Quote :

"Swept into office partly on promises to end a 'culture of corruption,' many potentially vulnerable Democratic newcomers are pressing House leaders to confront allegations of unethical conduct involving fellow Democrats. Discontent over ethics has been underscored in votes on Republican-sponsored privileged resolutions calling on the House ethics committee to probe the ties between the defunct lobbying firm PMA and powerful Democrats including John P. Murtha of Pennsylvania, Defense Appropriations Subcommittee chairman. Democrats have rejected the resolution eight times, most recently on May 12. But 29 Democrats — including 22 first elected in 2006 and 2008 — voted for the measure sponsored by Rep. Jeff Flake , R-Ariz. Almost a third of the 34 Democratic freshmen, or 11 members, bucked their leadership, which has pressed rank-and-file members to oppose the resolution, saying that if Republicans have a gripe, they should file a complaint with the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct."

Quote :

"Rep. Tom Perriello , a 34-year old freshman Democrat from southwest Virginia who backed both measures, said that while he understood Republicans were involved in 'some partisan game playing,' he wanted to send a message that he backed reform. 'We want clean government. A lot of us ran on that. We think the rules are still broken,' Perriello said."

http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?parm1=5&docID=news-000003126418

John Murtha (D-PA), Chairman of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense

Justice Dept. Investigates Pa. Contractor Tied to Murtha

Quote :

"The Justice Department investigation stems from an effort by Murtha's office to use earmarks to steer money to local police in 2002 and its choice of Mountaintop to oversee the funds. Justice spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler said the department, under a new presidential order, will block this kind of earmark in the future. The order bars earmarks that lawmakers do not publicly detail."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/24/AR2009052402947_pf.html

Murtha gets nasty when cornered -video:

http://tinyurl.com/o4snk9

Charles Rangel (D-NY), Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee

RANGEL FACES ANOTHER ETHICS INQUIRY: REPORT

Quote :

"WASHINGTON -- The House ethics committee is looking into yet another possible breach of ethics by Rep. Charles B. Rangel, just as the New York Democrat was gearing up to appear before the panel to defend himself against several pending charges of breaking congressional rules."

http://tinyurl.com/qepvsg

Rangel, too, gets really nasty when cornered - video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rdtFWCrCh0s

BONUS:

Rangel's Obama Quip Makes Waves

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/01/nyregion/01rangel.html

Jesse Jackson, Jr. (D-IL), "Senate Candidate #5"

Jesse Jackson Jr. Pays Campaign Funds to Chicago Alderman Wife

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601109&sid=a7Hk3ZEF4QyM

And in case you're wondering:

Quote :

"The Center for Ethics and Responsibility in Washington compiled a list of all of Washington's elected representatives being examined – 12 are Democrats, four are Republicans."

http://www.citizensforethics.org/node/39755

Pelosi would also be under investigation, but Democrats blocked it.

House Democrats Block Pelosi Investigation

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2009/05/21/house-democrats-block-pelosi-investigation/

6/4/2009 3:09:41 AM

bold

http://link

bold

bold

Quote :

"quote"

http://link

6/4/2009 9:17:01 AM

Do the leaders of the democratic congress, many of whom are at the center of various ethics questions, really care anymore about the new conservative democrats who got elected and gave Obama and his pals all this un-restrained power?

6/4/2009 10:02:31 AM

no

but you'll be pleased to know that they're all making sure the dials on the gas chambers are working properly

6/4/2009 10:13:01 AM

hmmm...I wonder who Charlie Rangel will be replaced with, seeing as how he represents most of Manhattan?

Green Party, maybe?

Same for Chicago's Jesse Jackson Jr.

Guess they're ripe for Micheal Steele's "hip-hop" campaign.

for the record I'd appreciate the exit of Jackson after the Blago deal, and Rangel too.

[Edited on June 4, 2009 at 11:38 AM. Reason : .]

6/4/2009 11:36:23 AM

^ Well, good--we agree. But don't expect a trophy for finally acknowledging the obvious.

6/4/2009 11:46:49 AM

lol you think people care about your approval.

it's awesome that all the truly corrupt dems will only be replaced by even more solid liberals who hopefully won't be as dumb.

[Edited on June 4, 2009 at 1:31 PM. Reason : .]

6/4/2009 1:28:15 PM

^ 1. Please stop trolling.

2.

Quote :

"lol you think people care about your approval."

I think nothing of the sort.

3.

Quote :

"it's awesome that all the truly corrupt dems will only be replaced by even more solid liberals who hopefully won't be as dumb."

Well, if Democrats are going to be the majority in office anyway--and I don't think this will be the case for very much longer--I certainly agree that they should be smarter and they should not be corrupt.

[Edited on June 4, 2009 at 4:07 PM. Reason : PS: I also agree that water is wet.]

6/4/2009 4:04:35 PM

Politicians rather Republican or Democrat are corrupt and use their power for personnal gain
[NEW]

At least no reports are out yet about Obama's deputy Dept. of the Interior sleeping and partying with execs from Big Oil.

6/4/2009 4:49:34 PM

Quote :

"Well, if Democrats are going to be the majority in office anyway--and I don't think this will be the case for very much longer--I certainly agree that they should be smarter and they should not be corrupt. "

You also didn't think we were in a recession. And I bet you thought Saddam had ties to Bin Laden, and that there really were WMDs being hidden all over Iraq, trucked around in mobile biological weapons labs.

6/4/2009 7:53:27 PM

Quote :

"it's awesome that all the truly corrupt dems will only be replaced by even more solid liberals who hopefully won't be as dumb."

You know what? I'm okay with that.

I'd take a dozen Paul Wellstones over a Nancy Pelosi any day. Even if I find myself diametrically opposed to them a good portion of the time.

6/4/2009 8:08:26 PM

I'll accept any honest person who backs true civil liberties and guaranteed health care for people who can't afford it otherwise.

True liberals. I won't run from that term. I wear it honorably.

[Edited on June 5, 2009 at 1:28 AM. Reason : .]

6/5/2009 1:27:45 AM

well then you won't be supporting a liberal any time soon. They don't give a shit about civil liberties any more than the conservatives do. and how can you include protecting civil liberties along with granting free healthcare. kind of impossible, if you ask me.

6/5/2009 12:36:36 PM

Quote :

"how can you include protecting civil liberties along with granting free healthcare. kind of impossible, if you ask me."

i could respond to this with what it deserves but instead i'll ask you to demonstrate how medicaid is harmful to civil liberties.

another successful aaronburro post.

6/5/2009 3:17:18 PM

considering that it naturally reduces choice, which most people consider a "liberty," then there you go. really easy stuff here

6/5/2009 4:13:28 PM

Rofl, oh noes, my freedom of choice will be gone with state health care. I won't be able to choose anything else in my life if we get state health care, whatever will I do?

6/6/2009 8:55:07 AM

Quote :

"considering that it naturally reduces choice, which most people consider a "liberty," then there you go. really easy stuff here"

ahahahahahahah, go back and read my original post:

Quote :

"guaranteed health care for people who can't afford it otherwise."

and in my 2nd one, i gave you a little hint: i was talking primarity about medicaid qualifiers.

so if someone can't afford it otherwise, (as in, they're poor, they don't have the money, they very well might qualify for medicaid, and they need the treatment), what other choice do they have? begging for the money? wishing and praying for a nice doctor to do surgery for free?

and, as fail boat said, expansion of programs for the poor here isn't going to stop your freedom to choose a doctor any more than it already is by your provider, likely.

go throw a flag at sidney lowe or something.

[Edited on June 6, 2009 at 11:21 AM. Reason : .]

6/6/2009 11:19:15 AM

and what you fail to comprehend is that your suggestions
1) put more people in to the categorie of those who can't afford health care on their own, thus reducing their choices,

and

2) remove from the market providers who would have otherwise been able to provide their services. again, reducing choices.

6/8/2009 9:52:12 PM

Quote :

"You also didn't think we were in a recession. And I bet you thought Saddam had ties to Bin Laden, and that there really were WMDs being hidden all over Iraq, trucked around in mobile biological weapons labs."

moron

By generally accepted measures, we were not in a recession. And if you're referring to predictions, I was wrong--and I admitted as much, which is more than I've ever seen you do--and so were thousands of Ivy League-educated economists and other analysts. Please don't act as if you had some superior knowledge concerning the subject at issue--you hoped the sky would fall on Bush and his supporters and one day it did.

Concerning Iraq, WMDs, and whatever other kitchen sink madness you've attempted to toss in here, we don't need to go there. The case has been thoroughly proven that Bush did not just make it all up.

Quote :

"At least no reports are out yet about Obama's deputy Dept. of the Interior sleeping and partying with execs from Big Oil."

HUR

No, but Barney Frank was "sleeping and partying with" an exec from Fannie Mae while he was voting on issues related to that organization. But who cares, right?

Now, could we please get back on topic? It's Democrats who are expressing concern about the multiple investigations of their colleagues--and some of these investigations appear to be being held back unnecessarily.

6/9/2009 1:31:40 AM

Quote :

"Do the leaders of the democratic congress, many of whom are at the center of various ethics questions, really care anymore about the new conservative democrats who got elected and gave Obama and his pals all this un-restrained power?"

i've been wondering this for like 4 months now

[Edited on June 9, 2009 at 1:35 AM. Reason : maybe only 3 months]

6/9/2009 1:34:54 AM

Quote :

"The case has been thoroughly proven that Bush did not just make it all up. "

Right. He just relied on evidence that we knew at the time was practically bullshit. Don't believe me? Read Ron Paul's speech in opposition to the Iraq War from 2003. It practically reads like a history book.

6/9/2009 6:40:16 AM

Quote :

"1) put more people in to the categorie of those who can't afford health care on their own, thus reducing their choices,"

wait, what? if someone can't afford something how do they have a choice? how is my categorizing anyone suddenly making them unable to buy something if they can't before they were categorized?

Quote :

"Read Ron Paul's speech in opposition to the Iraq War from 2003. It practically reads like a history book."

oh, ok, i get what you're saying now. you want to do away with any and all medicaid/care. then kindly doctors will give out free care like dr. ron paul did and like he claims doctors will in his book (but is that in their rational self-interest?). those ron paul books changed your life, didn't they?

Quote :

"The case has been thoroughly proven that Bush did not just make it all up. "

Well, on the surface, you're right. He was going by the intel he had, which was bad intel.

[Edited on June 9, 2009 at 11:56 AM. Reason : .]

6/9/2009 11:52:21 AM

^ Yes, and as many conveniently and continually overlook, President Bill Clinton's 1998 State of the Union Address was quite clear about Iraq's WMD:

Quote :

"Together we must also confront the new hazards of chemical and biological weapons and the outlaw states, terrorists and organized criminals seeking to acquire them. Saddam Hussein has spent the better part of this decade and much of his nation's wealth not on providing for the Iraqi people, but on developing nuclear, chemical and biological weapons, and the missiles to deliver them."

Quote :

"I know I speak for everyone in this chamber, Republicans and Democrats, when I say to Saddam Hussein: You cannot defy the will of the world. (APPLAUSE) And when I say to him, you have used weapons of mass destruction before. We are determined to deny you the capacity to use them again. (APPLAUSE)"

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/01/27/sotu/transcripts/clinton/index2.html

[Edited on June 9, 2009 at 3:59 PM. Reason : I have posted this ad nauseam, but people believe what they want to believe.]

6/9/2009 3:57:02 PM

Quote :

"if someone can't afford something how do they have a choice?"

you are almost getting it. now, connect the final dot, here... The proposed plan increases the price of healthcare, making more people unable to afford it on their own. Giving them only one choice: Obama-care! good work! you got it!

Quote :

"oh, ok, i get what you're saying now. you want to do away with any and all medicaid/care. then kindly doctors will give out free care like dr. ron paul did and like he claims doctors will in his book (but is that in their rational self-interest?). those ron paul books changed your life, didn't they?"

1) One Ron Paul reference does NOT imply that I am referencing Dr. Paul when I was talking to you earlier. Nice try...
2) There have been instances of doctors giving their care away for free. Until the insurance companies lobbied against such actions, making it illegal for doctors to do so.

^ you can quote Clinton all you want. it doesn't change the facts: Saddam was, more or less, neutered. His WMDs didn't exist, and the guy we "trusted" on intel to the contrary was a known scoundrel.

6/9/2009 8:28:24 PM

Dude,

hooksaw if you just had him shut up about a select few liberal topics you could almost
slap a -R on Slick Willy give him a stuffed elephant and masquerade Bill around as a Republican.

As a conservative he is almost the idealistic person if you are forced to drudge through 4 years of democrats destroying the nation.

As a professor you should seriously look into why places like California, NY, Mass, Oregon and such hate america always trying to ruin the country by voting democrat...

6/9/2009 8:51:59 PM

Quote :

"By generally accepted measures, we were not in a recession. And if you're referring to predictions, I was wrong--and I admitted as much, which is more than I've ever seen you do--and so were thousands of Ivy League-educated economists and other analysts. Please don't act as if you had some superior knowledge concerning the subject at issue--you hoped the sky would fall on Bush and his supporters and one day it did. Concerning Iraq, WMDs, and whatever other kitchen sink madness you've attempted to toss in here, we don't need to go there. The case has been thoroughly proven that Bush did not just make it all up. "

You're still delusional about this.

The prevailing theories by far indicated we were in a recession. It was only your insistence on adhering to right-wing kooky logic that you were fooled in to believing we were not in a recession.

I don't pretend to have "superior knowledge" but when the data indicates a downward trend, and the clearest opinions are that we're heading to a recession, it would take more than the right wing propaganda machine, trying desperately to defend their trickle-down theories to convince me otherwise (because the Republicans were in power, and they couldn't possibly have been catastrophically wrong on economic theories).

And it's been thoroughly proven that Bush/Cheney pushed for a particular conclusion with Cheney recently admitting he had no idea why the media reported that Iraq had ties to Al-Qaeda... where could they have gotten that idea?

6/9/2009 9:47:03 PM

^ 1. Concerning recession, from that noted "right-wing kooky" publication The Economist:

Quote :

"Recession Broadly speaking, a period of slow or negative economic GROWTH, usually accompanied by rising UNEMPLOYMENT. Economists have two more precise definitions of a recession. The first, which can be hard to prove, is when an economy is growing at less than its long-term trend rate of growth and has spare CAPACITY. The second is two consecutive quarters of falling GDP."

http://www.economist.com/research/economics/alphabetic.cfm?letter=R#recession

And every business text I ever read. But you haven't read any business texts, have you, moron?

2.

Quote :

". . .the clearest opinions are that we're heading to a recession. . . ."

Yes, and they were still opinions.

3. And nice red herring with the whole Iraq-al-Qaeda smoke screen. The issue under discussion was WMD, and as I pointed out, many--including former President Bill Clinton and others--believed that Iraq possessed WMD.

And don't forget that WMD--in violation of UN sanctions--were found in Iraq. This is fact:

Iraqi Chemical Stash Uncovered

Quote :

"BAGHDAD, Aug. 13 -- U.S. troops raiding a warehouse in the northern city of Mosul uncovered a suspected chemical weapons factory containing 1,500 gallons of chemicals believed destined for attacks on U.S. and Iraqi forces and civilians, military officials said Saturday."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/13/AR2005081300530.html

Nuke program parts unearthed in Baghdad back yard

Quote :

"The parts, with accompanying plans, were unearthed by Iraqi scientist Mahdi Obeidi who had hidden them under a rose bush in his garden 12 years ago under orders from Qusay Hussein and Saddam Hussein's then son-in-law, Hussein Kamel."

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/06/25/sprj.irq.centrifuge/index.html

Now, can we please get back on topic? Anything further on this and I'll have to assume that it's just trolling.

[Edited on June 9, 2009 at 11:03 PM. Reason : Sweet Jesus. ]

6/9/2009 10:58:46 PM

Quote :

"U.S. troops raiding a warehouse in the northern city of Mosul uncovered a suspected chemical weapons factory containing 1,500 gallons of chemicals believed destined for attacks on U.S. and Iraqi forces and civil"

That probably had been shut down since FUCKING 1991 when Oil Wars Episode I- Attack of the Haj Gulf War I ended.

^^ We are currently in a Economic retraction of growth NOT a Recession duh!

Just like how Iraq was in a state of Sectarian Violence NOT Civil War

Waterboarding is an Enhanced Interrogation Technique NOT Torture

and

When we oopsie drop a CBU-87 cluster bomb on Iraqi mosque that we thought was a militant output this is Collateral Deaths not Fucking up and killing innocent civilians.

6/9/2009 11:12:55 PM

Quote :

"http://www.economist.com/research/economics/alphabetic.cfm?letter=R#recession And every business text I ever read. But you haven't read any business texts, have you, moron? "

Clearly you didn't understand that link. Here's a hint, if your bolded part was all there was to it, then that's all they would have typed on that page. I guess though if something can't be reduced to a single bold-able clause, you won't understand it. This actually explains your confusions quite well, now that I think about it.

And are you surprised that Iraq had chemical weapons that we essentially gave them? Does this justify, in your right-wing mind, the Bush admin manufacturing a reason to invade Iraq, and intentionally misleading people about war?

6/9/2009 11:18:05 PM

^^ Wrong. From the news report at issue:

1.

Quote :

"[Lt. Col. Steven A.] Boylan said the suspected lab was new, dating from some time after the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003."

2. What would it matter how old it was if it could still be used and was in violation of sanctions?

3. Please get out of my thread--seriously. Please just get out and don't come back.

^ So, you admit Iraq had WMD. Thanks--QED.

Back on topic--please!

Here's a refresher:

Quote :

"Swept into office partly on promises to end a 'culture of corruption,' many potentially vulnerable Democratic newcomers are pressing House leaders to confront allegations of unethical conduct involving fellow Democrats."

Does anyone have anything meaningful to add concerning the topic?


[Edited on June 9, 2009 at 11:28 PM. Reason : .]

6/9/2009 11:23:15 PM

Quote :

"I guess though if something can't be reduced to a single bold-able clause, you won't understand it."

Right on cue

And Iraq didn't have WMDs in any meaningful way. If your standard for invading a country and throwing it in to a civil war is barely having stuff to make WMDs, there is a LONG list of countries that you need to have invaded.

[Edited on June 9, 2009 at 11:32 PM. Reason : ]

6/9/2009 11:31:27 PM

Quote :

"Lt. Col. Steven A.] Boylan "

Surely a credible source. I'm sure the patriotic lifer and expert in blow shit up also has the background to make a full analysis
on the state of the technology in order to ascertain the date to which it has been run.

Quote :

"2. What would it matter how old it was if it could still be used and was in violation of sanctions?"

Since if the lab was pad-locked and isolated since the last time Saddam "got in trouble" (i.e. Bill Clinton bombing the shit out of Baghdad)
than we can not use the mere prescense of said lab as reason to rationalize our invasion of Iraq. Give it up hooksaw
even the Republican leaders are trying to throw the Iraq issue under the rug as a (whoops we were wrong) incident and only
rationalize their continued support of military action in Iraq as a Finish what we started policy. That I agree with to a point.

Quote :

"Please get out of my thread"

or what? u are not going to do shit. Why don't u quit trolling TWW before you get in trouble with NCSU IRL again.

6/9/2009 11:35:09 PM

Quote :

"or what? u are not going to do shit. Why don't u quit trolling TWW before you get in trouble with NCSU IRL again. "

I think he's trying to capitalize on us not having a real chancellor or provost

6/9/2009 11:57:38 PM

Please address the topic:

Quote :

"Swept into office partly on promises to end a 'culture of corruption,' many potentially vulnerable Democratic newcomers are pressing House leaders to confront allegations of unethical conduct involving fellow Democrats."

6/10/2009 1:56:13 AM

What's to address? It is what it is. Do you need someone to bump your blog ttt?

6/10/2009 10:02:19 AM

Quote :

"If your standard for invading a country and throwing it in to a civil war is barely having stuff to make WMDs, there is a LONG list of countries that you need to have invaded."

1. What Civil War? Last time I checked, they had peaceful elections and things were relatively quiet.

2. IMO, a normal, functioning country with WMD's is fine. A country who poses a direct threat to the US or our allies and that has a history of torturing, raping, murdering, and using WMD's against it's own people is not.....wouldnt you agree?

Hypocrasy in the press at its finest........3 "terrorists" were waterboarded at G.Bay to save American lives while countless numbers were extremely tortured and murdered in Iraq. The US Press has more interest in the 3 waterboardings because they could further harm Bush as opposed to painting Bush as a liberator and humanitarian by focusing on Sadams crimes.

[Edited on June 10, 2009 at 11:07 AM. Reason : .]

6/10/2009 10:57:12 AM

Hey guys look the new Karl Rove is here and is using all media of communications to spread the gospel of savior bush. Listen well as bigun20 preaches truth for us commoners not to be misled by the liberal socialist hippy conspiracy that has crept its tentacles into major news conglomerates of America.

In all seriousness though...



you are a mere sheep if u honestly believe that shit.

[Edited on June 10, 2009 at 12:05 PM. Reason : ol]

6/10/2009 12:03:45 PM

^Do you usually think its a good debate strategy to smear someone you disagree with rather than actually debunking ideas?

Let me guess....this is your view.
America is evil because we waterboard or "tortured" 3 "terrorists". Iraq is oppressed because the US military is occupying its nation because Bush lied to us all.

Let me ask you this. Why is your #1 problem with Iraq?

6/10/2009 12:40:54 PM

Quote :

"America is evil because we waterboard or "tortured" 3 "terrorists"."

Not exactly. I actually think it can be justified in certain eminent dire situations of national security. Nonetheless it should
be used with discretion. Also, i disrespect any politician who tries to make their poop smell like potpourri and roses
by swearing water boarding is not torture but an Enhanced Interrogation Techniques.

Quote :

"Why is your #1 problem with Iraq?"

You mean "What" is my #1 problem with Iraq. Well to summarize at best I think George Bush under guidance/advice of Cheney & Co. fudged or stretched
intelligence they received in order to create their case and at best flat out lied or fabricated the intelligence they needed to
lead us to war (i.e. saddam worked with or was involved with 9/11). Also, I think the war was more motivated by hidden interests
of powerful politicians rather than the world looking at the United States of Freedum to take leadership in evicting the Evil Emperor
Saddam from Iraq or b.c we truly though they were a threat to national security.

Quote :

"Do you usually think its a good debate strategy to smear someone you disagree with rather than actually debunking idea"

and no not really; but i enjoy doing so for fun to entertain me during teh day at the responses i get from making those type of posts.

6/10/2009 12:59:25 PM

Quote :

"America is evil "

By the way America is not evil; we are certainly top tier of countries as far as liberty, economy, and livlihood is concerned. This
does not mean we there is no room for improvement. Kobe Bryant does not sit at home during practice as even an all-star still has room
to grow and Phil Jackson certainly has no qualms critiquing his play every night. Likewise the US is not some idealist magical freedom land immune
from the faults that have plagued powerful nations from the dawn of time. The minute we fall into this dillusioned mindset is minute we
set ourselves up to follow some overly ambitious powerful leader on the path that diverges us from the tenants this nation was founded.

Surely the followers of Ceasar did not expect him to hold onto the powers of emergency dictator and create the path for his successor to turn
Rome from a republic into an empire ruled by the whims of a totalitarian emperor until its downfall.

6/10/2009 3:10:40 PM

So your qualm with Iraq is that you believe it is a war waged by lies and misinformation. That is debatable and its a good debate. So, if the US had validated the war differently or had a valid reason in your opinion, you would have supported the war? Its really just a PR issue to you. In any event, you'll never support the war no matter how good things may get, because the war was unfounded to begin with.

I take a different view. I think Iraq had to be delt with; its a topic that presidents for the past 20 years had talked about. Here's my #1 problem with Iraq: The US moved too quickly and Rumsfeld/Bush and the group were not prepared. Our makeshift plan for rebuilding the country was not working until Patreus took over.

Since then, our performance has been better than anyone could hope.

6/10/2009 5:06:00 PM

I'd say you are putting words into HUR's mouth...

6/10/2009 6:03:53 PM

Quote :

"you'll never support the war no matter how good things may get, because the war was unfounded to begin with."

Even though i disagree with us going to war with Iraq, at this point my feelings are not OMG lets evacuate asap. Since we fucked things up there I do not want another post WW1 Weimer Republic where we blow down the establishment and roll out to leave a power vacuum in Iraq. Most of the issue i had during the 2nd half of the Bush administration was the management of Iraq.

1.) I think we should have passed the buck off more to friendly nations in the neighborhood and other allies who have more at stake at having a "stable" Iraq than we do.

2.) This kind of ties to number 1 but I also did not like the favoritism, no-bid contracts, and the $900 hammers paid by the tax payer for companies like Halliburton (a conglomeration known to have ties to Bush/Cheney) or Black Water to profiteer off the Iraq war.

3.) We started fumbling the ball with Afghanistan to whom I supported our military action against in order to concentrate on Iraq.

From my observation Bush was just itching to finish what his father started in Iraq. Even if Saddam had fully cooperated, they would have found some excuse or instigated Iraq somehow to justify war. I'm not arguing he was a great leader or should empathized with but in the list of fucked up shit going on in this world; Bush had a lot more "evil" leaders he could have dealt with. I just find it a funny coincidence that Iraq has the 2nd biggest oil reserve in the world. If anything given the close proximity Bush imho would have been more justified going into Cuba if he wanted to go after "evil" people.

6/10/2009 8:39:00 PM

I'm gonna stick with this cause I'm stubborn:

Quote :

"The proposed plan increases the price of healthcare, making more people unable to afford it on their own. Giving them only one choice: Obama-care! good work! you got it!"

If that's the case, then why are doctors and provider groups opposed to a larger public option because it won't be as profitable, ie: the public option sets prices too low.

this is why they say they're gonna voluntarily reform themselves, to avoid prices going too low.

either way, people are bracing for a system that isn't as profitable, at least that's what most companies are saying.

(fwiw: i have a steak in private care btw. i support universal coverage but would rather still see a majority private system, which is why i support public only for the truly poor. private care very well could be part of my livelihood, i'm pretty well-invested in it...but i'm not gonna provide you with much info here)

[Edited on June 10, 2009 at 10:03 PM. Reason : .]

6/10/2009 10:02:13 PM

I think the problem is the bureaucrats and health insurance industry at least from ^ the standpoint of doctors wanting to reform themselves. Otherwise why else would the ball have not been rolling since the first "universal health care threat" back in 1994.

Only ignorant narrow minded moron or aristocratic dickheads would not at least admit the health care industry has long been in need of reform to allow more affordable health care for the public in general. Now we are stuck with the possibility of a UHC system where the gov't goes around handout free coupons for doctor visits with those working hard for the good of our nation subsidizing those who'd rather just get a free ride on the gravy train.

[Edited on June 10, 2009 at 10:33 PM. Reason : l]

6/10/2009 10:31:30 PM

Quote :

"Now we are stuck with the possibility of a UHC system where the gov't goes around handout free coupons for doctor visits with those working hard for the good of our nation subsidizing those who'd rather just get a free ride on the gravy train."

I'm not sure what bill you're talking about, but it's not one that's likely to pass here.

Not to mention, even in a single payer system, everyone would get those handouts, not just your welfare queens.

6/11/2009 12:07:08 AM

Republicans Seize Control of State Senate
June 8, 2009

Quote :

"Updated, 6:20 p.m. | ALBANY – Republicans apparently seized control of the New York State Senate on Monday, in a stunning and sudden reversal of fortunes for the Democratic Party, which controlled the chamber for barely five months. A raucous leadership fight erupted on the floor of the Senate around 3 p.m., with two Democrats, Pedro Espada Jr. of the Bronx and Hiram Monserrate of Queens, joining the 30 Senate Republicans in a motion that would displace Democrats as the party in control."

http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/06/08/revolt-could-imperil-democratic-control-of-senate/?hp

NY state Senate in "diabolical" leadership spat: Governor - 6 hours ago

http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSTRE55975P20090610

6/11/2009 1:18:06 AM

Yeah, those dudes are pretty awesome.

Quote :

"Monserrate was arrested on December 19, 2008 and accused of slashing Karla Giraldo in the face with a broken drinking glass during an argument in his Jackson Heights apartment."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hiram_Monserrate#Arrest_and_indictment

Quote :

"He has also been repeatedly criticized for unethical usage of the non-profit Soundview Health Clinic for political reasons. In 2000, he was acquitted on charges of using $200,000 from a Soundview HMO in order to pay off 1996 campaign debts from 1996. He was found not guilty by arguing that the HMO was allowed to do as it wished with federal money. Six employees were found guilty of using taxpayer funds to help the campaigns of Espada and his son.[15] In 1996, he was indicted for using $70,000 from a city-financed HMO to fund his unsuccessful reelection campaign. [16] As of 2009, New York State Attorney General Andrew Cuomo was investigating Espada's use of the Soundview Health Clinic for personal political reasons. "

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedro_Espada#Controversies

You can have them.

6/11/2009 10:25:46 AM

^ Never said that they were "awesome." I was simply passing along the info, and I didn't see another thread that it would fit in.

6/11/2009 4:27:28 PM

Quote :

"If that's the case, then why are doctors and provider groups opposed to a larger public option because it won't be as profitable, ie: the public option sets prices too low."

Simple. The doctors don't want to be government employees. And the provider groups don't want to be pushed out of business by the government's plan. Which is what will happen.

6/11/2009 6:15:15 PM