Democrat is a cannibal -- they have to live off each other--while the Republicans, why, they live off the Democrats."

Will Rogers

Subject: RE: BS: Keeping Democrats honest
From: GUEST,Neil D
Date: 21 Sep 07 - 01:40 PM

Thanks for the Slate link katlaughing. Timothy Noah's article was excellent. The best point he made was what a boon a single payer system would be to U.S. companies in re global competitiveness. I have been saying this for years and I've wondered why U.S. companies (other than insurance companies) haven't got on board the universal healthcare train. Just this week the UAW is negotiating a new contract with one of the Big 3 Automakers (I forget which one but it doesn't really matter since once they iron out a deal with one, the others will sign the same deal.) and the biggest sticking point is healthcare.

Subject: RE: BS: Keeping Democrats honest
From: katlaughing
Date: 21 Sep 07 - 05:40 PM

You are welcome, Neil.

Jude, the Senate shenanigans backfired. Read on!

Yesterday, an amazing thing happened. After the Senate's shameful vote, and after President Bush called MoveOn "disgusting," our email started to fill up with messages like this one:

"I'm currently in Iraq. I do not agree with this war, and if I did support this war, it would not matter. You have the RIGHT to speak the truth. We KNOW that you support us. Thank you for speaking out for being our voice. We do not have a voice. We are overshooted by those who say that we soldiers do not support organizations like MoveOn. WE DO.

YOU ARE OUR voice."

And then came the donations. By midnight, over 12,000 people had donated $500,000—more than we've raised any day this year—for our new ad calling out the Republicans who blocked adequate rest for troops headed back to Iraq.

Subject: RE: BS: Keeping Democrats honest
From: GUEST,Started the thread
Date: 21 Sep 07 - 08:00 PM

Excrement from...I mean 'excerpts' from the Slate article:

"Today, Clinton advocates incremental reform. The best argument in its favor is that it probably won't work and that when it doesn't, the federal government will have an opportunity to take over." ... So, Clinton wants to let the insurance companies suck you dry, and then when you can't pay any more, the government will "take over." But wait a minute. The government runs off tax money, so that means you'll STILL be paying for the health care system after your bank account is empty.

"Elegance: As always, I must explain that this refers not to the elegance of the former First Lady herself, who always dresses to the nines, but rather to her health-care plan." ... Slate tries to get you focused on the wrapping of this wizened old whore. Style over substance.

"How universal? Everybody is required to have some sort of plan. As I've stated before, I don't believe this can possibly be enforced. ("What are you in for?" "Forgot to buy health insurance.") I even have my doubts whether it's constitutional." ... Of COURSE it's not constitutional. But Clinton says she's going to violate the constitution by FORCING you to give your money to her INSURANCE COMPANY BACKERS. That's like someone holding a gun to your head at the ATM machine. It's a CRIME in ADDITION to being unconstitutional.

"How socialistic? Not enough for this pinko. But it does contain the seeds of destruction for private health insurance, at least as configured today. I like that." ... Clinton has proposed FASCISM, yet this electronic rag tells its deluded readers the plan is something else. Are ALL the articles in this thing as blatantly phony as this one?

"Why does no one see the necessity of having one or two right-wing reasons to nationalize health insurance?" BECAUSE CLINTON'S A DEMOCRAT AND THIS PLAN IS CONTRARY TO THE GOOD OF THE PEOPLE! If George Bush proposed this it'd be all about "raping the poor," and "the rich get richer." What the hell is WRONG with you Democrats? Are you so desperate to get one of your "team" into a job that you'll support blatant fascism?

My letter to the author: Thank you for the steaming pile of crap that is your article "Hillarycare II." Clinton has said Americans will be FORCED to spend money on health insurance, she has indicated punitive measures for not paying this mafia protection money are on the table, and she wants to shift the burden of insurance from the employer to the employee. She is a state-welfare fascist, and your attempt to divert attention from that fact only makes it more obvious.

Subject: RE: BS: Keeping Democrats honest
From: GUEST,Started the thread
Date: 12 Oct 07 - 09:03 AM

In a succession of voice votes that were barely covered by the major media, the Democratic-led Senate has overwhelmingly approved approximately half a trillion dollars for the 2008 fiscal budgets funding the Pentagon's war machine and global US intelligence operations....

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2007/oct2007/pent-o5.shtml

The Democratic leadership in Congress is preparing to introduce new legislation this week that would permanently legalize the Bush administration's warrantless domestic surveillance, while possibly providing a blanket amnesty for private telecommunications firms that helped the Bush administration illegally spy on their own customers....

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2007/oct2007/spy-o09.shtml

The Democratic Party leadership in the US Senate has effectively killed proposals put forward earlier this year to close a tax loophole that allows billionaire managers of hedge and private equity funds to enjoy tax rates on their income that are far lower than those imposed on average American workers....

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2007/oct2007/hedg-o10.shtml

Subject: RE: BS: Keeping Democrats honest
From: Little Hawk
Date: 12 Oct 07 - 09:14 AM

Keeping Democrats OR Republicans honest is like trying to keep a dachshund thin. Just about impossible.

Regarding a universal government-financed health care plan for all citizens: We already have that in Canada, have had it for a LONG time, and they alreadh have it in most of western Europe and some other places too, and it's an immeasurably better and saner and more responsible idea than the corrupt situation that presently exists in the USA, a society that is so backward in this particular respect, regarding health coverage, that it is almost incomprehensible to most people who are not American.

But, hey, if the monkey is used to being lied to, tricked, robbed, and kept in an iron cage, and he still thinks he's "free", why bother him by suggesting any changes in his daily routine, right?

Be that as it may, I don't know enough about Hillary's particular idea of a health plan to be able to comment on whether it's a good idea or not.

Subject: RE: BS: Keeping Democrats honest
From: Little Hawk
Date: 12 Oct 07 - 09:20 AM

My dad died of liver failure last year. He required extensive hospitalization and treatment in the last few months. In the USA that would have bankrupt this family totally. In this country, it cost us virtually NOTHING...

I don't MIND paying some taxes every year, in order to live in a decent society that has some regard for its sick and dying! I do NOT have to pay taxes to support giant foreign wars of aggression that cost many, many billions of dollars a year. You do. Your taxes go for blood.