Dallas-Mavs.com Forums

Go Back   Dallas-Mavs.com Forums > Everything Else > Political Arena

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 08-22-2009, 01:47 PM   #81
GermanDunk
Diamond Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Deutschland
Posts: 7,883
GermanDunk has a reputation beyond reputeGermanDunk has a reputation beyond reputeGermanDunk has a reputation beyond reputeGermanDunk has a reputation beyond reputeGermanDunk has a reputation beyond reputeGermanDunk has a reputation beyond reputeGermanDunk has a reputation beyond reputeGermanDunk has a reputation beyond reputeGermanDunk has a reputation beyond reputeGermanDunk has a reputation beyond reputeGermanDunk has a reputation beyond repute
Default

I still don´t know why public healthcare is evil. It´s the best thing ever invented !
__________________
GermanDunk is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old 08-22-2009, 10:34 PM   #82
aquaadverse
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 317
aquaadverse is a name known to allaquaadverse is a name known to allaquaadverse is a name known to allaquaadverse is a name known to allaquaadverse is a name known to allaquaadverse is a name known to allaquaadverse is a name known to allaquaadverse is a name known to allaquaadverse is a name known to all
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GermanDunk View Post
I still don´t know why public healthcare is evil. It´s the best thing ever invented !
Really? I thought a ribbed condom worn inside out took that prize. Does that make me selfish?

Our health care is public. It's just the payment that's private.

We aren't setup for it. In any way. All our stabs at a great society type programs have been big failures, including our retirement program for pensioners. Social Security is taken out of everyones paychecks and for decades the number of workers to pensioners left substantial surplus. Back in the 1960's our President borrowed some of it to pay for the Vietnam war. Then it was used for general government spending.

That has continued right up to the present. The largest generation in the history of our country were the children born after WWII. The requirements this generation was going to need for retirement didn't require long involved crunching of figures. You needed x number of people working to support x number of retirees with x amount as a tax.

It is also used to pay for people who have been paying into the program that become disabled or die and leave wife and child without income.

Now we have reached the time when that big lump of people are retiring. It's been known for decades the previous looting had left the fund unable to meet the obligation of this huge group entering retirement.

Every year for 40 years the studies came out pointing out this looming crisis and projecting how much more expensive it was going to be if the government kept refusing to deal with it. Every single person here since the 1970's was aware of it. If a private company had done this, they would be in prison. If you're curious, this is a pretty good summation:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_..._United_States

Despite all of this history and example after example of just how inefficient trying to get 400 people in Congress to agree about anything, the last 40 years of refusing to fix this particular issue, people still believe in magic.

All the people that get elected to the top political offices in the US care more about getting reelected and gaining more influence and power. Part of that requires grabbing as much money as possible to be used in the section of the country they represent.

For 25 years those same people were exempt from that retirement fund. The decisions they were making had no impact on their own lives. Good or bad. All they had to worry about was getting reelected. They have also exempted themselves from the plan they are trying to force on the rest of us. They vote as a group, and only a few are individually identified and are known to the whole country. The rest sink into the herd.

While great effort has been put out to make the rejection of the current solution = not wanting to make any changes, it isn't true. You hear constant squalling from people favoring the plan that it's because of misinformation and incorrect facts.

The US has a division of government, The Congressional Budget office, that has been used for years as an impartial, nonpolitical resource staffed by experts who analyze the financial impact of legislation. The conclusion they have on this solution is it will not save money, but actually increase the cost of health care. There are people who believe this proposal is going to cover everyone in the country, another fantasy. Those people believe the reason you can object to the plan is if the big private insurance are paying you or you hate having a black President so much you will destroy anything he tries to do.There are many alternatives that have been discussed for years, they are easily found. It simply isn't true there are no other proposals.

The biggest pile of fairy dust is despite all the evidence, the long and multiple examples of State health care like the insolvent Medicare and Medicaid with up to a 30 year record to examine, they will magically reform and become efficient by simply handing you a coverage card. There are zero examples of this.
aquaadverse is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-22-2009, 11:56 PM   #83
wmbwinn
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Midwest
Posts: 2,043
wmbwinn has much to be proud ofwmbwinn has much to be proud ofwmbwinn has much to be proud ofwmbwinn has much to be proud ofwmbwinn has much to be proud ofwmbwinn has much to be proud ofwmbwinn has much to be proud ofwmbwinn has much to be proud ofwmbwinn has much to be proud ofwmbwinn has much to be proud ofwmbwinn has much to be proud of
Default

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

enjoy
__________________
"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes...Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." -Thomas Jefferson
wmbwinn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-22-2009, 11:58 PM   #84
wmbwinn
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Midwest
Posts: 2,043
wmbwinn has much to be proud ofwmbwinn has much to be proud ofwmbwinn has much to be proud ofwmbwinn has much to be proud ofwmbwinn has much to be proud ofwmbwinn has much to be proud ofwmbwinn has much to be proud ofwmbwinn has much to be proud ofwmbwinn has much to be proud ofwmbwinn has much to be proud ofwmbwinn has much to be proud of
Default

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fRdLpem-AAs

old school...
__________________
"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes...Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." -Thomas Jefferson
wmbwinn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-23-2009, 12:06 AM   #85
chumdawg
Guru
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Cowboys Country
Posts: 23,336
chumdawg has a reputation beyond reputechumdawg has a reputation beyond reputechumdawg has a reputation beyond reputechumdawg has a reputation beyond reputechumdawg has a reputation beyond reputechumdawg has a reputation beyond reputechumdawg has a reputation beyond reputechumdawg has a reputation beyond reputechumdawg has a reputation beyond reputechumdawg has a reputation beyond reputechumdawg has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wmbwinn View Post
If he's right, then shouldn't the FDA be abolished?
chumdawg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-23-2009, 09:58 AM   #86
Mavdog
Diamond Member
 
Mavdog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Texas
Posts: 6,014
Mavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud of
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wmbwinn View Post
aren't you glad that the reform proposals being discussed in america today do not have any similarity to the british model of providing heathcare?
Mavdog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-23-2009, 10:33 AM   #87
alexamenos
Diamond Member
 
alexamenos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Basketball fan nirvana
Posts: 5,625
alexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GermanDunk View Post
I still don´t know why public healthcare is evil. It´s the best thing ever invented !
I'm going to go with the iPhone 3gs as the greatest thing ever. If the iPhone had a vagina I would never need to actually be in the same room with another person.

As for public healthcare....even if we were to agree that public health care is a good idea in theory, there's still the question of whether this government (the US Fed Gov) can handle such a thing.

On the second question, there's basically zero reason to believe the the Fed Gov can and will do anything useful when it comes to healthcare -- zero....to borrow a phrase from aquaadverse, "there are zero examples of this."

The Fed Gov is a bloated, corrupt, out of control institution....who would want a bloated, corrupt, out of control institution rationing your health care?

just a few little factoids....

The Fed Gov is running about a $1,800,000,000,000 deficit this year;
The Pentagon cannot account for how it spent trillions of dollars;
The Federal Reserve won't account for what it's done with trillions of dollars.

When we start measuring an institution's fiscal irresponsibilities with Trillions (rather than billions or preferably millions), it's time to reign it in, not give it more.
__________________
"It does not take a brain seargant to know the reason this team struggles." -- dmack24
alexamenos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-24-2009, 01:54 PM   #88
GermanDunk
Diamond Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Deutschland
Posts: 7,883
GermanDunk has a reputation beyond reputeGermanDunk has a reputation beyond reputeGermanDunk has a reputation beyond reputeGermanDunk has a reputation beyond reputeGermanDunk has a reputation beyond reputeGermanDunk has a reputation beyond reputeGermanDunk has a reputation beyond reputeGermanDunk has a reputation beyond reputeGermanDunk has a reputation beyond reputeGermanDunk has a reputation beyond reputeGermanDunk has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by aquaadverse View Post
Really? I thought a ribbed condom worn inside out took that prize. Does that make me selfish?
...
Quote:
Originally Posted by alexamenos View Post
I'm going to go with the iPhone 3gs as the greatest thing ever. If the iPhone had a vagina I would never need to actually be in the same room with another person.

...

The Fed Gov is running about a $1,800,000,000,000 deficit this year;
The Pentagon cannot account for how it spent trillions of dollars;
The Federal Reserve won't account for what it's done with trillions of dollars.

When we start measuring an institution's fiscal irresponsibilities with Trillions (rather than billions or preferably millions), it's time to reign it in, not give it more.
I know what you mean, guys, but i can´t imagine a society with more bureaucracy than germany ( we have about 230 public insurance organizations (some small) the big ones are organized seperately in every state + the private orgs...) (when one family member has a job the whole family is covered; that´s ok. Imagine a guestworker has 20 kids and is married with three women, all are covered, even when the rest of the family lives somewhere in the middle east...it´s just ridiculous )

Therefore i mentioned such an endeavor will not work without hard jurisdiction. Means limiting the number of public insurances, limiting the refundable med. products to those that are field tested and handing out only the number of pills that are needed for the healing...
But why connecting it with the secretary, why not as an organization working under D.C.´s control ?
Don´t want to play the smart ass. Just to give some ideas for the discussion.
__________________

Last edited by GermanDunk; 08-24-2009 at 01:57 PM.
GermanDunk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-24-2009, 04:30 PM   #89
92bDad
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: TX
Posts: 2,505
92bDad has a brilliant future92bDad has a brilliant future92bDad has a brilliant future92bDad has a brilliant future92bDad has a brilliant future92bDad has a brilliant future92bDad has a brilliant future92bDad has a brilliant future92bDad has a brilliant future92bDad has a brilliant future92bDad has a brilliant future
Default

http://www.glennbeck.com/content/art...cle/198/29610/

Even NPR is calling President Obama a Liar!!!
92bDad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-24-2009, 06:19 PM   #90
aquaadverse
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 317
aquaadverse is a name known to allaquaadverse is a name known to allaquaadverse is a name known to allaquaadverse is a name known to allaquaadverse is a name known to allaquaadverse is a name known to allaquaadverse is a name known to allaquaadverse is a name known to allaquaadverse is a name known to all
Default

Liar is pretty strong, and is pretty redundant for politicians at that level. Obama just has no internal experience bar to evaluate the bad, terrible advice he's getting. The only person with DC experience is Rahm the impaler. Everyone else is from Chicago or tells him how wonderful he is.

The ex-Clintoneers on his staff looked back at 1993 and advised him to not hand Congress a done deal and tell them to just pass it. Pity he didn't understand who he was giving the magic Crayola.

The CIA ass ripping getting revved up is pretty strange timing. Exactly when is it going to sink in the tactic of ripping the Bush administration when he gets in trouble is a campaign tactic that doesn't translate well when people want a statesman. Sticking another polarizing, protractive action when health care is already kicking his ass is a curious tactic. Someone who is giving him this stupid advice yet again, needs to go.

The only explanation that makes sense is someone you can't fire without a divorce. I'm kidding, but someone is unable is predict the results of actions and pulling 6 figures as a reward. If it's not Michele, I'd like to peek at whatever pictures they're holding.
aquaadverse is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-24-2009, 07:33 PM   #91
Mavdog
Diamond Member
 
Mavdog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Texas
Posts: 6,014
Mavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud of
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 92bDad View Post
http://www.glennbeck.com/content/art...cle/198/29610/

Even NPR is calling President Obama a Liar!!!
no, the program is on air america, and it isn't in any way affiliated with npr.

here's the story from the la times. the guest on the air america show didn't have his facts right.
--------------------------------------------------------
White House deal with drug firms draws flak
An $80-billion pact with the pharmaceutical industry intended to advance the administration's healthcare reform goals has instead created confusion and discord.
By Tom Hamburger

August 14, 2009

Reporting from Washington

An $80-billion deal with the drug industry that the White House thought would add momentum to its campaign for national healthcare reform has instead provoked a political tempest, frustrating and bewildering some of the president's most important allies.

As complaints rolled in, the administration offered varying, sometimes contradictory explanations of the deal.

"I've heard a lot of confusion about what was agreed to," said Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-Beverly Hills), chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, who wrote healthcare legislation that would impose more cost on the industry than that contained in the White House agreement.

Under the deal, the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, or PhRMA, agreed to provide $80 billion in cost savings over 10 years. It also promised to promote healthcare reform in a multimillion-dollar ad campaign. In return, the White House agreed to consider the $80 billion as a cap on PhRMA's costs in the overhaul legislation. In addition, the White House agreed not to require rebates on sales of commonly prescribed drugs to patients enrolled jointly in Medicaid and Medicare.

Separately, the White House told PhRMA executives that legislation the industry has long opposed to permit importation of cheaper drugs from Canada and Europe would probably not be necessary if a healthcare overhaul bill passed.

The drug industry's chief lobbyist, PhRMA President W.J. "Billy" Tauzin, said the unwritten agreement was reached with Democratic Sen. Max Baucus of Montana, chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, and was closely monitored and "blessed" by the White House.

Since the agreement was announced June 20 -- with President Obama saying, "We are at a turning point in America's journey toward healthcare reform" -- critics from the left and right have criticized the accord. Business and conservative interests are angry that one of their most important traditional allies -- PhRMA -- is now working with Democrats to build support for the president's plan. Liberals say Obama gave away too much to the industry.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco) said wryly that she thought if PhRMA agreed to $80 billion in savings, it was likely that real savings could probably be twice that amount. She suggested that the House might not honor the White House-PhRMA-Senate deal. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) said that when he read news accounts suggesting that the White House had told PhRMA it would not pursue Canadian drug importation, he sought and received assurances from White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel that there was no such deal.

After that conversation, however, White House healthcare spokeswoman Linda Douglass confirmed to reporters that the White House had discussed the importation provision with worried drug company executives, telling them that "health insurance reform that lowers costs, including pharmaceutical costs, would probably make such legislation unnecessary." Sanders views that as a dubious assumption and says he intends to continue to pursue the provision.

Waxman became concerned about other reports of what was in the agreement, in part because he feared it might undermine aspects of his healthcare bill. In an interview this week, he expressed alarm about Tauzin's claim -- since revised -- that the deal included a promise not to have Medicare seek further drug price discounts.

"It's ridiculous to have a program in which Medicare spends millions of dollars with drug companies as a customer and does not get a better deal on pharmaceutical prices," Waxman said.

After first declining to comment, the White House now says the topic did not explicitly come up in discussions with the industry.

"I think a lot of people in the room walked away with a different understanding of what was agreed to," Waxman said.

Tauzin, a former congressman from Louisiana, believed that he had an understanding that there would not be negotiations over Medicare drug prices in the future. Currently, government negotiations for lower prices are banned in the Medicare Part D program under a "noninterference" clause that the industry lobbied for several years ago.

This week, Tauzin's top aide at PhRMA, Ken Johnson, reiterated that view but said it was time to stop public discussions about whether it came up in the closed-door White House meetings.

From the time the industry was first asked to participate in crafting healthcare overhaul legislation, Johnson said that Tauzin told everyone: "We'll do everything we can to help. But we will not support price controls, because they will hurt patients by drying up research and development needed to find new cures, and they will kill jobs in a very fragile economy."

Tauzin thought the White House and others understood that meant there would be no change in the government prohibition on price negotiations for drugs. "We thought there was an underlying assumption on that key point," Johnson said.

At this stage, he added, "it's counterproductive to keep talking about it."
Mavdog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-24-2009, 07:43 PM   #92
Mavdog
Diamond Member
 
Mavdog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Texas
Posts: 6,014
Mavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud of
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by aquaadverse View Post
Liar is pretty strong, and is pretty redundant for politicians at that level. Obama just has no internal experience bar to evaluate the bad, terrible advice he's getting. The only person with DC experience is Rahm the impaler. Everyone else is from Chicago or tells him how wonderful he is.

The ex-Clintoneers on his staff looked back at 1993 and advised him to not hand Congress a done deal and tell them to just pass it. Pity he didn't understand who he was giving the magic Crayola.

The CIA ass ripping getting revved up is pretty strange timing. Exactly when is it going to sink in the tactic of ripping the Bush administration when he gets in trouble is a campaign tactic that doesn't translate well when people want a statesman. Sticking another polarizing, protractive action when health care is already kicking his ass is a curious tactic. Someone who is giving him this stupid advice yet again, needs to go.

The only explanation that makes sense is someone you can't fire without a divorce. I'm kidding, but someone is unable is predict the results of actions and pulling 6 figures as a reward. If it's not Michele, I'd like to peek at whatever pictures they're holding.
rahm emanuel is also (although not born there) from chicago.

it's ridiculous to believe that congress would pass a major piece of legislation they had no part in writing.

the cia issue is one of right or wrong. if there were those who violated the laws, they should be held responsible. if you look at what actions the obama administration has done so far, they really haven't been looking to publically embarass the prior administration, they have been pretty low key and passed on pursuing these type of cases.

as was shown by the polls, health care is kicking the republican's ass as much as anybody's. so far there aren't any winners..sort of a scorched earth campaign by the opponents. they are getting as burned too.
Mavdog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-25-2009, 11:38 AM   #93
aquaadverse
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 317
aquaadverse is a name known to allaquaadverse is a name known to allaquaadverse is a name known to allaquaadverse is a name known to allaquaadverse is a name known to allaquaadverse is a name known to allaquaadverse is a name known to allaquaadverse is a name known to allaquaadverse is a name known to all
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mavdog View Post
rahm emanuel is also (although not born there) from chicago.

it's ridiculous to believe that congress would pass a major piece of legislation they had no part in writing.

the cia issue is one of right or wrong. if there were those who violated the laws, they should be held responsible. if you look at what actions the obama administration has done so far, they really haven't been looking to publically embarass the prior administration, they have been pretty low key and passed on pursuing these type of cases.

as was shown by the polls, health care is kicking the republican's ass as much as anybody's. so far there aren't any winners..sort of a scorched earth campaign by the opponents. they are getting as burned too.
He is still the only one that spent much time in Washington including Obama. It's the classic noobie pattern. Carter and Clinton did the same thing.

Many Bills have been passed where the main parameters were defined by the President and cabinet. TARP, for example. Congress sticks earmarks and other pork in, but they do that on everything, It might be ridiculous, but Carter and Clinton both did it and it cost them big

Things like this CIA stuff are never that black and white. There is always discretion in charges and prosecution. Using loopholes etc. You might think stealing is a crime, but if your kids were hungry you'd do it. It's getting old having to rebuild intelligence assets after every Democrat administration.

This is very bad strategy on Holder's part. Might not be fair, but prepare for a bunch of Mark Rich shots.

http://www.time.com/time/2007/presid...ardons/10.html

Quote:
In 1983, financier Rich was indicted for evading more than $48 million in taxes, and charged with 51 counts of tax fraud, as well as running illegal oil deals with Iran during the 1979-1980 hostage crisis. During his last week in office, President Bill Clinton pardoned Rich, who had fled the U.S. during his prosecution and was residing in Switzerland.
Quote:
The Rich pardon sparked an investigation into whether it was bought by the hefty donations Rich's ex-wife, Denise, had given to the Clintons and the Democrats. In the end, investigators did not find enough evidence to indict Clinton.
Did he miss the crap Pelosi got into with the CIA? Why tear off the ragged scab now? It'll piss off the same geezer demographics that are currently all worked up over health care.

This couldn't wait until after the health care issue was resolved? It might be right or wrong, but there was no reason to go public with it now. The best thing would have been to start the investigation quietly and pick a better spot to go public. Like after Congress is back and a health care bill is hammered out so it isn't so wag the dogish.

There are going to be some very pissed off people in Congress that are up for reelection. Great, let's bring a national defense issue in right now. And let's make it a protracted one.


Obama seems to be locked into firing up his base everytime he has a setback. This is amateur hour stuff and unnecessary. Constantly referring to the situation he inherited isn't real Presidential and is starting to sound like an apology. You let the underlings do that stuff

I remember trying to figure what the benefit was last fall when he was comfortably ahead and sniping at Fox. That's a crapload of people who are not your biggest fans. Did he really need to go out of his way to irritate them? He's still doing it. Cable chatter? You have an overwhelming advantage in both Houses. You shouldn't need a single Republican vote. If they hadn't been such gloating, dismissive asshats this would have been a done deal already.

Exactly how are they obstructing you? The Party of no, want him to fail, hate having a black President, spread misinformation stuff has gotten all the people it's going to get and it's driving away moderates and independents.

Saying the issue has been anything but disastrous for the Democrats and given the Repugs a huge boost is a curious position. 4 weeks ago the Republicans were irrelevant and didn't matter. The far left is hammering away and all the smug overconfidence of "we won you lost STFU" has come back to bite them on the ass. Trying to back off the public option is another "the surge won't work and the war is lost" situation. No one is going for the "I didn't mean it had to in the bill" spiel. There's this thing called You tube.
Seems the technology President forgot about that.

The thing that really sucks is we need health care reform badly, people are in a very tough situation and we're playing with lives. I can't think of anything that was so badly handled as this health care reform. It's positively Carter like, but at least he had Tip O'neal. Pelosi has been a disaster on this.

Last edited by aquaadverse; 08-25-2009 at 11:40 AM.
aquaadverse is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-25-2009, 12:30 PM   #94
Mavdog
Diamond Member
 
Mavdog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Texas
Posts: 6,014
Mavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud of
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by aquaadverse View Post
He is still the only one that spent much time in Washington including Obama. It's the classic noobie pattern. Carter and Clinton did the same thing.
no, you're wrong. the staff is full of people who have worked in washington for yuears. rice, summers, nicolson,moran, orszag, craig, podesta, messina....

Quote:
Many Bills have been passed where the main parameters were defined by the President and cabinet. TARP, for example. Congress sticks earmarks and other pork in, but they do that on everything, It might be ridiculous, but Carter and Clinton both did it and it cost them big
"main parameters"? nice sidestep. so yes, congress does have input (beyond "earmarks and pork").

Quote:
Things like this CIA stuff are never that black and white. There is always discretion in charges and prosecution. Using loopholes etc. You might think stealing is a crime, but if your kids were hungry you'd do it. It's getting old having to rebuild intelligence assets after every Democrat administration.
it's still stealing no matter if the kids were hungry. motivation doesn't change the guilt, just the punishment.

Quote:
This is very bad strategy on Holder's part. Might not be fair, but prepare for a bunch of Mark Rich shots.

http://www.time.com/time/2007/presid...ardons/10.html
??? presidential pardons? uh, come back to earth will ya?

Quote:
Did he miss the crap Pelosi got into with the CIA? Why tear off the ragged scab now? It'll piss off the same geezer demographics that are currently all worked up over health care.

This couldn't wait until after the health care issue was resolved? It might be right or wrong, but there was no reason to go public with it now. The best thing would have been to start the investigation quietly and pick a better spot to go public. Like after Congress is back and a health care bill is hammered out so it isn't so wag the dogish.

There are going to be some very pissed off people in Congress that are up for reelection. Great, let's bring a national defense issue in right now. And let's make it a protracted one.

Obama seems to be locked into firing up his base everytime he has a setback. This is amateur hour stuff and unnecessary. Constantly referring to the situation he inherited isn't real Presidential and is starting to sound like an apology. You let the underlings do that stuff

I remember trying to figure what the benefit was last fall when he was comfortably ahead and sniping at Fox. That's a crapload of people who are not your biggest fans. Did he really need to go out of his way to irritate them? He's still doing it. Cable chatter? You have an overwhelming advantage in both Houses. You shouldn't need a single Republican vote. If they hadn't been such gloating, dismissive asshats this would have been a done deal already.

Exactly how are they obstructing you? The Party of no, want him to fail, hate having a black President, spread misinformation stuff has gotten all the people it's going to get and it's driving away moderates and independents.

Saying the issue has been anything but disastrous for the Democrats and given the Repugs a huge boost is a curious position. 4 weeks ago the Republicans were irrelevant and didn't matter. The far left is hammering away and all the smug overconfidence of "we won you lost STFU" has come back to bite them on the ass. Trying to back off the public option is another "the surge won't work and the war is lost" situation. No one is going for the "I didn't mean it had to in the bill" spiel. There's this thing called You tube.
Seems the technology President forgot about that.

The thing that really sucks is we need health care reform badly, people are in a very tough situation and we're playing with lives. I can't think of anything that was so badly handled as this health care reform. It's positively Carter like, but at least he had Tip O'neal. Pelosi has been a disaster on this.
one of the jobs a president has, esp when his party has control of congress, is managing the egos of the congressional reps. I don't see that obama has done a very good job of managing them, but then again that is a bot like herding cats.

why bring up the cia mess now? because it needs to be taken care of, and the present is the right time.

holder is just doing his job, and the fact that the politics of the issue are being ignored falls into that box.

you have a fascination of comparing obama to carter. time will tell, but so far there's really not an accurate analogy.

Last edited by Mavdog; 08-25-2009 at 12:30 PM.
Mavdog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-26-2009, 09:22 PM   #95
aquaadverse
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 317
aquaadverse is a name known to allaquaadverse is a name known to allaquaadverse is a name known to allaquaadverse is a name known to allaquaadverse is a name known to allaquaadverse is a name known to allaquaadverse is a name known to allaquaadverse is a name known to allaquaadverse is a name known to all
Default

Quote:
no, you're wrong. the staff is full of people who have worked in washington for yuears. rice, summers, nicolson,moran, orszag, craig, podesta, messina....
None of them are close advisers. Whoever is advising him is doing a poor job.

Quote:
??? presidential pardons? uh, come back to earth will ya?
Holder was the one carrying that to Clinton. It speaks to your "simply a case of right and wrong", presumably without being tainted by politics. He was the deputy AG. Apparently climbing a ring higher is purifying.

Quote:
you have a fascination of comparing obama to carter. time will tell, but so far there's really not an accurate analogy.
It's apt. Except Carter took longer to have people back off because they were worried about being reelected. From a direct comparison standpoint it would be closer to Clinton's term. Health Care, passing spending bills with no Republican votes.

The big difference and the reason I use Carter is Clinton would make a mistake and learn from it. All of them have superior intellects but Carter and Obama are more ideologically driven and have a problem predicting the results of their actions accurately. Clinton would never ask for his entire cabinet to tender their resignations and he wouldn't have been dismissive and tried to marginalize protesters. I haven't heard a President directly spend so much verbage about the media like Obama has since Nixon.

Last edited by aquaadverse; 08-26-2009 at 09:26 PM.
aquaadverse is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-27-2009, 09:38 AM   #96
92bDad
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: TX
Posts: 2,505
92bDad has a brilliant future92bDad has a brilliant future92bDad has a brilliant future92bDad has a brilliant future92bDad has a brilliant future92bDad has a brilliant future92bDad has a brilliant future92bDad has a brilliant future92bDad has a brilliant future92bDad has a brilliant future92bDad has a brilliant future
Default

There's a potential simple solution to health care that would at least get us started towards a workable complete solution.

What if we made Cobra a part of Unemployment Benefits and have the companies who essentially terminate people and are paying the Unemployment benefit also responsible for paying for Cobra?

Sure this would only be a temporary solutions for a percentage of those with no coverage, but it would be a nice stop gap, which would first keep people covered and 2nd not cost the taxpayers any money.

No this would not be a complete overhaul, but it would be a step in which regardless of where anyone is politically on the issue, bottom line the individual citizens are being taken care of.

Unless at the end of the day, this is not so much about healthcare, but more about Government control and other issues (Power, Money, etc...)

I would be all for real solutions for America. Maybe that could be a campaign slogan for 2010 and 2012?
92bDad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-27-2009, 11:20 AM   #97
mcsluggo
Golden Member
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: McLean, VA
Posts: 1,970
mcsluggo has a brilliant futuremcsluggo has a brilliant futuremcsluggo has a brilliant futuremcsluggo has a brilliant futuremcsluggo has a brilliant futuremcsluggo has a brilliant futuremcsluggo has a brilliant futuremcsluggo has a brilliant futuremcsluggo has a brilliant futuremcsluggo has a brilliant futuremcsluggo has a brilliant future
Default

I get wary of burdening employers MORE.

If you are a small business owner, are you going to hire another worker if you are afraid that you are going to have to pay their health care long after you let them go?

I just think it is better to have straight-forward transparent services provided directly by the government, rather than unfunded mandates. This forces the government to actually raise the taxes to pay for it, and account for the costs directly. when it is just mandated, people (politicians) behave as though it is costless, but the direct numeric costs are exactly the same (just off budget) and the INDIRECT costs are much larger when it is an unfunded mandate. Lots of countries have a very serious problem of firms never wanting to hire anyone, because it is so expensive to fire them if they ever need to. It is a primary reason for why the US labor market is so much more dynamic than most other countries-- and the unemployment rate is USUALLY lower. (right now there are extraordinary circumstances... but the US unemployment rate will decline much faster than other countries when the economies start to heat back up)
mcsluggo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-27-2009, 12:00 PM   #98
92bDad
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: TX
Posts: 2,505
92bDad has a brilliant future92bDad has a brilliant future92bDad has a brilliant future92bDad has a brilliant future92bDad has a brilliant future92bDad has a brilliant future92bDad has a brilliant future92bDad has a brilliant future92bDad has a brilliant future92bDad has a brilliant future92bDad has a brilliant future
Default

Under my little concept proposal, could the burden to an employer be minimized?

In otherwords, there is no TAX burden as long as the individual is employed...only if they hae a layoff, do they have to provide some level of support to the individual as a result of unemployment benefits.

I would even offer to the employer to either provide "Cobra" or extend the Insurance benefits for as far out as Unemployment benefits are extended, using the company insurance. If the rate is lower on the company plan than "Cobra" then there is a bit of savings to the employer...I would have the employer pick up the employee contribution portion as the Unemployment pay is so low that to burden the unemployed worker with this added cost during that time would be foolish.

Now, if an employer is smart, they would build a contengincy account to cover a portion of potential layoffs...it's a bit of self-insurance for bad times. As the government, I would allow companies to use this account as a tax shelter, with a very basic rule. The money can ONLY be used for Unemployment benefit payments...or bankruptcy payments. I would not allow a company to utilize these funds for any other business.

In essence it would be an insurance for the company, should they need to let an employee go in a way that they would qualify to receive benefits, the company would not be spending extra out of pocket...but they would also have control of that Unemployment account.

I am certain, as I am not a policy writer, that there are additional details that would have to be defined, but in essence, the concept minimizes the government involvement, allows Insurance to remain private, and gives the responsibility back to the employer/employee. This appears to be a win-win for everyone...not to mention, keeps those of us citizens not involved from being taxed to support something we are not involved in.

Hey that makes me think...employers pay Unemployment taxes...what would hurt from implementing an individual unemployment fund tax shelter as an option to employees? Not a 401K Retirement, but rather some type of investment fund that could roll over into a retirement fund if it is never needed, but that if we become unemployed, we have a fund that will provide an added financial benefit at a fixed amount per week, for so much time or until the fund runs out. The account would be the individuals account and would travel with them from job to job...the only two ways that you would be able to withdraw without penalty is if you were unemployed and eligible for benefits, or retired and at Social Security retirement benefits level. Of course this would be an OPTIONAL fund, and you could manage it like a retirement fund, thus making high yielding investments.

Just think, this would be open to everyone, from the minimum wage worker to the multi-millionaire CEO, etc... It's optional, not mandatory...thus provides a way for people to protect themselves for the future. In the event of an early death, the fund could be passed on to the next of kin, or person defined in the individuals will (TAX FREE) but under the same withdraw rules, with exception to minors, whom would have a trust fund to help manage needs until they reach 18, or as a full time student...graduation or 25 years of age.

Why would the government not want to provide a means for people to be responsible for themselves?
92bDad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-27-2009, 01:41 PM   #99
Mavdog
Diamond Member
 
Mavdog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Texas
Posts: 6,014
Mavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud of
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by aquaadverse View Post
None of them are close advisers. Whoever is advising him is doing a poor job.
you're certainly entitled to your opinion of the advisor's job performance, but tell me, are you there in the white house to be capable of saying who "are close advisors"?

yeah, didn't think so...

Quote:
Holder was the one carrying that to Clinton. It speaks to your "simply a case of right and wrong", presumably without being tainted by politics. He was the deputy AG. Apparently climbing a ring higher is purifying.
no, you've got it backwards, clinton carries the pardon request to justice to get their input, which of course is not needed as it is the sole right of the president, without any other's consent, to grant a pardon.

if you have a problem with the rich pardon, it is bill clinton that you should have a beef with, not holder.

and, to state the obvious, the rich pardon has nothing to do with an investigation into illegal cia actions during interrogations.

Quote:
It's apt. Except Carter took longer to have people back off because they were worried about being reelected. From a direct comparison standpoint it would be closer to Clinton's term. Health Care, passing spending bills with no Republican votes.

The big difference and the reason I use Carter is Clinton would make a mistake and learn from it. All of them have superior intellects but Carter and Obama are more ideologically driven and have a problem predicting the results of their actions accurately. Clinton would never ask for his entire cabinet to tender their resignations and he wouldn't have been dismissive and tried to marginalize protesters. I haven't heard a President directly spend so much verbage about the media like Obama has since Nixon.
oh, ronald reagan spent a great deal of time talking about the media.

carter never served a day in washington, obama has. carter brought a bunch of washington outsiders to washington for his staff, obama has brought back a bunch of washington insiders for his staff.

the results may end up similar, but it is just too early to say.

there is probably more comparison to clinton, but again it's too early to say.
Mavdog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-31-2009, 11:01 AM   #100
aquaadverse
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 317
aquaadverse is a name known to allaquaadverse is a name known to allaquaadverse is a name known to allaquaadverse is a name known to allaquaadverse is a name known to allaquaadverse is a name known to allaquaadverse is a name known to allaquaadverse is a name known to allaquaadverse is a name known to all
Default

Quote:
you're certainly entitled to your opinion of the advisor's job performance, but tell me, are you there in the white house to be capable of saying who "are close advisors"?

yeah, didn't think so...
No, I just look at results. Look at W and and his basically smooth early passing of his agenda with all the baggage after the 2000 election. Rove and Cheney's finger prints are all over it. They twisted arms and waltzed the Dems into offering that "rebate".

Obama screwed the pooch and it was unnecessary. Either he refuses to listen or they are flat incompetent.

Quote:
no, you've got it backwards, clinton carries the pardon request to justice to get their input, which of course is not needed as it is the sole right of the president, without any other's consent, to grant a pardon.
Yeah, I'm sure he was aware of all the 140 pardons he signed on his last day in office. If you think he was the one who built that list and handed it to the AG office, when those were just the ones who passed, I'd love to see the ones who didn't make the cut. While all of the modern Prez have a couple of controversial pardons none of them were quite as brazen.
And then there was this:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...rdon-95730754/

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/01/...ml#cnnSTCVideo

You might think it has no bearing on his ability to make nonpolitical decisions based on "simply right and wrong", but even Holder disagrees with you. He was hauled in front of a pissed off Congress because he gave a "neutral leaning towards favorable" opinion. It's a bit of a stretch to say he was politically neutral as the number two guy, and briefly Bush's AG after recommending the pardon of a person who had been on the FBI's ten most wanted list that fled the country to avoid prosecution. Clinton might have signed the pardon, but the recommendation was his.

Quote:
oh, ronald reagan spent a great deal of time talking about the media.

carter never served a day in washington, obama has. carter brought a bunch of washington outsiders to washington for his staff, obama has brought back a bunch of washington insiders for his staff.
Reagan didn't whine about about it and actually gave factual rebuttals instead of generic "misinformation from people who profit from the current system" which has only fanned the flames. Nixon was big on blaming the media for undermining his administration, hardly a circumstance Obama has despite his rhetoric.

Being sworn in and having an office isn't spending time in Washington. I was lucky enough to have John Edwards as a Senator, and North Carolina suffered because of it. He wanted the Senate as a platform to run for President.

Clinton was a politician who had no problem shifting his ideological stance to stay in office. He forged a relationship with the Republicans after the midterms. Carter refused to do it, even with his own Party's majority in Congress.

Obama might have a bunch of insiders, but they don't seem to be very good. It's difficult to see how you can have a huge majority in both Houses of Congress, people gushing all over you with little reason except charisma and speaking ability and symbolism,Then use a "Jump aboard or we'll roll over you" without seeing ain't gonna make it.

He's losing the Independents and moderates. People thinking it's a good idea to read legislation, that you should pay attention to protesters, would have been a good idea after the rumblings from the stimulus bill. After the omnibus spending bill was jammed through and all the pledges of transparency and posting legislation etc... just went away he could have probably still tamped it down by at least acknowledging some of the concerns might have merit.

The polls certainly seemed to point to it being worthy of attention. I went to a town hall down here in Broward county, hardly a Republican stronghold. People were pissed because it seemed their voices and concerns were being ignored as not being real. I believe the liberalize is "disenfranchised". It was the percieved attitude.

Don't know what insiders he's got onboard but running with the "Republicans are dead, don't pay them no mind" is pretty stupid. Being stunned at the resistance after shoveling coal on the fire is even worse.

Last edited by aquaadverse; 08-31-2009 at 11:20 AM.
aquaadverse is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-31-2009, 03:21 PM   #101
Mavdog
Diamond Member
 
Mavdog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Texas
Posts: 6,014
Mavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud of
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by aquaadverse View Post
No, I just look at results. Look at W and and his basically smooth early passing of his agenda with all the baggage after the 2000 election. Rove and Cheney's finger prints are all over it. They twisted arms and waltzed the Dems into offering that "rebate".

Obama screwed the pooch and it was unnecessary. Either he refuses to listen or they are flat incompetent.
to review, you said "He [Emanuel] is still the only one that spent much time in Washington including Obama. It's the classic noobie pattern. Carter and Clinton did the same thing.", to which I replied with a list of several advisors who had been in washington for decades, to which you replied "None of them are close advisers. Whoever is advising him is doing a poor job". I pointed out (correctly I might add) that "you're certainly entitled to your opinion of the advisor's job performance, but tell me, are you there in the white house to be capable of saying who "are close advisors"?".

so to recap, your assertion on the staff not having "spent much time in washington" is wrong, and clearly you do not know who is a "close advisor" and who is not.

the rest is really not worth responding to.

Quote:
Yeah, I'm sure he was aware of all the 140 pardons he signed on his last day in office. If you think he was the one who built that list and handed it to the AG office, when those were just the ones who passed, I'd love to see the ones who didn't make the cut. While all of the modern Prez have a couple of controversial pardons none of them were quite as brazen.
And then there was this:

You might think it has no bearing on his ability to make nonpolitical decisions based on "simply right and wrong", but even Holder disagrees with you. He was hauled in front of a pissed off Congress because he gave a "neutral leaning towards favorable" opinion. It's a bit of a stretch to say he was politically neutral as the number two guy, and briefly Bush's AG after recommending the pardon of a person who had been on the FBI's ten most wanted list that fled the country to avoid prosecution. Clinton might have signed the pardon, but the recommendation was his.
hmm, all that and you still cannot refute my point..it is the president, and ONLY the president, who makes the decision of granting a pardon.

the president decides who gets a pardon. the justice attorney gives input, the president may choose to take to heart the input, or the president can throw it into the trash can and make a decision that is contrary to what justice reccommends.

that is fact, live with it. clinton pardoned marc rich, did so due to a bunch of campaign contributions and also because of lobbying by israel. eric holder did not ask clinton to pardon marc rich, and eric holder wasn't the reason marc rich was pardoned.

what I've noticed is when you are shown to be wrong, you just ignore what you had been wrong about and go off on some long winded discourse.

you are wrong about pardons, and you were wrong about obama's staff.. just live with it and stop the attempts at sidestepping.
Mavdog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-31-2009, 11:32 PM   #102
dude1394
Guru
 
dude1394's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 40,410
dude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond repute
Default

I don't know if you call this a whine or a dean scream. But anyone who thinks that the president of the united states should have this on his official website...well they may have a man-crush of gigantic porportions.

http://my.barackobama.com/page/event...ngevent/gpk4cj
Quote:
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++

---* RECLAIM OUR LAND FROM THE HEIRS OF, YES: BIN LADEN *---* YOU KNOW IT'S TRUE *---

In case you haven't seen it in the News: Republican Representatives, Senators, GOP Party Leader, GOP Political Machine top personnel (e.g., Gingritch), etc etc etc --- they're ALL every one of them applauding and encouraging their zealot-horde by merrily referring to them as "Proud Right-Wing Terrorists". Google it - I'm not pulling your leg.

But don't hate them: Misguided citizens are easy-pickings for demagogues, whom they blindly follow because they’ve been trained all their lives not to question the dogma of their religion, so it’s natural for them NOT TO QUESTION what’s being spoon-fed to them by their FALSE PROPHETS who, themselves, shamelessly seek Worldly Glory.

They don’t apply the simple Test: “Am I being led closer to God, when I do what these folks say? – Or, am I on a Bullet-Train to the Devil, and I’m just a pawn to make these folks richer and more powerful?” Because, you know: the Faith one has in God, is different from faith one should have in Man. And you need to be even MORE skeptical, when one of ‘em says that God picked them for something or another. You can bet whatever they’re doing is making them more powerful/ more wealthy, and certainly less pious, no? Ooops, and following them is making YOU less pious too, in thought, and in deed. Yesseree, it’s a real thing to chew on.

Just remember: We Are The Super-Heroes Who Yes WE DID, and YES, WE SHALL commence administering Super-Hero Karate Chops, beginning now.

Oh, and can some of you facebook and tweat this around? I'm not that good at it yet.
IF YOU MISS THIS DAY, JUST DO IT OVER THE WEEKEND – IT'LL ALL GET REPORTED TO THE RESPECTIVE SENATORS ON MONDAY, ANYWAY.
__________________
"Yankees fans who say “flags fly forever’’ are right, you never lose that. It reinforces all the good things about being a fan. ... It’s black and white. You (the Mavs) won a title. That’s it and no one can say s--- about it.’’
dude1394 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-01-2009, 03:23 PM   #103
aquaadverse
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 317
aquaadverse is a name known to allaquaadverse is a name known to allaquaadverse is a name known to allaquaadverse is a name known to allaquaadverse is a name known to allaquaadverse is a name known to allaquaadverse is a name known to allaquaadverse is a name known to allaquaadverse is a name known to all
Default

Quote:
so to recap, your assertion on the staff not having "spent much time in washington" is wrong, and clearly you do not know who is a "close advisor" and who is not.
And neither do you. But I'll stick to the results, or lack there of. You're right, he has a bunch of well seasoned people who are giving him great advice.

Quote:
hmm, all that and you still cannot refute my point..it is the president, and ONLY the president, who makes the decision of granting a pardon.
I don't need to refute your point because it's meaningless. Doesn't matter if Clinton signed the Rich pardon or not.You said opening an investigation into the interrogation at this time was not politically motivated, he is just doing his job. Because it's time.

I was commenting on Holder's opinion and recommendation. As did Congress in 2001 and during his confirmation hearing. You want to continue to maintain he's apolitical, I say you're wrong and gave an example. What's wrong is your inability to see Holder's conduct of bypassing the normal procedures of the Justice Department and taking it directly to the White House way wrong.

Not informing Mary Jo White, the US attorney who had the warrants for Rich and didn't learn of his pardon until after it was granted. There's much more, but he obviously can or could be less than independent.

Quote:
what I've noticed is when you are shown to be wrong, you just ignore what you had been wrong about and go off on some long winded discourse.

you are wrong about pardons, and you were wrong about obama's staff.. just live with it and stop the attempts at sidestepping.
And what I've noticed is you get stuck on picayune details and slap condescending blinders on. Obama is making huge strategic errors and has backed himself into a corner and it was all avoidable. Easily. Go ahead and sidestep my point that Bush came into office with a fraction of the backing and goodwill Obama has, the Democrats had the majority in both Houses and he was getting it done.
Obama has a bunch of Washington insiders who are just inept.

Better?
aquaadverse is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-01-2009, 07:07 PM   #104
Mavdog
Diamond Member
 
Mavdog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Texas
Posts: 6,014
Mavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud of
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by aquaadverse View Post
And neither do you.
the difference of course is that I never acted as though I have knowledge of who is a "close advisor".

Quote:
I don't need to refute your point because it's meaningless. Doesn't matter if Clinton signed the Rich pardon or not.You said opening an investigation into the interrogation at this time was not politically motivated, he is just doing his job. Because it's time.

I was commenting on Holder's opinion and recommendation. As did Congress in 2001 and during his confirmation hearing. You want to continue to maintain he's apolitical, I say you're wrong and gave an example. What's wrong is your inability to see Holder's conduct of bypassing the normal procedures of the Justice Department and taking it directly to the White House way wrong.

Not informing Mary Jo White, the US attorney who had the warrants for Rich and didn't learn of his pardon until after it was granted. There's much more, but he obviously can or could be less than independent.
so you are backtracking by attempting to say that holder's failure to prevent the rich pardon, which of course as I have correctly pointed out over and over he absolutely, with no qualification, could NOT stop, is by your rationale something that shows he cannot make a fair decision on the cia case?

yuck yuck yuck.

that's almost as ridiculous a saying he is a left handed person, so he can't make a fair decision on a right handed suspect...

newsflash: there is no connection.

Quote:
And what I've noticed is you get stuck on picayune details and slap condescending blinders on. Obama is making huge strategic errors and has backed himself into a corner and it was all avoidable. Easily. Go ahead and sidestep my point that Bush came into office with a fraction of the backing and goodwill Obama has, the Democrats had the majority in both Houses and he was getting it done.
what? congress was majority republican during bush's first term, and in his second term he got nothing accomplished...except the bailouts at the end.

bush was successful prior to 9/11 by taking democrat positions (esp on nclb). obama has a much more difficult job managing congress, esp the left side of the party.

post 9/11 he used the tragedy to his political davantage.

Quote:
Obama has a bunch of Washington insiders who are just inept.

Better?
accurate in its phrasing.
Mavdog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-01-2009, 07:31 PM   #105
GermanDunk
Diamond Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Deutschland
Posts: 7,883
GermanDunk has a reputation beyond reputeGermanDunk has a reputation beyond reputeGermanDunk has a reputation beyond reputeGermanDunk has a reputation beyond reputeGermanDunk has a reputation beyond reputeGermanDunk has a reputation beyond reputeGermanDunk has a reputation beyond reputeGermanDunk has a reputation beyond reputeGermanDunk has a reputation beyond reputeGermanDunk has a reputation beyond reputeGermanDunk has a reputation beyond repute
Default

I mean. What´s the problem here. After german unification, 20 years ago, we merged 20 mn. GDR citizens into the public health care sys, without a decline in quality; OK. i admit, it is not as it could be, but still OK. USA has 300 mn. citizens and there are 40 mn. to be swallowed. Should be possible.
__________________
GermanDunk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-02-2009, 05:35 AM   #106
aquaadverse
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 317
aquaadverse is a name known to allaquaadverse is a name known to allaquaadverse is a name known to allaquaadverse is a name known to allaquaadverse is a name known to allaquaadverse is a name known to allaquaadverse is a name known to allaquaadverse is a name known to allaquaadverse is a name known to all
Default

Quote:
so you are backtracking by attempting to say that holder's failure to prevent the rich pardon, which of course as I have correctly pointed out over and over he absolutely, with no qualification, could NOT stop, is by your rationale something that shows he cannot make a fair decision on the cia case?
Quote:
yuck yuck yuck.

that's almost as ridiculous a saying he is a left handed person, so he can't make a fair decision on a right handed suspect...

newsflash: there is no connection.
Not really surprising since you couldn't connect the dots with why it was a concern when I first brought it up with your : "??? presidential pardons? uh, come back to earth will ya?" But it isn't rocket science for most people. I'm not backtracking on anything. Our current AG is perfectly capable of using his position for political purposes. He used his position to bypass the rules and procedures and did it for political reasons. His role wasn't to stop or make a pardon go through but to give his opinion if the subject fit the usual and customary requirements. if you can make a case of why his opinion and conduct as it pertained to his duty shouldn't be considered political and bring up a concern the current decision to investigate being a political ploy to benefit the current administration feel free.

The point was he showed the ability to be less than independent and it was a pretty big example he was quite capable of using the office of the AG for political reasons. It doesn't matter if he could have stopped the pardon or not. We were discussing if the CIA interrogation hearings were a politically ploy or not.

You want to keep focusing on if he was able to top stop a pardon instead of his opinion of neutral leaning to positive being wildly at odds with the facts and showing every indication of being politically motivated, keep on looking foolish. That was my original reason to bring it up and it's the reason he was dragged in front of Congress in 2001 and why it was asked at his conformation hearing.

Quote:
what? congress was majority republican during bush's first term, and in his second term he got nothing accomplished...except the bailouts at the end.

bush was successful prior to 9/11 by taking democrat positions (esp on nclb). obama has a much more difficult job managing congress, esp the left side of the party.

post 9/11 he used the tragedy to his political davantage.
Really? I could have sworn I saw Daschle and Gephardt standing in front of the Capital holding up a box of detergent saying the Republican tax cuts would give the regular folks the detergent while they get the washer and dryer. The Dems went from vehemently and loudly promising to fight to the bitter end over tax cuts to handing out rebate check. I could have sworn I saw Bush and Kennedy signing a bipartisan NCLB as you say. I thought I saw the crew of a spy plane accused of downing Chinese fighter get them back with little rancor and using diplomacy instead of threats. The idea he used fear and threats to pass his agenda isn't accurate.

He got reelected in '04 and the Congress remained a Republican majority despite an unpopular war and a full court press of the Democrats. He was able to pass funding for Iraq and there was little change after the '06 switch of majorities leading to a historically low congressional approval rating. He showed political courage in forcefully pushing for the surge at the very lowest point of the Iraq conflict.

Bush took 36 months before he dropped below a 50% approval rating and that was after the clearly controversial Patriot Act and Gitmo among others.

Obama is playing checkers in a chess match, and your calling an overwhelming majority of his Party not needing a single Republican vote to pass legislation as a "disadvantage" after an election where the American people obviously want change is ludicrous. He used Afghanistan during the campaign to revitalize his image after stepping on his genitalia over the Iraq conflict and even that's currently biting him on the ass.
9-11 was a totally surreal event for most of us and Bush took clear and decisive steps to address it. There was little doubt of his policies towards North Korea and Iran. You might vehemently disagree with his stance, but it wasn't a mystery

This is a flameout of epic proportions. It's hard to understand why the concept of accusing people with reasonable concerns and questions as being racist and intellectually challenged generating a backlash is such a difficult one.

Last edited by aquaadverse; 09-02-2009 at 06:03 AM.
aquaadverse is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-02-2009, 08:27 AM   #107
dude1394
Guru
 
dude1394's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 40,410
dude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Quote:
Quote:
=aquaadverse;1026269
This is a flameout of epic proportions. It's hard to understand why the concept of accusing people with reasonable concerns and questions as being racist and intellectually challenged generating a backlash is such a difficult one.
A cluster of epic proportions. The guy is being shown as the inexperienced over his head candidate that Hillary pointed out and just as liberal as his voting record showed.

This is going to end badly.
__________________
"Yankees fans who say “flags fly forever’’ are right, you never lose that. It reinforces all the good things about being a fan. ... It’s black and white. You (the Mavs) won a title. That’s it and no one can say s--- about it.’’

Last edited by dude1394; 09-02-2009 at 08:28 AM.
dude1394 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-02-2009, 11:32 AM   #108
Mavdog
Diamond Member
 
Mavdog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Texas
Posts: 6,014
Mavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud of
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by aquaadverse View Post
Not really surprising since you couldn't connect the dots with why it was a concern when I first brought it up with your : "??? presidential pardons? uh, come back to earth will ya?" But it isn't rocket science for most people. I'm not backtracking on anything. Our current AG is perfectly capable of using his position for political purposes. He used his position to bypass the rules and procedures and did it for political reasons. His role wasn't to stop or make a pardon go through but to give his opinion if the subject fit the usual and customary requirements. if you can make a case of why his opinion and conduct as it pertained to his duty shouldn't be considered political and bring up a concern the current decision to investigate being a political ploy to benefit the current administration feel free.

The point was he showed the ability to be less than independent and it was a pretty big example he was quite capable of using the office of the AG for political reasons. It doesn't matter if he could have stopped the pardon or not. We were discussing if the CIA interrogation hearings were a politically ploy or not.

You want to keep focusing on if he was able to top stop a pardon instead of his opinion of neutral leaning to positive being wildly at odds with the facts and showing every indication of being politically motivated, keep on looking foolish. That was my original reason to bring it up and it's the reason he was dragged in front of Congress in 2001 and why it was asked at his conformation hearing.
apparently you believe that the only way that holder could prove that he is capable of being "independent" and succumbing to "political purposes" on the marc rich pardon is for holder to have taken the sword and resigned in protest of the Clinton decision to grant the pardon.

you continue to ignore the FACT that the process is for a pardon request to be sent to justice, and for the justice to forward all the requests (with opinion) to the president who is the only one, the sole decisionmaker, on the pardon request.

holder could have resigned, he could have held his breath till he died, and clinton was going to grant the pardon for multiple reasons, the least of which were anything "political".

continued attempts on your part to link the rich pardon with the cia investigation show complete foolishness on your part.

as has been pointed out, holder has appointed a special prosecutor to handle the cia investigation, and not just any special prosecutor but the special prosecutor who was selected previously by the Bush administration. by that one act he has validated the desire to make the investigation go forward without political coloring.

if the cia investigation shows no illegal acts, it will be over. if the investigation shows illegal acts were committed, they will be held accountable. that is exactly how our system should work.

Quote:
Really? I could have sworn I saw Daschle and Gephardt standing in front of the Capital holding up a box of detergent saying the Republican tax cuts would give the regular folks the detergent while they get the washer and dryer. The Dems went from vehemently and loudly promising to fight to the bitter end over tax cuts to handing out rebate check. I could have sworn I saw Bush and Kennedy signing a bipartisan NCLB as you say. I thought I saw the crew of a spy plane accused of downing Chinese fighter get them back with little rancor and using diplomacy instead of threats. The idea he used fear and threats to pass his agenda isn't accurate.
you apparently have selective memory, your statement was
"Bush came into office with a fraction of the backing and goodwill Obama has, the Democrats had the majority in both Houses
which is just flat out wrong.
107th congress (1/2001-1/2003): house 221/222 rep, 211/209 dem, senate 50 rep, 48 dem
108th congress (1/2003-1/2005): house 229/225 rep, 209/207 dem, senate 51 rep, 48 dem
109th congress (1/2005-1/2007): house 232/229 rep, 201/202 dem, senate 55 rep, 44 dem
it wasn't until the 110th congress that dems gained the majority in the house (233 to 202) with the senate even at 49

as for "fear and threats", what? are you now bringing in a new subject?

Quote:
He got reelected in '04 and the Congress remained a Republican majority despite an unpopular war and a full court press of the Democrats. He was able to pass funding for Iraq and there was little change after the '06 switch of majorities leading to a historically low congressional approval rating. He showed political courage in forcefully pushing for the surge at the very lowest point of the Iraq conflict.

Bush took 36 months before he dropped below a 50% approval rating and that was after the clearly controversial Patriot Act and Gitmo among others.
you contradicted yourself on the "majority" item.

bush really had no choice on the surge, he had to go "all in" as they said. thankfully the strategy worked, coupled with other strategic decisions including reaching out to the opposition and creating "awakening" groups that contributed more than anything to the decline in the conflict.

the rove election strategy in 04 worked well, he used the fears of 1) failure in iraq, 2) an attack by terrorist (did you see the claim by ridge on the white house demand he raise the terror level right before the elcetion?) and 3) the social issue lever. rove was not stupid, he was good at what he did. at the ame time it is good to be rid of this type of fearmongering.

Quote:
Obama is playing checkers in a chess match, and your calling an overwhelming majority of his Party not needing a single Republican vote to pass legislation as a "disadvantage" after an election where the American people obviously want change is ludicrous.
what? why do you fabricate me saying the dems do "not need a single republican vote to pass legislation"?

for any major piece of legislation there MUST be a bi-partisan approach.

if you want to argue with yourself on that, go ahead. have fun, hope you win the argument.

Quote:
He used Afghanistan during the campaign to revitalize his image after stepping on his genitalia over the Iraq conflict and even that's currently biting him on the ass.
9-11 was a totally surreal event for most of us and Bush took clear and decisive steps to address it. There was little doubt of his policies towards North Korea and Iran. You might vehemently disagree with his stance, but it wasn't a mystery
let's see, the pullout from iraq is going according to plan, and the mess/failure obama inherited in afganistan is being addressed with a change in strategy. how that is "stepping on his genitalia" and "biting hin in the ass" is a rather bizarre remark.

there was a clear "mystery" to the bush strategy on korea and iran, which is what was he intending to do after his ignoring them was proven to fail? while he called them "axis of evil" and refused to work to solve the crisis, these two countries went forward in making more missles/bombs in the case of korea and continued nuclear processing in the case of iran. iran continued to supply weapons to hamas and hezbollah resulting in increased vulnerbility of israel, with another war in lebanon the outcome.

Quote:
This is a flameout of epic proportions. It's hard to understand why the concept of accusing people with reasonable concerns and questions as being racist and intellectually challenged generating a backlash is such a difficult one.
just like it is hard to understand why the concept of accusing people with reasonable proposals to impprove our system of healthcare as being socialists, racists and corrupt generating a backlash is such a difficult one.
Mavdog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-02-2009, 02:58 PM   #109
aquaadverse
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 317
aquaadverse is a name known to allaquaadverse is a name known to allaquaadverse is a name known to allaquaadverse is a name known to allaquaadverse is a name known to allaquaadverse is a name known to allaquaadverse is a name known to allaquaadverse is a name known to allaquaadverse is a name known to all
Default

Quote:
apparently you believe that the only way that holder could prove that he is capable of being "independent" and succumbing to "political purposes" on the marc rich pardon is for holder to have taken the sword and resigned in protest of the Clinton decision to grant the pardon.
No, he could have given the opinion of disapprove and he would have been clear, it wouldn't matter what Clinton did. I don't see why you have such a problem with this.

As to the rest of your post, it's not worth commenting on.
aquaadverse is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-02-2009, 03:01 PM   #110
aquaadverse
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 317
aquaadverse is a name known to allaquaadverse is a name known to allaquaadverse is a name known to allaquaadverse is a name known to allaquaadverse is a name known to allaquaadverse is a name known to allaquaadverse is a name known to allaquaadverse is a name known to allaquaadverse is a name known to all
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GermanDunk View Post
I mean. What´s the problem here. After german unification, 20 years ago, we merged 20 mn. GDR citizens into the public health care sys, without a decline in quality; OK. i admit, it is not as it could be, but still OK. USA has 300 mn. citizens and there are 40 mn. to be swallowed. Should be possible.
And a thousand times the land mass, and the education, billing and insurance isn't setup for it and would take a major tinkering.
aquaadverse is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-02-2009, 03:57 PM   #111
Mavdog
Diamond Member
 
Mavdog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Texas
Posts: 6,014
Mavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud of
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by aquaadverse View Post
No, he could have given the opinion of disapprove and he would have been clear, it wouldn't matter what Clinton did. I don't see why you have such a problem with this.

As to the rest of your post, it's not worth commenting on.
"it wouldn't matter what clinton did"?

yikes.

how you fail to grasp that it ONLY matters "what clinton did" is a mystery.

actually, from the litany of wrong assertions you've made, it isn't really a mystery is it?
Mavdog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-02-2009, 09:30 PM   #112
aquaadverse
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 317
aquaadverse is a name known to allaquaadverse is a name known to allaquaadverse is a name known to allaquaadverse is a name known to allaquaadverse is a name known to allaquaadverse is a name known to allaquaadverse is a name known to allaquaadverse is a name known to allaquaadverse is a name known to all
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mavdog View Post
"it wouldn't matter what clinton did"?

yikes.

how you fail to grasp that it ONLY matters "what clinton did" is a mystery.

actually, from the litany of wrong assertions you've made, it isn't really a mystery is it?
Because it has little to do with Holders opinion of if Rich met the requirements of the Justice Dept. Since Mrs. Rich had already hired Clinton's White House counsel from '93 and contributed serious change to his library most reasonable people see it as a purchased deal. If Holder had run it through the normal procedures setup for the evaluation which would have had notified the federal attorney for the district of New York for her opinion and then given his opinion Rich didn't meet the standards he would have been in the clear. He would have discharged his duty properly.

Clinton pardoning him or not pardoning him would have been on Clinton and Holder wouldn't have been pulled in front of Congress to explain why he circumvented normal procedure and Mary Jo White wouldn't have been screaming about learning about the pardon after it was granted.

It's hard to understand why you have such a problem understanding the point isn't about a Presidents supreme power to grant a pardon for whatever reason they want, it was about Holder's bypassing the Justice Department's procedures put in place to gather the information to make a decision on the merits for a recommendation, whatever it turned out to be.

Kind of puts a bit of a shadow on simply "right or wrong" and certainly raises a question of the AG being immune to political pressure from the White House.
aquaadverse is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-02-2009, 10:19 PM   #113
Mavdog
Diamond Member
 
Mavdog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Texas
Posts: 6,014
Mavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud of
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by aquaadverse View Post
Because it has little to do with Holders opinion of if Rich met the requirements of the Justice Dept. Since Mrs. Rich had already hired Clinton's White House counsel from '93 and contributed serious change to his library most reasonable people see it as a purchased deal. If Holder had run it through the normal procedures setup for the evaluation which would have had notified the federal attorney for the district of New York for her opinion and then given his opinion Rich didn't meet the standards he would have been in the clear. He would have discharged his duty properly.

Clinton pardoning him or not pardoning him would have been on Clinton and Holder wouldn't have been pulled in front of Congress to explain why he circumvented normal procedure and Mary Jo White wouldn't have been screaming about learning about the pardon after it was granted.

It's hard to understand why you have such a problem understanding the point isn't about a Presidents supreme power to grant a pardon for whatever reason they want, it was about Holder's bypassing the Justice Department's procedures put in place to gather the information to make a decision on the merits for a recommendation, whatever it turned out to be.

Kind of puts a bit of a shadow on simply "right or wrong" and certainly raises a question of the AG being immune to political pressure from the White House.
do you just make this stuff up? really, why don't you do a bit of reading first before you write this crap.

there is no "normal procedure" to notify any federal attorney. there is no obligation of the pardon justice to ask, interview or consult with any federal attorney. there is a stated limitation on who is involved with the petition, and a federal attorney isn't one of them.
Petitions, reports, memoranda, and communications submitted or furnished in connection with the consideration of a petition for executive clemency generally shall be available only to the officials concerned with the consideration of the petition. However, they may be made available for inspection, in whole or in part, when in the judgment of the Attorney General their disclosure is required by law or the ends of justice.

(c) The Attorney General shall review each petition and all pertinent information developed by the investigation and shall determine whether the request for clemency is of sufficient merit to warrant favorable action by the President. The Attorney General shall report in writing his or her recommendation to the President, stating whether in his or her judgment, the President should grant or deny the petition.
http://www.usdoj.gov/pardon/clemency.htm#consideration

holder was brought in front of a republican chaired committee over the objections of the minority democrats. it's pretty obvious who is "political" in this instance, and it is clearly the republicans who wanted someone to beat up over the rich pardon, and bill clinton was untouchable.
Mavdog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-02-2009, 10:35 PM   #114
dude1394
Guru
 
dude1394's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 40,410
dude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond repute
Default

The left is agreeing with aquaadverse

[/quote]. Steve Benen's retelling of the Van Jones kerfuffle explains it all:
In the exchange, Jones was asked why a Republican president working with a Republican Congress can pass more of its agenda than a Democratic president working with a Democratic [Congress]. "Well, the answer to that is, they're a**holes," Jones said. He added, "Barack Obama is not an a**hole. Now, I will say this: I can be an a**hole, and some of us who are not Barack Hussein Obama, are going to have to start getting a little bit uppity."
(Emphasis supplied.) That tells the tale. Our last hope is that the Progressive Block gets uppity. Obama won't do the political bargaining for us.[/quote]
__________________
"Yankees fans who say “flags fly forever’’ are right, you never lose that. It reinforces all the good things about being a fan. ... It’s black and white. You (the Mavs) won a title. That’s it and no one can say s--- about it.’’
dude1394 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-03-2009, 03:54 PM   #115
aquaadverse
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 317
aquaadverse is a name known to allaquaadverse is a name known to allaquaadverse is a name known to allaquaadverse is a name known to allaquaadverse is a name known to allaquaadverse is a name known to allaquaadverse is a name known to allaquaadverse is a name known to allaquaadverse is a name known to all
Default

Holder disagrees with you. At his conformation hearing Holder said he should have consulted with prosecutors and studied the issue more closely before making that statement of Neutral leaning positive.


http://usgovinfo.about.com/blprespardons.htm

While Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution places no limitations on the president's power to grant or deny pardons, the Justice Department's U.S. Pardon Attorney prepares a recommendation for the president on each application for presidential "clemency," including pardons, commutations of sentences, remissions of fines, and reprieves.

The Pardon Attorney is required to review each application according to the following guidelines: (The president is not obliged to follow, or even consider the recommendations of the Pardon Attorney. See: Sec. 1.10)

A person seeking executive clemency by pardon, reprieve, commutation of sentence, or remission of fine shall execute a formal petition. The petition shall be addressed to the President of the United States and shall be submitted to the Pardon Attorney, Department of Justice, Washington, DC 20530, except for petitions relating to military offenses.
http://www.usdoj.gov/pardon/clemency.htm#disclosure

(a) Upon receipt of a petition for executive clemency, the Attorney General shall cause such investigation to be made of the matter as he or she may deem necessary and appropriate, using the services of, or obtaining reports from, appropriate officials and agencies of the Government, including the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

As an initial investigative step in a pardon case, the Office of the Pardon Attorney contacts the United States Probation Office for the federal district in which the petitioner was prosecuted to obtain copies of the presentence report and the judgment of conviction, as well as information regarding the petitioner's compliance with court supervision, and to ascertain the Probation Office's views regarding the merits of the pardon request. If review of the pardon petition and the data obtained from the Probation Office reveals information that clearly excludes the case from further favorable consideration, my office prepares a report to the President for the signature of the Deputy Attorney General recommending that pardon be denied.

http://www.usdoj.gov/archive/pardon/adams1.htm
If the FBI report suggests that favorable treatment may be warranted, or in cases which are of particular importance or in which significant factual questions exist, the Office of the Pardon Attorney requests input from the prosecuting authority (e.g., a United States Attorney, a Division of the Department of Justice, or in some cases, an Independent Counsel) and the sentencing judge concerning the merits of the pardon request. If the individual case warrants, other government agencies, such as the Internal Revenue Service or the Immigration and Naturalization Service, may be contacted as well. In appropriate cases in which the offense involved a victim, the prosecuting authority is asked to notify the victim of the pendency of the clemency petition and advise him that he may submit comments concerning the pardon request. Upon receipt of the responses to these inquiries, my office prepares a report and a proposed recommendation for action upon the case. The report is drafted for the signature of the Deputy Attorney General and is submitted for his review. If the Deputy Attorney General concurs with my office's assessment, he signs the recommendation and returns the report to my office for transmittal to the Counsel to the President. If the Deputy Attorney General disagrees with the disposition proposed by the Office of the Pardon Attorney, he may direct the Pardon Attorney to modify the Department's recommendation.
After the recommendation is signed by the Deputy Attorney General, the report is transmitted to the Counsel to the President for the President's action on the pardon request whenever he deems it appropriate.
aquaadverse is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-03-2009, 05:04 PM   #116
Mavdog
Diamond Member
 
Mavdog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Texas
Posts: 6,014
Mavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud of
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by aquaadverse View Post
Holder disagrees with you. At his conformation hearing Holder said he should have consulted with prosecutors and studied the issue more closely before making that statement of Neutral leaning positive.


http://usgovinfo.about.com/blprespardons.htm

While Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution places no limitations on the president's power to grant or deny pardons, the Justice Department's U.S. Pardon Attorney prepares a recommendation for the president on each application for presidential "clemency," including pardons, commutations of sentences, remissions of fines, and reprieves.

The Pardon Attorney is required to review each application according to the following guidelines: (The president is not obliged to follow, or even consider the recommendations of the Pardon Attorney. See: Sec. 1.10)

A person seeking executive clemency by pardon, reprieve, commutation of sentence, or remission of fine shall execute a formal petition. The petition shall be addressed to the President of the United States and shall be submitted to the Pardon Attorney, Department of Justice, Washington, DC 20530, except for petitions relating to military offenses.
http://www.usdoj.gov/pardon/clemency.htm#disclosure

(a) Upon receipt of a petition for executive clemency, the Attorney General shall cause such investigation to be made of the matter as he or she may deem necessary and appropriate, using the services of, or obtaining reports from, appropriate officials and agencies of the Government, including the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

As an initial investigative step in a pardon case, the Office of the Pardon Attorney contacts the United States Probation Office for the federal district in which the petitioner was prosecuted to obtain copies of the presentence report and the judgment of conviction, as well as information regarding the petitioner's compliance with court supervision, and to ascertain the Probation Office's views regarding the merits of the pardon request. If review of the pardon petition and the data obtained from the Probation Office reveals information that clearly excludes the case from further favorable consideration, my office prepares a report to the President for the signature of the Deputy Attorney General recommending that pardon be denied.

http://www.usdoj.gov/archive/pardon/adams1.htm
If the FBI report suggests that favorable treatment may be warranted, or in cases which are of particular importance or in which significant factual questions exist, the Office of the Pardon Attorney requests input from the prosecuting authority (e.g., a United States Attorney, a Division of the Department of Justice, or in some cases, an Independent Counsel) and the sentencing judge concerning the merits of the pardon request. If the individual case warrants, other government agencies, such as the Internal Revenue Service or the Immigration and Naturalization Service, may be contacted as well. In appropriate cases in which the offense involved a victim, the prosecuting authority is asked to notify the victim of the pendency of the clemency petition and advise him that he may submit comments concerning the pardon request. Upon receipt of the responses to these inquiries, my office prepares a report and a proposed recommendation for action upon the case. The report is drafted for the signature of the Deputy Attorney General and is submitted for his review. If the Deputy Attorney General concurs with my office's assessment, he signs the recommendation and returns the report to my office for transmittal to the Counsel to the President. If the Deputy Attorney General disagrees with the disposition proposed by the Office of the Pardon Attorney, he may direct the Pardon Attorney to modify the Department's recommendation.
After the recommendation is signed by the Deputy Attorney General, the report is transmitted to the Counsel to the President for the President's action on the pardon request whenever he deems it appropriate.
as rich was not on probation, there was no probation officer to contact was there?

second, there is as stated above "no obligation" to contact any other party in order to review the application.

last, there is only a prosedure outlined to contact other parties "If the FBI report suggests that favorable treatment may be warranted, or in cases which are of particular importance or in which significant factual questions exist". not needed in this case.

thanks for the information confiming exactly what I have been posting.
Mavdog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-03-2009, 11:22 PM   #117
chumdawg
Guru
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Cowboys Country
Posts: 23,336
chumdawg has a reputation beyond reputechumdawg has a reputation beyond reputechumdawg has a reputation beyond reputechumdawg has a reputation beyond reputechumdawg has a reputation beyond reputechumdawg has a reputation beyond reputechumdawg has a reputation beyond reputechumdawg has a reputation beyond reputechumdawg has a reputation beyond reputechumdawg has a reputation beyond reputechumdawg has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Op-Ed Columnist
Health Care That Works
Fred R. Conrad/The New York Times
Nicholas D. Kristof

Here’s a paradox.

Health care reform may be defeated this year in part because so many Americans believe the government can’t do anything right and fear that a doctor will come to resemble an I.R.S. agent with a scalpel. Yet the part of America’s health care system that consumers like best is the government-run part.

Fifty-six to 60 percent of people in government-run Medicare rate it a 9 or 10 on a 10-point scale. In contrast, only 40 percent of those enrolled in private insurance rank their plans that high.

Multiple surveys back that up. For example, 68 percent of those in Medicare feel that their own interests are the priority, compared with only 48 percent of those enrolled in private insurance.

In truth, despite the deeply ingrained American conviction that government is bumbling when it is not evil, government intervention has been a step up in some areas from the private sector.

Until the mid-19th century, firefighting was left mostly to a mishmash of volunteer crews and private fire insurance companies. In New York City, according to accounts in The New York Times in the 1850s and 1860s, firefighting often descended into chaos, with drunkenness and looting.

So almost every country moved to what today’s health insurance lobbyists might label “socialized firefighting.” In effect, we have a single-payer system of public fire departments.

We have the same for policing. If the security guard business were as powerful as the health insurance industry, then it would be denouncing “government takeovers” and “socialized police work.”

Throughout the industrialized world, there are a handful of these areas where governments fill needs better than free markets: fire protection, police work, education, postal service, libraries, health care. The United States goes along with this international trend in every area but one: health care.

The truth is that government, for all its flaws, manages to do some things right, so that today few people doubt the wisdom of public police or firefighters. And the government has a particularly good record in medical care.

Take the hospital system run by the Department of Veterans Affairs, the largest integrated health system in the United States. It is fully government run, much more “socialized medicine” than is Canadian health care with its private doctors and hospitals. And the system for veterans is by all accounts one of the best-performing and most cost-effective elements in the American medical establishment.

A study by the Rand Corporation concluded that compared with a national sample, Americans treated in veterans hospitals “received consistently better care across the board, including screening, diagnosis, treatment and follow-up.” The difference was particularly large in preventive medicine: veterans were nearly 50 percent more likely to receive recommended care than Americans as a whole.

“If other health care providers followed the V.A.’s lead, it would be a major step toward improving the quality of care across the U.S. health care system,” Rand reported.

As for the other big government-run health care system in the United States, Medicare spends perhaps one-sixth as much on administration as private health insurers, although the comparison is imperfect and controversial.

But the biggest weakness of private industry is not inefficiency but unfairness. The business model of private insurance has become, in part, to collect premiums from healthy people and reject those likely to get sick — or, if they start out healthy and then get sick, to find a way to cancel their coverage.

A reader wrote in this week to tell me about a colleague of hers who had health insurance through her company. The woman received a cancer diagnosis a few weeks ago, and she now faces chemotherapy co-payments that she cannot afford. Worse, because she is now unable to work and has to focus on treatment, she has been shifted to short-term disability for 90 days — and after that, she will lose her employer health insurance.

She can keep her insurance if she makes Cobra payments on her own, but she can’t afford this. In her case, her company will voluntarily help her — but I just don’t understand why we may be about to reject health reform and stick with a dysfunctional system that takes away the health coverage of hard-working Americans when they become too sick with cancer to work.

On my blog, foreigners regularly express bewilderment that America may reject reform and stick with a system that drives families into bankruptcy when they get sick. That’s what they expect from the Central African Republic, not the United States.

Let’s hope we won’t miss this chance. A public role in health care shouldn’t be any scarier or more repugnant than a public fire department.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/03/op...stof.html?_r=1
chumdawg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-04-2009, 03:26 AM   #118
aquaadverse
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 317
aquaadverse is a name known to allaquaadverse is a name known to allaquaadverse is a name known to allaquaadverse is a name known to allaquaadverse is a name known to allaquaadverse is a name known to allaquaadverse is a name known to allaquaadverse is a name known to allaquaadverse is a name known to all
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mavdog View Post
as rich was not on probation, there was no probation officer to contact was there?

second, there is as stated above "no obligation" to contact any other party in order to review the application.

last, there is only a prosedure outlined to contact other parties "If the FBI report suggests that favorable treatment may be warranted, or in cases which are of particular importance or in which significant factual questions exist". not needed in this case.

thanks for the information confiming exactly what I have been posting.
I really don't don't know why you are working so hard when it was acknowledged by everyone, including Holder, that it was a very botched process. The only question is if Holder was a stooge and being used or if he was a participant.

Best practices are just that. He wasn't on probation because he fled the country to escape prosecution. If you are saying that the information gathered and the people investigating explaining how and why charges were filed and the evidenced used to justify it is not needed to analyze the question of fitness for a pardon, you've gone around the bend and waved bye-bye to objectivity about 50 miles back. You keep accusing me of making things up but everything I quoted has been part of the debate for years on this. The owners manual for my vehicle doesn't tell me to check my mirrors before changing lanes, but it doesn't stop it from being necessary and a best practice.

The pardoning of a person who has fled the country to escape prosecution is so beyond the pale it generated bipartisan outrage.

Your insistence that there is nothing to see here, just move along, because there isn't a codified process for someone hauling ass before even being tried, is like this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=reJpj-rrsVQ

Holder himself said he should have spoken to prosecutors. You just keep looking more and more foolish. Rich was on the FBI most wanted list and fled the country to escape prosecution. His wife funneled a million dollars into a fund Clinton had full control over, additional sizable contributions to the Democrat Party and Clinton's defense fund. You are probably the only person in the US besides Rich and his ex-wife who doesn't feel this triggered the need to examine the circumstances and the role of the Justice Department.

From http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/obamas-...ardon-scandal/

I'm giving that link because it refutes your claim of a partisan witch hunt.

I linked to the document that the Justice Department pardon attorney had submitted to Congress outlining the normal procedures that specifically mentioned consultation with the federal court system that had jurisdiction. I linked to Justice department documents clearly stating the federal attorneys are used as a part of the process if required to get a full vetting of the facts and circumstances. Using an argument that he wasn't on probation when you know perfectly well the main objection was he fled before undergoing the process that produces it is pretty lame. As are your condescending comments. There is little reason to continue a discussion on this with you.

Thanks for playing.

Last edited by aquaadverse; 09-04-2009 at 03:28 AM.
aquaadverse is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-04-2009, 09:42 AM   #119
dude1394
Guru
 
dude1394's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 40,410
dude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Interesting stuff, especially the stuff about our improved standard of living.
http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2009/...ealthcare.html
Quote:
Why are we spending more on healthcare?

The answer from Nobel Prize winning economic historian Robert Fogel:
The main factor is that the long-term income elasticity of the demand for healthcare is 1.6—for every 1 percent increase in a family’s income, the family wants to increase its expenditures on healthcare by 1.6 percent. This is not a new trend. Between 1875 and 1995, the share of family income spent on food, clothing, and shelter declined from 87 percent to just 30 percent, despite the fact that we eat more food, own more clothes, and have better and larger homes today than we had in 1875. All of this has been made possible by the growth in the productivity of traditional commodities. In the last quarter of the 19th century, it took 1,700 hours of labor to purchase the annual food supply for a family. Today it requires just 260 hours, and it is likely that by 2040, a family’s food supply will be purchased with about 160 hours of labor.
Consequently, there is no need to suppress the demand for healthcare. Expenditures on healthcare are driven by demand, which is spurred by income and by advances in biotechnology that make health interventions increasingly effective. Just as electricity and manufacturing were the industries that stimulated the growth of the rest of the economy at the beginning of the 20th century, healthcare is the growth industry of the 21st century. It is a leading sector, which means that expenditures on healthcare will pull forward a wide array of other industries including manufacturing, education, financial services, communications, and construction.

__________________
"Yankees fans who say “flags fly forever’’ are right, you never lose that. It reinforces all the good things about being a fan. ... It’s black and white. You (the Mavs) won a title. That’s it and no one can say s--- about it.’’
dude1394 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-04-2009, 01:11 PM   #120
Mavdog
Diamond Member
 
Mavdog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Texas
Posts: 6,014
Mavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud of
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by aquaadverse View Post
I really don't don't know why you are working so hard when it was acknowledged by everyone, including Holder, that it was a very botched process. The only question is if Holder was a stooge and being used or if he was a participant.

Best practices are just that. He wasn't on probation because he fled the country to escape prosecution. If you are saying that the information gathered and the people investigating explaining how and why charges were filed and the evidenced used to justify it is not needed to analyze the question of fitness for a pardon, you've gone around the bend and waved bye-bye to objectivity about 50 miles back. You keep accusing me of making things up but everything I quoted has been part of the debate for years on this. The owners manual for my vehicle doesn't tell me to check my mirrors before changing lanes, but it doesn't stop it from being necessary and a best practice.

The pardoning of a person who has fled the country to escape prosecution is so beyond the pale it generated bipartisan outrage.

Your insistence that there is nothing to see here, just move along, because there isn't a codified process for someone hauling ass before even being tried, is like this:

Holder himself said he should have spoken to prosecutors. You just keep looking more and more foolish. Rich was on the FBI most wanted list and fled the country to escape prosecution. His wife funneled a million dollars into a fund Clinton had full control over, additional sizable contributions to the Democrat Party and Clinton's defense fund. You are probably the only person in the US besides Rich and his ex-wife who doesn't feel this triggered the need to examine the circumstances and the role of the Justice Department.

I'm giving that link because it refutes your claim of a partisan witch hunt.

I linked to the document that the Justice Department pardon attorney had submitted to Congress outlining the normal procedures that specifically mentioned consultation with the federal court system that had jurisdiction. I linked to Justice department documents clearly stating the federal attorneys are used as a part of the process if required to get a full vetting of the facts and circumstances. Using an argument that he wasn't on probation when you know perfectly well the main objection was he fled before undergoing the process that produces it is pretty lame. As are your condescending comments. There is little reason to continue a discussion on this with you.

Thanks for playing.
interesting that you are arguing against the very dept of justice items you yourself posted previously. rather schizoid to say the least.

there is no obligation of the pardon attorney to involve anyone in the review of a pardon request such as rich's. that was a point I have made and you also provided links to validate.

eric holder didn't grant the pardon request, nor did eric holder circumvent any processes but followed the required processes, in sending the pardon request to the white house.

the house committee on government reform, which held hearings on the rich pardon chaired by dan burton who is no stranger to politicizing events, was criticized by the democrats on that very committee for a report on holder that "is partisan, relies on innuendo, and makes unsubstantiated allegations of wrongdoing" as well as "mixes facts with suppositions". yet you use that tainted report. so much for objectivity.

the "pajamamedia" blog is full of inaccuracies (how could holder have acted out of a desire to get appointed as gore's ag when gore had already lost the election when the pardon was granted?) and falsehoods it is a partisan hackjob. is this what you use to support an argument? failure out of the gate.

I said early on in your inaccurate demonizing of eric holder that if you have a problem with the rich pardon your anger and criticism should be directled at bill clinton, who granted the pardon, who worked with quinn (and scooter libby btw) to go against tradition and good judgement in granting a pardon to a fugitive. rather than look at the facts and follow that idea you attempt to label holder as so political he can't objectively handle an investigation into the cia. I can't and will not defend clinton, the pardon was not justified nor was it correct. that doesn't lead me to make incorrect and audacious conclusions on holder.

eric holder is not to blame, eric holder did not violate any requirements, eric holder is not guilty of anything but doing his job.

holder is doing likewise with the cia investigation. you have ignored the fact that he went to a special prosecutor who was a republican appointee. you ignored the fact that he is not using any political appointees in justice to work on the investigation. ignore is a crucial part of the word ignorance.

thanks for playing.
Mavdog is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
blahblahimadirtywhore, christianity only 4 free, got a bit fluffy in here, mandatory purchase is ok?, socialism or nothing, universal fluff care

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump




All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:37 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.