Food for thought..lame duck watch (sm)

• Food for thought..lame duck watch (sm) - Just the big bad

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu

If you have men who will exclude any of God's creatures from the shelter of compassion and pity, you will have men who will deal likewise with their fellow men.
St. Francis of Assisi

He who is cruel to animals becomes hard also in his dealings with men. We can judge the heart of a man by his dealings wtih animals.

Immanuel Kant

WASHINGTON, Sept. 28 — Democrats and their allies mapped out a strategy on Friday that they hoped would enable them to override President Bush’s expected veto of a bipartisan bill providing health insurance for 10 million children, most of them in low-income families.

Democratic leaders said they would highlight the contrast between the president’s request for large sums of money for the Iraq war and his opposition to smaller sums for the State Children’s Health Insurance Program, known as Schip.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Democrat of California, said, “It’s ironic that in the very same week that the president says he’s going to veto the bill because we can’t afford it, he is asking, what, for $45 billion more over and above his initial request for the war in Iraq, money that we know is being spent without accountability, without a plan for how we can leave Iraq.”

Senator Edward M. Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts, said, “This is all a matter of priorities: the cost of Iraq, $333 million a day; the cost of Schip, $19 million a day.”

The campaign for the legislation will also include grass-roots advocacy and political advertisements, and will initially focus on about 15 House Republicans who voted against the bill. Supporters of the legislation hope to persuade them to switch.

But House Republican leaders said they felt sure they could sustain the veto, and two lawmakers on the Democrats’ list said that they would support Mr. Bush.

The bill passed this week by the House and the Senate would provide $60 billion for the program over the next five years, up $35 billion from the current level of spending. On Wednesday, the administration said it would seek $42 billion more for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, bringing its total request to nearly $190 billion for the 2008 fiscal year, which begins Monday.

In an interview on Friday, the House Republican whip, Roy Blunt of Missouri, said there was “a 100 percent probability” that the House would sustain the president’s veto.

But, Mr. Blunt said, the coincidental timing of the vote on the child health bill and the request for money in Iraq “was not helpful.”

The White House, on the defensive, is trying to bolster Republicans who fear they might be penalized by voters if they side with the president.

Dana Perino, the White House press secretary, said Friday, “It is preposterous for people to suggest that the president of the United States doesn’t care about children, that he wants children to suffer.”

Ms. Perino said the president had a policy difference with Democrats in Congress because he did not want “additional government-run health care, socialized-type medicine.”

Senator Charles E. Grassley, an Iowa Republican who helped write the bill, said he would reach out to House Republicans and urge them to override the veto.

“This bill is not socialized medicine,” Mr. Grassley said. “Screaming ‘socialized medicine’ is like shouting ‘fire’ in a crowded theater. It is intended to cause hysteria that diverts people from reading the bill, looking at the facts.”

The battle will be fought in the House, where the child health bill was approved on Tuesday by a vote of 265 to 159 — well short of the two-thirds majority that would be needed to override a veto.

Ms. Pelosi called Mr. Bush on Friday and said she was praying he would sign the bill.

But Mr. Blunt said: “I bet she’s praying for him not to sign it. The bill is all about politics. It’s pretty good politics for the Democrats.”

Still, Democrats face an uphill fight to persuade Republicans to change their votes. Supporters would need 289 yes votes to enact the bill over the president’s objections if all the members were voting.

The House now has 433 members and two vacant seats.

One of the Republicans singled out for special attention by Democrats was Representative Judy Biggert, from a suburban Chicago district. She was one of 16 Republicans who signed a letter to the speaker last week, urging her to take up the Senate version of the child health bill.

The compromise closely followed the Senate version, but Mrs. Biggert voted against it, saying, “It would push Americans one step closer to socialized medicine.”

In an interview on Friday, Mrs. Biggert said she would vote to sustain the veto.

Democrats said they would also focus their efforts on Republicans like Representatives Timothy V. Johnson of Illinois, John R. Kuhl Jr. of New York, Thaddeus McCotter of Michigan and H. James Saxton of New Jersey.

Mr. McCotter said he was a big supporter of the child health program, but would vote to uphold the president’s veto, even if critics ran television advertisements against him.

Under the bill, the federal excise tax on cigarettes would be increased to $1 a pack, from the current 39 cents.

“I vowed never to raise taxes on anybody, no matter how disliked they might be,” Mr. McCotter said in an interview. He said he would rather be voted out of office than go back on his promises to constituents.

Republican senators who worked on the compromise bill, like Mr. Grassley and Orrin G. Hatch of Utah, said they had tried in vain to persuade White House officials to join the negotiations.

Ms. Perino, the White House spokeswoman, said that after vetoing the bill, Mr. Bush would like to “sit down and come to a compromise” with Congress.

The Senate Democratic leader, Harry Reid of Nevada, said the president should not hold his breath waiting for such a deal. Democrats, he said, have already made many concessions to keep the support of Senate Republicans.

A lot of times a "no" vote comes from some hidden provision that doesn't jive with the candidates' personal policies, i.e. it might not be that they disagree with the issue, but instead that they disagree with the strategy proposed to tackle it.

http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/g/god-constitutions.htm

I'm not sure if this website has any politicial affiliation (I couldn't find one), but I checked several of the states constitutions out and they were spot on.  Now, I'm not a Bible thumper (or even attend church regularly), but I thought this was interesting considering Obama's speech.  

Please note that at no time in any of these constitutions is anyone told that they MUST worship God.

I just watched the video where he stated he was going to put such high caps and make the coal industries pay mucho dollars and hopefully bankrupt the coal industry. BUT, he also stated he would use dollars they must pay if they want to use coal, for clean energy policies like wind power, etc.

 So, that said, how does he intend to pay for all his other energy technology if he bankrupts the coal industry and businesses that use coal? After all, if he bankrupts the businesses that use coal which, by the way, is most electric power plants, whose pocket will he be dipping into for the money for his clean energy policies???

Talking out of both sides of his mouth again.

Anytime you sell anything, be it a home, car, truck, or anything at all that appreciates in value, do you realize the capital gains tax will affect your bottom line?

Say you buy a car for $200 and know it's worth $1200. If you turn around and sell that car for $1200, you're paying capital gains on the difference.

If the O raises the capital gains tax to 24-25% like he wants to, it will be your loss. Do you really want to pay another $250 in taxes on something you paid $200 for?

I sure don't.

donations are way down.

In this situation, people can't help other people if they can't help themselves.

Where to start? I simply presented a logical argument predicated on definitions the original poster was obviously unfamiliar with. So far, there is nothing in this current post that even begins to address the challenge to show what part of that "dense" post was not prejudiced, bigoted and racist, seeing as how there is no proof presented here to back up these tiresome wild-eyed accusations.
I was 15 years old when the March on Washington occurred. My mom was a political junkie, a trait that I began exhibiting at around age 12, since I admired her so much...the same way that Obama obvious admired his own mother. So I began paying attention to the civil rights movement when they desegregated my school when I was around 11. You see, down South, they were a bit slow to comply with Brown vs the Board of Educaton..and in my state, they fought tooth and nail all the way up into the early 70s before complying with the order.
I also paid attention to all things racial, because I came from what would be considered an elite, privileged background and was raised by 2 black women (maid and nanny) and a black man (gardener) who were employed in my Highland Park, Dallas Texas household (BUSH country). Back then, it was not considered "fashionable" for the wealthy to do "hands-on parenting." So, I know a thing or two about racism, bigotry and prejudice first hand. I never understood why those 3 kind, wise souls (who I loved more than anyone else in the world and every bit as I loved my own parents) were treated so horribly every time we were out in public. Consequently, I took an avid interest in the civil rights movement at the tender age of 12, began reading everything I could get my hands on regarding the subject. At age 16, I started becoming active in those movements.
Now, these facts are for you. Obama was born in 1961. The march on Washington occurred in August of 1963. The Selma to Montgomery march occurred in 1965. Those marches were not exactly spontaneous events, but rather were a culmination of years of work and organization, and Obama's "blabby" in Selma abouthis parents is perfectly chronologically consistent, unlike your LAME attempt to educate me.
Beyond that, I refuse to address this racial diatribe. I learned at an early age to DESPISE racists and have very little to nothing to do with them. I will, however, confront racism whenever I see it, without fail. Over these last 5 decades, I have developed a keen sense that enabled me to sniff out the stench of racism 1000 miles away. You, dear, are a consummate prejudiced, bigoted racist and as such, have absolutely no credibility no matter how vehemently you doest protest.
One more thing. Prejudice, bigotry and racism is an anachronism that belongs buried far back in that shameful chapter of our history and is definitely a huge part of what kind of change voters are seeking in this election...the goal being to march forward, not backwards. I for one will be on that march forward until the day I take my last ragged breath.