The president used the 4th veto of his presidency to veto the Children's Health Insurance Plan expansion. I do find it incredibly sad that we can spend 333 million dollars per day on the war in Iraq, but we can't spend 19 million on children's health care. We also spend insane amounts of money on numerous other programs that I consider waaaaay less important than affordable healthcare.
I knew I shouldn't get my hopes up since the President had promised to veto the bill, but I did and now I just feel like crying. I'm devastated and feel like the "bad guys" are winning and the good people and children are losing. What happened to caring about your neighbor? The world is an incredibly depressing place, and I already know that, but I think we have an obligation to make life as good as possible for the kids here. They don't choose what income level their parents are, but sadly whether or not they afford the best healtcare depends on it.
I can't wait until January of 2009. Maybe then my country will stop looking so much like a dictatorship and a little more like a democracy. I'm sick of one little guy with a big case of little-man's syndrome holding all the power and abusing it to a disgusting, appalling degree. When you conservatives come on here to defend your precious President Bush, it will not affect me in the slightest. I will only feel bad that you have been brainwashed by such a complete jerk and waste of oxygen.
Complete Discussion Below: marks the location of current message within thread
All Things Considered, October 3, 2007 · President Bush has made good on his promise to veto a bill to expand a popular children's health insurance program, saying the bill could lead the nation toward a system of socialized medicine.
But backers of the measure, who are working to override the veto, say the president doesn't understand how the bill would actually work.
At issue is the State Children's Health Insurance Program, known as SCHIP. It currently covers about 6 million children in families that earn too much to qualify for the Medicaid program for the poor, but not enough to afford their own, private health insurance. The bill the president vetoed would have added $35 billion to the program over the next five years — enough to cover about 10 million children total.
"I believe in private medicine," Bush told an audience in Lancaster, Penn., on Wednesday morning. "I believe in helping poor people, which was the intent of SCHIP, now being expanded beyond its initial intent. I also believe that the federal government should make it easier for people to afford private insurance. I don't want the federal government making decisions for doctors and customers."
Not Administered by the Government
But SCHIP isn't the kind of program where government officials make medical decisions. Under SCHIP, children are enrolled in private health insurance.
"Typically, children have a choice from among competing private health-insurance companies," says Stan Dorn, a senior research associate with the Urban Institute, a Washington-based think tank. "There's no federally specified benefits package. There's no individual entitlement."
The president also complained that the bill would cover too many children who don't need federal help. "This program expands coverage, federal coverage, up to families earning $83,000 a year. That doesn't sound poor to me," the president told the Lancaster audience.
Dorn says that's not exactly right, either. "This bill would actually put new limits in place to keep states from going to very high-income levels. SCHIP money would no longer be available over 300 percent of the federal poverty level, which is about $60,000 for a family of four."
The president gets to make the $83,000 claim because New York had wanted to allow children in families with incomes up to four times the poverty level onto the program. That is, indeed, $82,600. The Department of Health and Human Services rejected New York's plan last month, and under the bill, that denial would stand. White House officials warn, however, that the bill would allow a future administration to grant New York's request.
Health Care Confusion for All
Still, Dorn says the real irony is that the bill, which was negotiated largely by Republicans in the Senate, goes a long way toward meeting the goals that Bush said he wanted for the program.
"It's limited the ability to go up the income scale. It's focused resources on the poorest uninsured kids. It's imposed new duties on states to prevent government funds from crowding out employer coverage," Dorn says.
In other words, the bill addresses all of the president's complaints, including his concern that families with private coverage now will drop it in favor of government-subsidized care.
But it's not just the president who is confused; Democrats are, too. Last week, at a news conference, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer told the story of 12-year-old Deamonte Driver, the Maryland boy who died earlier this year after an untreated abscessed tooth turned into a brain infection.
"He had a toothache," Hoyer said, "but he didn't have health insurance, and his folks could not access dental care."
Actually, Deamonte Driver did have health insurance. He had Medicaid. His mother just couldn't find a dentist who would accept that Medicaid coverage — which is a whole different problem.
Meanwhile, Congress has continued funding for the SCHIP program through mid-November while the bigger battle plays out. A House override vote on the president's veto is now scheduled for Oct. 18.
Link to article: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=14962685
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President George W. Bush on Wednesday vetoed a bill expanding a popular children's health-care program for a second time, angering Democrats who are locked in a fight with the administration over the budget and spending.
Pushed by the Democratic-led Congress but also supported by many Republicans, the bill was aimed at providing health insurance to about 10 million children in low- and moderate-income families. Taxes on cigarettes and other tobacco products would have been increased to pay for the aid.
Bush vetoed an earlier version of the bill in October but Congress quickly passed another one that included some changes but not enough to satisfy the White House concerns.
"Because the Congress has chosen to send me an essentially identical bill that has the same problems as the flawed bill I previously vetoed, I must veto this legislation too," Bush wrote in a message to the House of Representatives.
The fight between Congress and the White House over the health bill is one in a series of clashes over spending that have arisen this year.
Bush has said the funding level sought by the Democrats for the health program would have expanded it beyond its original intent of covering poor children and marked a step toward government-run health care.
Democrats say the additional money is needed to help families who cannot afford to buy private health insurance but who earn too much to qualify for the Medicaid health care program for the poor.
"This is indeed a sad action for him to take, because so many children in our country need access to quality health care," House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi, a California Democrat, told reporters.
The bill would have provided $60 billion in funding for the children's health program over five years, compared with the current $25 billion five-year funding level.
The tobacco tax increase would raise the levy on cigarettes by 61 cents to $1 per pack.
House Democratic leaders said they will not try to override the veto right away and would vote on a bill to ensure the more than six million kids now in the program can stay enrolled.
(Editing by Todd Eastham)
(Additional reporting by Donna Smith and Richard Cowan)
There's a huge difference between a veto and a signing statement. You might find the article at this link informative in describing Bush's use/abuse of them.
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20060113.html
And I wish it were just as simple as not *liking* Bush. The truth is I don't trust him.
Do you have a link to an article or anything where he states that? I agree with you to some extent on that point. My only issue is that within the 6 months it takes to get a different bill ready to go kids in middle-income and lower-middle-income families with be spending another 1/2 year without health insurance, and what if the new bill gets held up for some reason - then it's just more waiting for something I think we should have had long ago - access to affordable heath insurance for America's kids. Poor people are already receiving free healthcare on Medicaid, obviously, but many middle-class children are slipping through the cracks. I just didn't see any articles where Bush said the illegal immigrants were part of the reason he was vetoing the bill. He always seems to be saying positive things about the hispanic community in generaly because he seems to want the hispanic vote (for his party).
I think all presidents are given too much power. Hundreds of representatives that we took the time and effort to vote for can have their bill vetoed by 1 guy with entirely too much power. A decent number of Republicans voted for the expansion to the SCHIP bill as well, and I definitely applaud their courage to go against their leader. If the plan is so seriously flawed, then why did those Republicans feel so passionate about voting for it and trying to talk the President into signing it? If the bill is allowing tons of immigrants onto it, then that is an issue, but aren't illegals getting hoards of free healthcare already just because they are poor? I don't want them to get free healthcare, but it seems like they are already, so is this issue really the best battleground to fight the illegals, or is this just a symptom of a far greater problem that needs to be dealt with on a greater scale? I just don't want the fact that illegals are sneaking onto the SCHIP program to be the only reason we don't pass the bill. If illegals receive a free hospital stay should we close down the whole hospital? Of course not. Maybe not the greatest analogy, but I think you get what I'm saying. If you do have a link to an article I would be happy to read it, as I want to know as much about this issue as possible.
Key House Republican Jim Sensenbrenner says Bush turned his back on immigration bill
WASHINGTON, May. 17, 2006 By FREDERIC J. FROMMER Associated Press Writer
(AP)
(AP) Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner, who has pushed a tough border security bill through the House, accused President Bush on Wednesday of abandoning the legislation after asking for many of its provisions.
He basically turned his back on provisions of the House-passed bill, a lot of which we were requested to put in the bill by the White House, Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., angrily told reporters in a conference call. That was last fall when we were drafting the bill, and now the president appears not to be interested in it at all.
Sensenbrenner chairs the House Judiciary Committee and would be the House's chief negotiator on any final immigration package for Bush's signature. He said it was the White House that had requested two controversial felony provisions in the bill the House passed last winter.
We worked very closely with White House in the fall in putting together the border security bill that the House passed, he said. ... What we heard in November and December, he seems to be going in the opposite direction in May. That is really at the crux of this irritation, he said of Bush.
Bush should be grateful for this (even though he will probably ignore it, as usual), as the day may come when HE faces charges as a war criminal, and he would demand and be entitled to the same due process under the law.
Senate Armed Services Committee defies Bush; Passes its own terrorism tribunal bill
09/14/2006 @ 3:41 pm
Filed by RAW STORY
The Senate Armed Services Committee defied President Bush today by passing its own terrorism tribunal bill to protect the rights of terror detainees.
Four of the 13 Republicans on the panel joined the 11 Democrats to pass their version of the measure, rejecting Bush's proposal to bar defendants from seeing classified evidence prosecutors may want to use in court, reports Bloomberg News.
The four Republicans acted against the White House today only a few hours after the president paid a rare visit to Capitol Hill in order to personally lobby House members to support his plan.
President Bush visited Capitol Hill Thursday where he conferred behind closed doors with House Republicans on legislation to give the government more power to spy on, imprison and interrogate terrorism suspects, reported the Associated Press earlier today.
Bush told reporters later at the White House that he would resist any bill that does not enable this program to go forward with legal clarity.
The bill passed by the Senate panel had been drafted by Republican Senators John McCain, Lindsey O. Graham, and Chairman John Warner. Senator Susan M. Collins was the fourth Republican to vote for the bill.
Voting 15-9, the Senate Armed Services Committee approved the bill they said would provide suspects more legal rights than Bush wanted and resisted his attempt to more narrowly define the Geneva Conventions' standards for humane treatment of prisoners, reports Reuters.
Earlier today, former Secretary of State Colin Powell wrote a letter to Republican Senator John McCain (video link), supporting his opposition to the president's plan which would redefine the legal definitions in Article 3 of the Geneva Convention.
The world is beginning to doubt the moral basis of our fight against terrorism, Powell wrote McCain. To redefine Common Article 3 would add to those doubts. Furthermore, it would put our own troops at risk.
REPUBLICANS
John Warner (Virginia) Chairman
John McCain (Arizona) James M. Inhofe (Oklahoma) Pat Roberts (Kansas) Jeff Sessions (Alabama) Susan M. Collins (Maine) John Ensign (Nevada) James M. Talent (Missouri) Saxby Chambliss (Georgia) Lindsey O. Graham (South Carolina) Elizabeth Dole (North Carolina) John Cornyn (Texas) John Thune (South Dakota)
DEMOCRATS
Carl Levin (Michigan) Ranking Member
Edward M. Kennedy (Massachusetts) Robert C. Byrd (West Virginia) Joseph I. Lieberman (Connecticut) Jack Reed (Rhode Island) Daniel K. Akaka (Hawaii) Bill Nelson (Florida) E. Benjamin Nelson (Nebraska) Mark Dayton (Minnesota) Evan Bayh (Indiana) Hillary Rodham Clinton (New York)
Not surprised at all. Scary, but not surprised.
God help us all get through the next three years.
I'm surprised that you're surprised.
You really thought voting for the O was going to produce a miracle, that things were going to be different? Better, maybe? Wow.
Not surprised at all by the violence. Only surprised
People are p****d, especially the middle class. They can't bend much further without snapping. My prediction is that if the US gov'mt. keeps letting all the bank and stockmarket criminals off with just a slap on the wrist, eventually the public is going to take matters into its own hands. If I were that guy who bilked people out of millions in that Ponzi scheme, I'd be very, very afraid. He should be in jail if for no other reason than his own protection. I'm willing to bet that in the coming year or two, all sorts of s**t is going to start hitting the proverbial fan.
When Bill Clinton was in office, OHHH you better believe Bill and Carter have had..sm
their day of mudslinging matches, at the pleasure of a many conservatives. So, no there's not a double standard here.
Bill Maher Takes On Bill O'Reilly
BILL O'REILLY, HOST: In the "Personal Story" segment tonight, political humorist Bill Maher (search), he has a new book out called "New Rules: Polite Musings from a Timid Observer." Of course, Mr. Maher is about as polite as I am and as timid as Dracula. He joins us now from Los Angeles.
You know, you've had some celebrities on your HBO show, "Real Time," which begins again on Friday, talking about policy and war on terror and stuff like that. I get the feeling they don't know very much, but you do. So I'd like to make Bill Maher, right now, the terror czar. Bill Maher, the terror czar. Could be a series.
How would you fight this War on Terror? How would you fight it?
BILL MAHER, HOST, HBO'S "REAL TIME": I think the first and most important thing is to get the politics out of the War on Terror. You know, maybe I'm a cockeyed optimist, Bill, maybe I'm naive, but I thought that 9/11 was such a jarring event that nobody would dare return to business as usual on that one subject after that.
But of course, we found out that nothing could be further from the truth. And your president, my president too, but the one you voted for...
O'REILLY: You don't know that. Were you looking over my shoulder there? I could have voted for Nader. I could have voted for Kerry, but Kerry wouldn't come on the program, so I wouldn't vote. But I could have gone for Ralph. Ralph's a friend of mine.
MAHER: Yes. Anyway, I said the guy you voted for, President Bush, you know, how come this guy, who was supposed to be such a kick-and-take- names kind of guy, how come he has not been able to get the politics out of this?
You know, as a guy who's been accused of treason, I'll tell you what real treason is: Treason is when legislators vote against homeland security measures because it goes against the wishes of their political or financial backers. Treason is the fact that, as a terrorist, you could still buy a gun in this country because the NRA (search) lobby is so strong.
O'REILLY: OK. But you're getting into the political, and I agree with you. I think that the country should be united in trying to seek out and kill terrorists, who would kill us.
But I'd like to have some concrete things that you, Bill Maher, the terror czar — and take this seriously, this could be a series — what would you do?
All right, so you've got bin Laden. You've got Al Qaeda (search). You've got a bunch of other lower-level terrorist groups. What do you do to neutralize them?
MAHER: OK. Well, first of all, you discounted my answer, which is get the politics out, but OK.
O'REILLY: Well, assume you can do that. They're gone.
MAHER: We'll let that go. Keep going. I wouldn't worry that much about bin Laden. I mean, capturing bin Laden at this point, it doesn't really matter whether he's dead or alive. He's already Tupac to the people who care about him and work for him. Capturing bin Laden, killing him would be like when Ray Kroc died, how much that affected McDonald's.
O'REILLY: It would be a morale booster. But I understand. You're not going to send...
MAHER: A morale booster, right. Well, we've had plenty of morale boosting. We've had plenty of window dressing. What we need is concrete action.
In the book I wrote before this one about terrorism, I suggested that we have a Secret Service for the people. I said whenever the president goes anywhere, he has very high-level, intelligent detectives who look around at a crowd. They know what they're looking for. They're highly paid. They're highly trained.
We don't have that in this country. We should have that. We should have a cadre of 10,000 highly trained people who would guard all public events, bus stations, train stations, airports — and stop with this nonsense that this robotic sort of window dressing...
O'REILLY: OK, so you would create a homeland security office that was basically a security firm for major targets and things like that. It's not a bad idea. Costs a lot of money. Costs a lot of money. It's not a bad idea.
MAHER: Costs a lot of money compared to what? If you paid 10,000 people a salary of $100,000 a year, that would, I think, cost $10 billion or something. That's nothing. There's that much pork in the transportation bill before you get...
O'REILLY: Yes, 10,000 wouldn't do it, but I get your drift.
MAHER: Whatever it costs.
O’REILLY: You would create a super-security apparatus. OK, that's not bad. That's not bad. How about overseas now?
MAHER: What we need to do is what I call get Israeli about this. Because the Israelis are not afraid of profiling. The Israelis are not afraid to bury politics in the greater cause of protecting their nation. We don't act that way. You know, I'm afraid 9/11 really changed nothing.
O'REILLY: Boy, your ACLU (search) pals aren't going to like that. You're going to lose your membership card there.
MAHER: I'm not a member of the ACLU.
O'REILLY: Oh, sure you are, just like I voted for Bush. You're a member of the ACLU. I can see the card right in your pocket there.
MAHER: Bill, I'm not a joiner. I'm not a joiner. I don't like organizations.
O'REILLY: They won't have you, Maher, let's be honest about that. All right, now, in your book, which is very amusing, by the way — if you want a few laughs buy Maher's book.
MAHER: Thank you.
O'REILLY: You take some shots at FOX News, which is your wont, and I just want to know why you think we're so fabulously successful here.
MAHER: Well, I think that question has been answered many times. It's because the conservative viewer in this country, or on radio the conservative listener, is very predictable. They like to hear what they like to hear. They like to hear it over and over again.
O'REILLY: All the surveys show that the viewers are all over the map. They're not conservative in a big bloc. Some of them are moderate. Some of them are Democrats. Some of them are Moroccans. I mean, they're everywhere. That's your analysis? That just the conservatives watch us?
MAHER: Well, I think mostly the conservatives do watch you. That's not to take anything away from what you guys have achieved over there. It's a very well-produced broadcast, and they have excellent personalities like yourself, Bill. Who could resist watching you when you get home from work at night?
O'REILLY: Whoopi Goldberg, maybe? I don't know.
MAHER: Yes.
O'REILLY: Anyone who doesn't watch here is misguided. We identify them as such.
But look, I think there's more to it than — you're in TV. You know the ratings game. I mean, if you don't provide a product that is satisfying people, no matter what your ideology, they tell you to take a hike.
There's a guy over at MSNBC. He's a very conservative guy. He was hired and nobody's watching him. They hire liberals. Nobody watches them. Air America (search). Nobody's listening to it.
I mean, there's got to be a reason why we're No. 1, a punch line for you, and No. 2, you know, becoming the most powerful news network in the world.
MAHER: Well, I think, as I say, it's a well-produced product. You know, your program moves along, always at a clip that never seems to bore. You know, you move along to the next topic, the next guest. It never sort of drags. I don't think a lot of people know how to produce that stuff that way.
O'REILLY: All right. It's bells and whistles and my charming personality. That's what I thought it was.
Last thing: You know, one thing I like about Maher is he's not a hypocrite. He drives a little hybrid vehicle. Right? You putter around there. Does it have training wheels? What's it like?
MAHER: Actually, I had the Prius hybrid for three years. I was one of the first ones to get it right after 9/11. And I traded it in a few months ago for the Lexus hybrid.
O'REILLY: I think we should all cut back on our energy consumption, and I think we should all get these hybrids as fast as we can.
Hey, Bill, always nice to see you. Thanks very much. Good luck with the season on the TV show.
MAHER: Continued success there, Mr. No. 1.
O'REILLY: All right. Thank you.
Watch "The O'Reilly Factor" weeknights at 8 p.m. and 11 p.m. ET and listen to the "Radio Factor!"
Content and Programming Copyright 2005 Fox News Network, L.L.C. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Transcription Copyright 2005 eMediaMillWorks, Inc. (f/k/a Federal Document Clearing House, Inc.), which takes sole responsibility for the accuracy of the transcription. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. No license is granted to the user of this material except for the user's personal or internal use and, in such case, only one copy may be printed, nor shall user use any material for commercial purposes or in any fashion that may infringe upon Fox News Network, L.L.C.'s and eMediaMillWorks, Inc.'s copyrights or other proprietary rights or interests in the material. This is not a legal transcript for purposes of litigation.
Look, it is simple economics. The big bad corporations everyone hates...first of all, it is not 5 or 6 rich guys and that's it. They employee thousands of people just like us...and when the government puts those huge taxes on them, if they want to stay in business, they are forced to move offshore. Higher taxes are responsible for more jobs going overseas than "greed." The DNC has told its members for years that "corporations" and "the rich" are the cause of all their problems and they have bought that Marxist rhetoric hook, line, and sinker. Corporations are not the cause of ill in this country. They are the backbone of the economy in this country. That is simple economics 101. And I am certainly not rich...and I certainly am not on the upper echelon of a corporation, but I do understand reality and I understand how the economy works. Yes, there is wrongdoing by some upper level folks in corporations. There is wrongdoing in the government. Where there is power, there will be wrongdoing. But for every Enron there are thousands of other good, solid companies that employ thousands of Americans, but the DNC does not share the success stories, because it does not promote their agenda. In order to control people they want them beholden to government and hating free enterprise. They want big government, total power, and control. And following Alinksy's program...you have to instill class warfare. You have to make corporations the enemy. You have to make classes envy the next rung up. Classic Marxist socialism. It is being played out in this country every day.
Why am I not surprised? Is anyone really surprised
by the ***leak*** of the NIE document. I remember Bob Graham, senator from my state, Florida, standing on the floor of congress and predicting this almost verbatim. Many of us agreed with him. Many who did not have changed their minds over the years. I don't find any of this **breaking news.**
Now, why am I not surprised?
But as a self-professed "Bush fan", I would expect nothing less.
Are you surprised? sm
Just more of O's "transparent" tactics. When the questions get tough, he hides behind his standard "I had no idea that was going on" statement.
I was always taught and have always believed that you are known by the company you keep. All of his associates, past and present, have been crooks, liars, bomb builders and just basic scum bags.
I would be surprised if it did.
At this point, the House Repubs need to propose a new bill, since the old one was too unpopular for even the Dems to sell to their constituency.
But the Dems have to save face by not letting the Repubs get credit for putting together a more favorable bill.
I suspect in the end it will be a bill quite similar to the one already voted down, with a few more consessions in the taxpayers' favor.
Of course, both sides will take credit.
Both sides will blame the other for the crisis in the first place.
Also, watch the DVD "Uncounted" -- a real eye-opener.
The link below is to one of the Blackboxvoting forums
Ha ha! Why am I not surprised?!
If nothing else, this election campaign sure has been ENTERTAINING!
I'm not surprised
to hear you bring God into it. You're who Julian Jaynes was talking about when he talked about the unevolved faction of humanity, the ones who have to have literal interpretations of the Bible because they have an under-developed consciousness and have to recreate the "voice of the chief."
If Jesus knew about the offensive slime you spew, he would never stop puking.
And by the way, Obama has said a number of times that he will stop giving tax breaks to companies that offshore.
I, for one, am not surprised by this...sm
I always thought that Obama was a socialist, about two steps from being a marxist, on his way to being a communist.
If true, this goes to show exactly who and what Obama is about.
Chilling, indeed. No wonder I can't believe a word that comes out of his mouth. Whenever he's questioned on certain issues, he's too busy trying to sound like not what he is, but still fails miserably.
He sounds like someone hiding something, and it's not pretty.
I'm not surprised
you envision and embrace the negative extreme of everything, given the whole fire & brimstone thing. Good grief. It must be miserable being locked inside that kind of paranoia. You have my sympathy.
I would be surprised
if you had not heard at least a few names on this list, which is, by no means, exhaustive.
Many of the most famous serial killers (e.g., Jeffrey Dahmer, Andrew Cunanan, John Wayne Gacy, Henry Lee Lucas, Ottis Toole, etc.) were homosexuals, but they became widely known due to the nature of their crimes or the identities of their victims, not because they in any way represent serial killers generally.
To name a few:
Gay/Homosexual Serial Killers
Name # of People
Killed Year Killer's Home Location of Murders Notes Birth death
Jeffrey Dahmer 17 1978, 1988-91 Milwaukee Milwaukee and Chicago homosexual cannibal. He was killed by another inmate while in prison. 21 May 1960 28 November 1994
Andrew Cunanan 5 1997 San Diego, Calif. Minnesota; Chicago, IL; South Beach, FL killed fashion designer Gianni Versace 31 August 1969 23 July 1997
Gilles DE Rais 300+ 1430s France France associate of Joan of Arc
Luis Alfredo Garavito 140+ Colombia Colombia Gay serial killer who murdered over 140 boys in Columbia. 25 January 1957
Randy Steven Kraft 65 (est.) 1971 to 1983 Oregon, Michigan, etc. "Score Card Killer"
Michael Swango 35 - 60 1983-97 Ohio, Illinois, New York, South Dakota, Virginia "Doctor of Death" -- killed hospital patients
Andrei Chikatilo 52 until 1992 Russia Russia
Fritz Haarmann 40 (est.) until 1924 Germany Germany "Butcher Of Hanover"
John Wayne Gacy 33 until 1978 Chicago Chicago bisexual; 27 of his victims (young boys he seduced) were found buried in crawlspace under his house. Executed in Joliet, IL. 17 March 1942 10 May 1994
Patrick Wayne Kearney 28+ 1968 to 1977 Redondo Beach, Calif. gay cruising areas of Hollywood
David D. Hill 28? 1968 to 1977 Redondo Beach, Calif. Hollywood Patrick Kearney's lover; confessed to being co-killer with Kearney, but police weren't sure about the extent of his involvement
Hans Grans 27+ until 1924 Germany Germany accommplice and love of Haarmann, the "Butcher Of Hanover"
Wayne Williams 27 1979-81 Atlanta Atlanta Gay serial killer who preyed mostly on young black male hustlers. 27 May 1958
Dean Corll 27 1960s to 1973 Ft. Wayne, Indiana; later Houston, TX Houston, Texas
Elmer Wayne Henley 27 1960s to 1973 Ft. Wayne, Indiana; later Houston, TX Houston, Texas Bisexual. Victims were young boys who he kidnapped and tortured. 9 May 1956
David Owen Brooks 27 1960s to 1973 Ft. Wayne, Indiana; later Houston, TX Houston, Texas
Donald Harvey 25 - 40 (est.) 1970-71 London, Kentucky Kentucky
Juan Corona 25 1971 From Mexico; moved to Yuba City, CA in 1950s Yuba City, Calif. Born in Mexico. All of his victims were men that he first raped, and then killed with a machete over the span of six weeks. Presently resides in Corcoran State Prison. Juan Corona's brother is Natividad, the gay, owner of the Guadalajara cafe in Marysville, CA. 1934
Adolfo de Jesus Constanzo 21 (est.) until 1989 Matamoros, Mexico Matamoros, Mexico "Matamoros Cult Killer"
Larry Eyler 19 1980s Chicago Illinois and Indiana
Huang Yong 17+ 2001-2003 Henan Province, China Henan Province, China Gay. Executed. Murdered boys that he flirted with and picked up at internet cafes. Saved their belts as souvenirs. His 18th victim escaped, leading to his arrest. 1974 26 December 2003
Dennis Nilsen 16 1978-83 U.K. U.K.
Marcelo Costa de Andrade 14 until 1991 Rio de Janeiro, Brazil Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
William Bonin 12+ 1979-80 Orange County, Calif. Orange County, Calif.
Henry Lee Lucas 12+ 1970s and 80s Most in Texas, Southeastern U.S. 23 August 1936 12 March 2001
Ottis Toole 12+ 1970s and 80s West Coast, Florida, etc. accomplice of Henry Lee Lucas
Vaughn Greenwood 11+ 1974-75 Los Angeles Los Angeles
Richard Speck 8+ 1966 Chicago Chicago married, bisexual
Cayetano Hernandez 8 1963 Yerba Buena, Mexico Mexico
Eleazor Solis 8 1963 Monterey, Mexico Mexico
David Bullock 6+ 1981-82 New York City New York
Vernon Butts 6+ 1979-80 Calif. Orange County, Calif. accomplice of William Bonin
Paul Bateson 6 ? (est.) 1977-78 New York City New York City
Marc Dutroux 6 1995-1996 Belgium Belgium Bisexual. He is unusual among gay serial killers, in that his victims were all girls, who he kidnapped and tortured before killing. One of most notorious serial killers in Belgium's history. 6 November 1956
Michael Terry 6 1980-86 Atlanta Georgia, Ohio, South Carolina
Orville Lynn Majors 6 Indiana Vermillion County Hospital, Indiana
Charles Cohen 5+ Delaware Delaware, San Francisco, New York, Miami, and New Orleans
Arthur Gary Bishop 5 1984 Utah Utah Utah serial killer of young boys. Years before his murder spree, in 1978, he had been excommunicated from the LDS Church. Bishop was an active homosexual and was no longer a member of the LDS Church when he became a serial killer. Executed in Utah State Prison. He said of his crimes, "With great sadness and remorse, I realize that I allowed myself to be misled by Satan. Pornography was not the only negative influence in my life, but its effect on me was devastating. I am a homosexual pedophile convicted of murder, and pornography was a determining factor in my downfall." 1951 10 June 1988
Michael Lupo 4+ 1986 from Italy London
Peter Moore 4 1995 north Wales north Wales
Westley Allan Dodd 3+ Washingon Washington, Oregon
David P. Brown
(a.k.a. Nathaniel Bar-Jonah) 3+ 2000 MassachusettsMontana David Paul Brown. Victims were all young boys. 15 February 1957
Charles Manson 3+ 1968-72 Los Angeles Los Angeles Bisexual. One of nation's most famous serial killers. Murdered actress Sharon Tate, the wife of film director Roman Polanski. Deeply interested in the occult. 12 November 1934
David Edward Maust 5+ 1981; 2003 Germany; Galveston, TX (1981); Hammond, IL (2003) Gay. Killed teenage boys, usually by stabbing 5 April 1954
Bruce Davis 2+ 1968-72 Los Angeles Los Angeles Charles Manson accomplice
Erik Menendez 2 20 August 1989 Beverly Hills, CA Beverly Hills, CA with his straight brother Lyle, Erik killed his parents (Jose Menendez and Kitty Menendez). Their trial was a major national news story. 27 November 1971
Although homosexual murderers of single victims are too numerous to list here, a number of particularly famous ones include: Nathan Leopold and Richard Loeb (the wealthy and academically bright gay Chicago couple who murdered a boy in 1924 just for fun; their story became one of the nation's most famous murder cases, and was the basis for many movies, including Hitchcock's film "Rope"); Armin Meiwes (the sexually deviant German cannibal known as "Der Metzgermeister" - The Master Butcher, who met a victim over the Internet who he ate and killed); John E. du Pont (the gay member of the wealthy du Pont famil who shot Olympic wrestler David Schultz to death); Gary Hirte (Waupaca, WI high school senior who admitted to killing 37-year-old substitute teacher Glenn Kopitske); Karla Homolka (Canadian lesbian who murdered her own sister). Other notable gay violent criminals include Kenneth Parnell (paid $500 to "purchase" a young black boy named Steven Stayner, who he then raped and kidnapped); John Wojtowicz (whose bank robbery inspired the movie Dog Day Afternoon).
Serial Killers who were Lesbians
Name # of People
Killed Year Killer's Home Location of Murders Notes
Magdalena Solis 8 1963 Monterey, Mexico Mexico
Aileen Wuornos 7+ 1989-90 south of Daytona, Florida Florida killed male "johns"
Tyria Moore 7+ 1989-90 south of Daytona, Florida Florida killed male "johns"
Catherine Wood 6 Grand Rapids, MI Grand Rapids, MI nurse who killed patients
Gwen Graham 6 Grand Rapids, MI Grand Rapids, MI nurse who killed patients
The pub way of thinking on this is to go ahead and let those workers lose their jobs, then save the auto industry, and then they can hire back those workers or others without any job security, benefits, etc...
Under republican rule, the rich get richer and the poor get poorer (and that obviously hasn't worked out so well). So, who on this board is getting richer, and if you are getting poorer, can you really afford (financially) to be republican?
The pub way of thinking on this is to go ahead and let those workers lose their jobs, then save the auto industry, and then they can hire back those workers or others without any job security, benefits, etc...
Under republican rule, the rich get richer and the poor get poorer (and that obviously hasn't worked out so well). So, who on this board is getting richer, and if you are getting poorer, can you really afford (financially) to be republican?
Normally, equality (except for Fox) and sense in her posts.
Can't say I'm surprised........... sm
but I do find it a little ridiculous that they would come down on a Bible study group and not the men's Monday night footbal groups or poker night groups or Cub Scout meetings, etc. This is but one more sad example of how our rights are being stripped away little by little. And before anyone says that Christians should meet in churches only, I would ask what will you do when your rights as a citizen are infringed upon?
You would be surprised how much of what you have said I agree with. Why surprised that he owns a gun? sm
For a long time, the deep south was largely Democrat and everyone there owns a gun. Al Gore hunts. So does John Kerry.
I should not be surprised by your response. sm
But I have to admit it sickens me more than a little. People like Ward Chamberlain, who has not been found to be a plagiarist, a liar (he is NOT Native American) and he made up his service record, among other things, don't deserve to be defended. Unless you are a socialist and have no problem with liars and thieves. I guess that says it all.
Surprised, but not disappointed
I was a little surprised with the outcome, especially Edward's finish, not at all what I expected. I would be happy with an Obama or a Clinton nomination.
I haven't paid much attention to the republican candidates, yet, but as things progress, you can bet I'll be watching.
Thank you kindly. I was surprised...
by last nght's media coverage of this same debate, particularly with regard to Whoopi and company on The View. Even the most adept of media hate-mongers were relatively civil and talk show guests seemed to be exhibiting an unusual degree of sensitivity.
Whoopi's statement about how the blacks have "taken the word back" from those who would use it to inflict pain was in line with what I was trying to convey. However, equally as impressive was the response by Elisabeth Hasselbeck, a young woman born the same year as my own son (1977), in the post civil rights generation who never really experienced the struggles I described in the previous post.
She was obviously genuinely confused and in real pain as she contributed to the conversation. I find myself haunted by her question regarding "how do we explain this controversy" to our children?" As a soon-to-be senior, I have trouble putting myself in the position of having learned about the civil rights movements from some civics or history text book.
On the one hand, I find myself believing that it is very important to pass this awareness down through the generations that follow us. But when I see that kind of pain in a young woman who is obviously trying her best to understand these issues, I have to wonder if there will come a day when we should try to leave it all behind us and lay it to rest.
I am inclined to believe that for as long as this job remains unfinished (the elimination of discrimination and sustained equality for all Americans in all spheres), it is important that we do not forget, but I am biased because those were MY "good ole days". Some Boomers still take a great deal of pride in having been a part of such vital social change as was accomplished during the 60s and 70s, while others among us seem to have forgotten where they came from, having sold out principles for profits.
In any case, I would be interested in any feedback in this regard, especially from those who learned about my hey days in a history lesson.
surprised to see Mc admit
that the US tortured prisoners. He said we won't ever torture prisoners AGAIN. He stood around and allowed that to happen -- he the man who wants all to remember his pow experience?
I am surprised! You went to Church?....
.
I admit I am surprised at your age.
I think the majority of the older people realize what is coming. "Conspiracy" isn't exactly such a bad word for it.
I'm really surprised in Ohio...
I figured Brown would vote yes, but am surprised Voinovich voted no - he's very much a RINO. I guess he figures he's got nothing to lose now that he's decided not to run for reelection.
Not surprised! How depressing
nm
What surprised me about the backing was
it was on a very, very conservative talk radio, same station that sean Hannity, Neal Bortz on- in fact it was during the Neal Bortz show that this was heard. I was surprised to hear it, much less there so when you say where I supposedly heard it, you are way, way off. As far as the tea party, I had not watched the channels you mentioned in some time. I watch local from Atlanta and none of those channels played it up, neither Fox or the others. That day on all local channels in Atlanta only about 5 minute coverage then. I flipped that day between the others, CNN, MSMBC, Fox and the like and Fox was the only 1 to have it anything on.
Some of them were surprised, but still agreed and
one even thought he was intelligent...all except that one woman who choked.
I think you would be very surprised at how the troops see you, Lilly. I am surprised they showed the signs sm
They actually showed them several times. A lot of people agree with that particular message. I don't agree totally with it, but do find many aspects of the official story suspicious and some of it downright stupid. Usually when there is one lie, there are others so the families request for a new investigation is valid.
To me the most important thing is to find out the truth. For most who know my name “me”, you probably think I’m liberal because I’ve been defending Barack.But I’m not liberal.I used to be conservative.Voted for Bush both times, but after the mess he put the country in and the harm he has done to the country I am now that middle level (conservative on some issues, liberal on others).
When I first heard about JM’s pick I thought “truly no, he can’t be serious”.For whatever reasons I thought before, my viewpoints have changed because I’ve read a lot of different articles written by conservatives and liberals.
While I believe John McCain is out for John McCain and his rich friends and big government, and while I believe Obama is for the people and wants to give us hope for a better future (still trying to figure out how he will pay for everything).I do believe that Sarah Palin is probably equal to Barack when it comes to inspiring people to have hope for our future, and she has proven it as governor of Alaska.
Why do I believe this…because she is not tied into the DC.I also read that she was not McCain’s choice.He was getting ready to choose Lieberman, when he received the call “telling” him he would be picking Sarah Palin.That tells me the most important thing I needed to know…that McCain is not calling the shots here and making the decisions.I truly do not trust his judgment on most of the issues he has voted for, and things he is saying, and for me it’s very important to know that someone over him is running the show and telling him what he will be doing.I cannot trust him to make important decisions.
While I do think Barack is a good candidate.I believe he is a sincere person.I like the work he’s done to help people in the community.He’s served his time in the senate and has voted right on most of the issues.He’s an excellent speaker and his speeches are moving and inspiring, but I just like Sarah Palin better.I’m reading about her record as governor.I’m not going to go into it (too lengthy), but if you look in Wikipedia you can read about her.Her work as chairperson of Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission is worth reading.She is pro-environment and has a strong understanding of Energy & Environment.But there is more about her history that I’m liking the more I read.
Another article I read stated (I’ll try to keep this short only with the highlights).
Sarah Palin is a legend in fighting corporate and government corruption. This lady will not back down for special interests. She even battled and won against Big Oil trying to come in and carve up Alaska. She has served on the school board, as a mayor, and now as Governor of the single largest, most energy rich state of the union.
She is NOT a DC insider as are McCain, Obama and Biden. This lady does not like government corruption, will not tolerate it, and is one tough cookie.
She is a devoted environmentalist and conservationist...and a pragmatist to the core. It will not take her long to figure out how corrupt DC is and take aim at many of the snakes there.
Palin is also from a modest background...great credentials in these 'blue blood' times of graft and gangsterism. Her father was a school teacher and her mother the secretary at that school. She is not part of the elitist clique and cabal of DC and has already proven her courage in standing up to them.
She is an avid hunter, loves fishing, and is a no-nonsense adult. I guarantee that Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid are changing diapers frequently right now because the Vice President of the United States is also the President of the U.S. Senate. Sarah Palin will put up with Zero DC Bullsh!t from the House and Senate.
In announcing her, McCain even humbled himself and said in a self-effacing way that Sarah Palin is exactly the type of leadership needed in DC right now to fix what is wrong in America. McCain was very clear that DC is corrupt, she is not.
Sarah Palin just changed the entire political landscape not only of the Presidential campaign but of the general state of America. Assuming voters look past McNutter and embrace Palin with their votes - and make no mistake, she would be THE final reason McKook would win - America may actually find itself on the doorstep of REAL 'change' and hope...for the first time in many decades. If elected, McCain - the man who called for the bombing of Iran and 颼 years of war' may find the American public empowering Palin to the extent he will go more placidly into his twilight than had he done with either Zionist Cantor or Liebermann biting at his @ss.
The entire Iraq and Afghanistan lunacy is going to have to stop. Meanwhile, the real business of America will be settled over on Capitol Hill and having Sarah Palin there could, finally, start the process of turning the US around.
New game now, and what Sarah Palin represents is the best choice America has to get headed back in the right direction.
The new McCain-Palin motto was rolled out today 'Country First.' Works for me.
And, lest we forget, we may end up being one heartbeat away from our first woman President...a woman who will command the true respect of the American people...and the world. A kind of respect Mrs. Clinton could only dream about.
This is my note (not in the article) –Do I think McCain would be a good president – NO!Absolutely not!But do I think Palin would be a good president.In a heart beat!Therefore my vote is going for Palin (JM just happens to be on the ticket with her).
marks the location of current message within thread!["](http://statse.webtrendslive.com/dcsncwimc10000kzgoor3wv9x_3f2v/dcs.gif?dcsdat=472064181&dcssip=www.reuters.com&dcsuri=/sphereModules&WT.ti=SphereModule&ContentChannel=topNews&ContentType=SphereRelatedNews&rChannel=Sphere&rCountry=US&VirtualEvent=1&WT.cg_n=Sphere%20-%20Impression%20Related%20News"){kind=small}
![Sphere](http://www.reuters.com/resources/images/iconSphere.gif")
Sphere
(AP)
