I hate to butt in but one story seen on the news and
Posted By: Backwards typist on 2008-08-13
In Reply to: THE TRUE MAVERICK (MC CAIN) - Dee
really scared me was when Obama was in Germany and a German citizen stated, "He's the new Messiah." This was on the evening news when he was on his around the world blitz. He really had no reason to do all that traveling as if he was already the President. What was he trying to prove??? That he can charm the world? It won't work if he becomes President.
'Nuff said.
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
I do not hate Palin at all - I just think every story has 2 sides -
I don't think that the trooper would have been in trouble at all, nor would it have ever been brought up, had the trooper and Palin's sister not had an ugly divorce.
In my post, I clearly said that I would not have done what he did to his son, but I do know many men in law enforcement that would have done the exact same thing he did.
You have to read on that the taser was turned down to the testing setting (which is exactly what the law enforcement officers get tasered with in their training) and he did not do it intending harm.
You excuse McCain's lack of judgment, you excuse Palin's lack of judgment, but if anybody is not on their side you crucify them. Why?
Raw Story? Hardly a MSM news source I would say. SM
I will wait for the real story.
See inside for news story.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-vote-fraud_frioct10,0,2159694.story
How is a news story such as this attacking
the other candidate?
What?! She was reporting a local news story from
nm
Excuse me. All I did was post a link to a CBS news story
the ideas you brought up in your original post trying to imply that O's AG nominee was somehow responsible for the 9/11 attacks. I think that kind of inaccurate accusation deserves some sort of defense. You evidently have a tough time digesting data that in any way contradicts your thinking, so now we have gotten to the place where I am a pouncing, bug-squashing know-it-all who slaughters innocent insects with my windshield? For posting a link to a reputable news article written directly in the aftermath of 9/11 (YEARS before Mr. Holder's nomination). Really? Don't you think you may be over-reacting just a tad?
You didn't read the AP news story on Ogden?
I posted it below in a post yesterday.
Story about Wasilla meth labs from Juneau news sm
http://www.juneauempire.com/stories/030805/sta_20050308002.shtml
Troopers dub Mat-Su area the meth capital of Alaska
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
WASILLA - The Matanuska-Susitna area is the methamphetamine capital of Alaska, according to Alaska State Troopers.
In 2003, authorities uncovered nine meth labs in the area. Last year, the number increased to 42, said Kyle Young, an investigator with the troopers who works with the Mat-Su narcotics team.
Officials with the Office of Children's Services in Wasilla said the problem affects children. The office receives about 40 calls a month from people reporting abuse or neglect involving some aspect of the highly addictive drug.
In late February, the Mat-Su narcotics unit arrested a couple at their Willow home. Michelle Motta said for years she tried to warn authorities that her three young nieces lived in the midst of a methamphetamine operation run by their parents, Phillip Dean and Laura Jackson.
Alaska State Troopers reported finding a "large active meth lab" in a detached garage shop. The house was a frigid mess, with piles of dirty dishes, clothes everywhere and frozen pipes, investigators said.
Through a hatch in the shop floor, the team found an underground room with a meth lab in one corner, as well as old marijuana root balls and lights from a past pot-growing operation.
An investigator said the team didn't find the children at home but saw signs of them there. Motta said the girls - ages 14, 8 and 6 - at times slept in the garage with the lab.
A year ago, the oldest girl detailed the household's rampant drug problems and squalid living conditions in a handwritten letter to a judge.
"My parents grow marijuana and crystal the(y) did the drugs that they bought in front of (my sisters)," the letter begins. "They spent most money on them instead of food or doing laundry. I got left home with nobody there I got left home with drug(g)ies..."
Motta now has custody of her three nieces. The Jacksons are jailed at Mat-Su Pre-Trial Facility in Palmer.
Children sharing homes with meth labs face the risk of contamination, fire, explosion, neglect and hazardous living conditions. Caseworkers report little children complaining of breathing problems from toxic fumes rising off chemicals such as acetone, ammonia and hydrochloric acid.
When authorities surrounded a converted bus housing a meth operation in Big Lake in January, a 13-year-old boy who answered the door bragged that his mom cooked the best meth in the valley, according to the troopers.
During a 2003 bust at a house outside Wasilla, officers discovered five children living inside, all younger than 8 years old.
The calls about meth to children's services in Wasilla accounts for as many as 40 percent of the agency's total monthly child protection calls.
The troopers are aggressively going after meth labs, said Capt. Ed Harrington, the supervisor of the state's drug and alcohol enforcement unit.
"It's just not a simple process," Harrington said. "Just because somebody calls in and says 'So and so's cooking meth' doesn't mean we're going to kick the door in the next night."
Most people who hate fox news
are the same liberal nut jobs who like politicians to blow smoke up their butt and they follow blindly and willingly. They refuse to hear any other side and yet they spew about how fox news is one-sided. I'm sorry, but fox news is more fair than any channel or station I've seen or heard. Middle of the road people watch Fox. A lot more people are tuning into Fox than other stations that is for sure. So keep up your whining, screaming, and bad mouthing. People who have an open mind and want to see things from all sides, they watch Fox. People who refuse to hear or see anything but what they want to....watch MSNBC, etc.
As for Glenn Beck....he does get a little extreme sometimes, but he is a libritarian. He isn't pub or dem. He says what he means and means what he says which is a heck of a lot more than I can say for Obama and our government right now. They are too busy talking out of the sides of their mouths. I don't agree with everything Glenn says, but I do believe he actually cares. I don't agree with everything Bill O'Reilly says, but he does show things from both sides. He isn't a pub either, FYI. Sean Hannity.....I like his show because he gets both dems and pubs on there to talk. He is definitely conservative and I don't agree with everything he says either, but he is a good interviewer.
The people who refuse to watch Fox are also the same ones who blame pubs for everything while refusing to believe that the dems are to blame for our current situation as well. That is how blind they are. They are so stuck on party politics that all they can do is point fingers at the pubs and whine and refuse to hear anything else. Both parties are to blame.
The ratings prove everything. More and more people are tuning into Fox. Get a clue and stop your whining.
You hate blacks AND gays? You think Fox is the news..
I am not answering any more of your racist, rude dumb posts. Talk to yourself, all 3 or more of your selves that you are posting here so obviously.
English not so good. Sad for you. So much hate. Life too short hate.
x
Oh I see....you hate small town folks, you hate Christians...
and you hate the military...you are also coming into real clear view.
Sheesh, you not only hate Bush, you hate PEOPLE!
x
or how to kiss butt really well
++
Working your butt off
Is never having a day off because during the week you MT part time and take classes AND teach youth group and then you have a second account on the weekend.
I'd love to have kids but I'm not going to right now BECAUSE I CAN'T AFFORD IT and I don't expect anyone else to pay for them! It's called being RESPONSIBLE.
Think before you speak.
Republicans, my butt!
That's what we call a RINO. I endorse neither of them. Both of their wives are mega-libs, & they're no different. Genuine Republicans don't want them in our party, either.
If she had tightened her butt up any more, she
@
He only did this to save his own butt.
nm
Mixed butt? ...(sm)
That was just pitiful.
O'Reilly is a SELF-PROCLAIMED traditionalist, not an independent. Look it up.
Yea, right....transparency my butt!!
WH refuses to hand over the visitor list..... after all, didn't he say he was going to be MORE transparent than other administrations? Bull!! That man told so many lies on his campaign trail....
Considering I pay for that big 'ol house he lives in, and he preached transparency, then why not hand over the visitor list. Actually, the U.S. citizens are supposed to have it given to us without asking. And for those of you who will once again find excuses for this man.... NO, he does not have a reason not to, except as usual he has been seeing people he shouldn't be around and people that no doubt would expose him for what he is...
Yup. The Old Dude got his butt kicked.
maybe he was looking around for someone to rescue him.
The eye-rolling was a little much, as well. Somehow I can't see that affect going over real well when talking to heads of state worldwide.
if you don't want to answer my question, would you please BUTT OFF
nm
slap my butt and call me
x
I work my butt off and don't want handouts -
Voting for Obama does not mean I want anyone to give me anything. I have never asked for anything and don't intend to start taking anything.
You can quit kissing butt now
we get the point.
Geez.
Oh yes I have kissed Sam's butt all the time
How about further down where I defended Gourdpainter? I blindly follow no one, and GP and I have agreed and disagreed on a lot.
I'm not the one who views my candidate as the messiah and his supporters as the angels.
Nobody asked you to butt out of the conversation.
You are being asked to respect the SEPARATION between the politics board and the faith board. If all you have to offer is religious in nature, your post does not belong here.
This breaking news just in....religion and politics are only as "intricately intertwined" as the secular among us allow it to be. There seems to be a consensus in America as there is in other western nations that the two do not mix well and certainly are not conducive to democratic process. I am neither atheist, agnostic or Christian, but I do consider myself to be a spiritual person of Universalist faith. I count myself among the secular citizens who will fight tooth and nail to keep religion out of politics and out of the government. There is a place for it in our society and in our lives...churches, synagogues, mosques, temples our homes and in our psyches. Why is that not enough for the theocrats? This constant push to pervade is a REAL LIVE BUMMER. Cease and desist, won't you?
Get your head out of O's butt and pay attention!!
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29042139/
Don't mean to butt in but the above message you posted is
exactly what IMHO is talking about. I've seen plenty of your nasty messages and after this one (which is one of your calmest messages), I haven't opened or read your messages for over a week or so.
Name-calling and nastiness is not allowed on this board. If you can't adhere to the rules, you need to leave or at least at mature.
JMHO
I consider him a traitor and just out to save his own butt
He figures he can win on the Dem ticket because PA has turned Dem. Well, I have news for him.....I doubt it. He only won by a couple votes in the last election because of Pat Toomey running against him. He will definitely lose this election.
I always split my ticket and I usually voted for him, but no more. I don't care what party anyone is affiliated with; but, to me, he is a traitor and that's someone else who is not needed in the Senate.
To those who vote straight party, open your eyes. They are only out for themselves (but is that really news to anyone?)
As posters have said before, we have to educate the people who don't watch/investigate/read up on the candidates running to make sure we vote the best candidates for the job...those who value the constitution, listen to their constituents (which is hard), and vote for the good of the country. Get rid of the a-holes who are in there. We really need to clean house this coming election.,
WOW. I've even tried kicking myself in the butt for posting it...sm
It adds nothing to the debate, really, except sidetracking the issue at hand.
Your stick-up-your-butt rigidity and intolerance -
What goes around, comes around, and people who think with their retentive anuses instead of their minds, usually get what's coming to them in the end. So if that's the thinking and the politics you align with, then I'm just so very happy for you.
You've been spouting off for weeks with reams and reams of copied and linked material that you think was written by God himself. You criticise every post that suggests that the poster is of another party, or even that they are open to ideas other than YOURS.
And the REALLY sad thing is, you actually think that what you write actually MATTERS, and that people listen to what you say and think, and that they actually care. Well know what? Most people on here don't give a flying F_ _ K what you think.
It does not sound like someone who is working therir butt off to me. nm
.
It's called hard work and get off your butt
@
Geez sweetpea. Butt envy?? LOL. nm
nm
Obama can't make up his mind whose butt
nm
Maddow was kissing his butt before the election....
--
Watch out, Marmann, here I come kissing your butt again! s/m
You are so right in your description of yellow jackets! Just a bunch of brainless aggressors that attack blindly and viciously. LOL
I am enjoying this very much and find it oh so entertaining! Mob mentality is the only fitting way to describe these people. I just haven't figured out if it's just mental defectiveness, self-loathing or just plain needing a good 'ole roll in the sheets!! 
Wow, usually people that work in the same industry find a common kinship and are very supportive of each other. Sadly, I don't feel any kinship with a lot of these people. In fact, I go out of my way to avoid people like this because their joy is killing other people's joy and that's a "disease" I just don't want to catch! Besides, I have a feeling that all the negative posts on this thread are all done by the same person. It must be awkward to be so socially inept.
I look forward to more posts by you and JTBB and, disturbingly, to the putrid spewing that will then ensue!!  Bring it own, bee-atches!
In realty I'm a guy dressed up like a girl, that's why I'm butt ugly.
x
Unclench butt cheeks, take a deep breath, and
nm
Hey, that's the American dream - I'm all for sitting on my butt and making $$$
Hurrah!!
I think Larry Craig has the weird butt..he even has a wide stance! nm
x
They don't hate us because we are free, they hate us because...
We need to stop imposing the way we live on them. They don't hate us because of our freedom. That is absurd. When have you ever heard them say we hate you because you are free? Never. What they have been saying is "Don't tell us how we should live". "Don't tell us we need to have the same type of government that America has", and they also say "We don't need the Americans designing our own countries flag" and that is why they hate us. They are their own country. It is not right for us to go in and say you need to live the way we do, your government needs to be run the way ours is. How would we like it if they came and said "Were invading America and your going to conform to the way we live because "its' the right way" or "god has told me this is the way it's suppose to be". No, we wouldn't like it one bit. Every country lives differently. We need to stop dictating how other countries should live.
Hate mongers hate everything.
x
So you not only hate gays, you also hate
.
FOX news IS the news. The only 1 that tells BOTH
nm
It's all over the news - and I mean ALL news stations.
not just the ones you don't like.
Here's the story. sm
Tuesday, Aug. 30, 2005 10:51 p.m. EDT
RFK Jr.: Bush, Barbour to Blame for Katrina
Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. is blaming Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour, along with President Bush, for causing Hurricane Katrina.
As Hurricane Katrina dismantles Mississippi’s Gulf Coast, it’s worth recalling the central role that Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour played in derailing the Kyoto Protocol and kiboshing President Bush’s iron-clad campaign promise to regulate CO2, Kennedy blogged Tuesday on HuffingtonPost.com. The influential Democrat's enviro-conspiracy theory had the sinister Gov. Barbour engineering Bush's energy policy on behalf of the president’s major donors from the fossil fuel industry.
Kennedy charges that in March 2001, the former Republican National Committee chairman issued an urgent memo to the White House on CO2 emissions.
With that, the president dropped his pro-environment campaign promise like a hot potato.
Because of Bush and Barbour's CO2 folly, said Kennedy: Now we are all learning what it’s like to reap the whirlwind of fossil fuel dependence which Barbour and his cronies have encouraged.
RFK, Jr., even suggested that Katrina's last minute detour through Mississippi was a bit of Divine payback, declaring:
Perhaps it was Barbour’s memo that caused Katrina, at the last moment, to spare New Orleans and save its worst flailings for the Mississippi coast.
Another take on the story....
Republicans on the Record
What does the record say about Republicans and the battle for civil rights and specifically for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Public Law 88-352)?
Since Abraham Lincoln, Republicans have been there for blacks when it counted. Nevertheless, Democrats invariably take all the credit for the success of the civil rights movement and invariably fail to give any credit to Republicans.
In fact, the civil rights movement was not about politics. Nor was it about which politicians did what and which political party should take the most credit. When it came to civil rights, America's politicians merely saw the handwriting on the wall and wrote the legislation to make into federal law the historical changes that had already taken place. There was nothing else they could do.
The movement of blacks to the North, as well as their contributions as fighting men in the world wars, plus the hard work of millions of blacks and their families and churches, along with the efforts of many private groups and individuals made the civil rights movement succeed.
Civil rights for blacks found its historical moment after 1945. Bills introduced in Congress regarding employment policy brought the issue of civil rights to the attention of representatives and senators.
In 1945, 1947 and 1949, the House of Representatives voted to abolish the poll tax restricting the right to vote. Although the Senate did not join in this effort, the bills signaled a growing interest in protecting civil rights through federal action.
The executive branch of government, by presidential order, likewise became active by ending discrimination in the nation's military forces and in federal employment and work done under government contract.
Harry Truman ordered the integration of the military. However, his Republican opponent in the election of 1948, Tom Dewey, was just as strong a proponent for that effort as any Democrat.
As a matter of fact, the record shows that since 1933 Republicans had a more positive record on civil rights than the Democrats.
In the 26 major civil rights votes after 1933, a majority of Democrats opposed civil rights legislation in over 80 percent of the votes. By contrast, the Republican majority favored civil rights in over 96 percent of the votes.
[See http://www.congresslink.org/civil/essay.html and http://www.yale.edu/ynhti/curriculum/units/1982/3/82.03.04.x.html.]
It has been maintained all the Dixiecrats became Republicans shortly after passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, another big lie. Richard Russell, Mendell Rivers, Clinton's mentor William Fulbright, Robert Byrd, Fritz Hollings and Al Gore Sr. remained Democrats till their dying day.
Most of the Dixiecrats did not become Republicans. They created the Dixiecrats and then, when the civil rights movement succeeded, they returned to the Democratic fold. It was not till much later, with a new, younger breed of Southerner and the thousands of Northerners moving into the South, that Republicans began to make gains.
I know. I was there.
When I moved to Georgia in 1970, the Democratic Party had a total lock on Georgia. Newt Gingrich was one of the first outsiders to break that lock. He did so in a West Georgia area into which many Northerners were moving. He gained the support of rural West Georgians over issues that had absolutely nothing to do with race.
JFK – The Reluctant Civil Rights President
JFK evolved into a true believer in the civil rights movement when it became such an overwhelming historical and moral imperative that he had no choice. As a matter of record, when Kennedy was a senator from Massachusetts, he had an opportunity to vote on the 1957 Civil Rights Act pushed by Senate Majority Leader Lyndon Johnson. Instead, he voted to send it to the conservative Senate Judiciary Committee, where it would have been pigeonholed.
His lukewarm support for theAct included his vote to allow juries to hear contempt cases. Dixiecrats preferred the jury system to trials presided over and decided by judges because all-white juries rarely convicted white civil rights violators.
His record in the 1950s did not mark Kennedy as a civil rights activist. Yet the 1957Act to benefit African-Americans was passed with the help of Republicans. It was a watered- down version of the later 1964 bill, which Kennedy backed.
The record on JFK shows he was a man of his times and a true politician, more given to equivocation and pragmatism than to activism. Kennedy outlined civil rights legislation only after most of the country was behind it and ready for him to act.
For the most part, in the 1960 presidential campaign he avoided the civil rights issue altogether. He did endorse some kind of federal action, but he could not afford to antagonize Southern Democrats, whose support he desperately needed to defeat Richard Nixon. Basically, he could not jeopardize the political support of the Dixiecrats and many politicians in the rest of the country who were concerned about the radical change that was in the offing.
After he was elected president, Kennedy failed to suggest any new civil rights proposals in 1961 or 1962. That failure was for pragmatic political reasons and so that he could get the rest of his agenda passed.
Introducing specific civil rights legislation in the Senate would have meant a filibuster and the obstruction of other business he felt was just as crucial as civil rights legislation. A filibuster would have happened for sure and it would have taken 67 members to support cloture to end such a filibuster. Sixty-seven votes Kennedy believed he did not have.
As it was, Kennedy had other fish to fry, including the growing threat of Russian imperialism, the building of the Berlin Wall, the Bay of Pigs as Cuba went down the communist rat hole, his increase in the numbers of troops and advisers he was sending to Vietnam, and the Cuban Missile Crisis.
In addition, the steel business was in crisis and he needed a major tax rate cut to stimulate a sluggish economy. Kennedy understood his options and he chose to be realistic.
When Kennedy did act in June 1963 to propose a civil rights bill, it was because the climate of opinion and the political situation forced him to act.
The climate of opinion had changed dramatically between World War II and 1964. Various efforts by groups of Protestant and Catholic clergy, along with the Urban League, NAACP, Congress of Racial Equality, black activists, individuals both white and black and, of course, Martin Luther King Jr., as well as other subsets of his movement, are what forced civil rights to be crafted into federal law.
The National Opinion Research Center discovered that by 1963 the number of Americans who approved neighborhood integration had risen 30 percent in 20 years, to 72 percent. Americans supporting school integration had risen even more impressively, to 75 percent.
The efforts of politicians were needed to write all the changes and efforts into law. Politicians did not lead charge on civil rights – again, they just took credit, especially the Democrats.
The 1964 Civil Rights Act
When all the historical forces had come together, Kennedy decided to act. John Kennedy began the process of gaining support for the legislation in a nationally televised address on June 11, 1963.
Gathering business and religious leaders and telling the more violent activists in the black leadership to tone down the confrontational aspects of the movement, Kennedy outlined the Civil Rights Act. In it, the Justice Department was given the responsibility of addressing the worst problems of racial discrimination.
Because of the problem with a possible Senate filibuster, which would be imposed by Southern Democrats, the diverse aspects of theAct were first dealt with in the House of Representatives. The roadblock would be that Southern senators chaired both the Judiciary and the Commerce committees.
Kennedy and LBJ understood that a bipartisan coalition of Republicans and Northern Democrats was the key to the bill's final success.
Remember that the Republicans were the minority party at the time. Nonetheless, H.R.7152 passed the House on Feb. 10, 1964. Of the 420 members who voted, 290 supported the civil rights bill and 130 opposed it.
Republicans favored the bill 138 to 34; Democrats supported it 152-96. Republicans supported it in higher proportions than Democrats. Even though those Democrats were Southern segregationists, without Republicans the bill would have failed. Republicans were the other much-needed leg of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
The Man From Illinois
In the Senate, Hubert Humphrey was the point man for the Civil Rights Act. That is not unusual considering the Democrats held both houses of Congress and the presidency.
Sen. Thomas Kuchel of California led the Republican pro-civil rights forces. But it became clear who among the Republicans was going to get the job done; that man was conservative Senator Everett McKinley Dirksen.
He was the master key to victory for the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Without him and the Republican vote, theAct would have been dead in the water for years to come. LBJ and Humphrey knew that without Dirksen the Civil Rights Act was going nowhere.
Dirksen became a tireless supporter, suffering bouts of ill health because of his efforts in behalf of crafting and passing the Civil Rights Act. Nonetheless, Sen. Dirksen suffered the same fate as many Republicans and conservatives do today.
Even though Dirksen had an exemplary voting record in support of bills furthering the cause of African-Americans, activist groups in Illinois did not support Dirksen for re-election to the Senate in 1962.
Believing that Dirksen could be forced into voting for the Civil Rights Act, they demonstrated and picketed and there were threats by CORE to continue demonstrations and violence against Dirksen's offices in Illinois. James Farmer of CORE stated that people will march en masse to the post offices there to file handwritten letters in protest.
Dirksen blew it off in a statement typical of him: When the day comes that picketing, distress, duress, and coercion can push me from the rock of conviction, that is the day that I shall gather up my togs and walk out of here and say that my usefulness in the Senate has come to an end.
Dirksen began the tactical arrangements for passage of the bill. He organized Republican support by choosing floor captains for each of the bill's seven sections.
The Republican swing votes were from rural states without racial problems and so were uncommitted. The floor captains and Dirksen himself created an imperative for these rural Republicans to vote in favor of cloture on filibuster and then for the Act itself.
As they worked through objections to the bill, Dirksen explained his goal as first, to get a bill; second, to get an acceptable bill; third, to get a workable bill; and, finally, to get an equitable bill.
In any event, there were still 52 days of filibuster and five negotiation sessions. Senators Dirksen and Humphrey, and Attorney General Robert Kennedy agreed to propose a clean bill as a substitute for H. R. 7152. Senators Dirksen, Mansfield, Humphrey and Kuchel would cosponsor the substitute.
This agreement did not mean the end of the filibuster, but it did provide Dirksen with a compromise measure, which was crucial to obtain the support of the swing Republicans.
On June 17, the Senate voted by a 76 to 18 margin to adopt the bipartisan substitute worked out by Dirksen in his office in May and to give the bill its third reading. Two days later, the Senate passed the bill by a 73 to 27 roll call vote. Six Republicans and 21 Democrats held firm and voted against passage.
In all, the 1964 civil rights debate had lasted a total of 83 days, slightly over 730 hours, and had taken up almost 3,000 pages in the Congressional Record.
On May 19, Dirksen called a press conference told the gathering about the moral need for a civil rights bill. On June 10, 1964, with all 100 senators present, Dirksen rose from his seat to address the Senate. By this time he was very ill from the killing work he had put in on getting the bill passed. In a voice reflecting his fatigue, he still spoke from the heart:
There are many reasons why cloture should be invoked and a good civil rights measure enacted. It is said that on the night he died, Victor Hugo wrote in his diary substantially this sentiment, 'Stronger than all the armies is an idea whose time has come.' The time has come for equality of opportunity in sharing of government, in education, and in employment. It must not be stayed or denied.
After the civil rights bill was passed, Dirksen was asked why he had done it. What could possibly be in it for him given the fact that the African-Americans in his own state had not voted for him? Why should he champion a bill that would be in their interest? Why should he offer himself as a crusader in this cause?
Dirksen's reply speaks well for the man, for Republicans and for conservatives like him: I am involved in mankind, and whatever the skin, we are all included in mankind.
The bill was signed into law by President Johnson on July 2, 1964.
This does not tell the whole story either...
See below:
What is SCHIP?
The State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) was created by Congress in 1997 and is funded by both the federal government and the states. The program is designed to help states initiate and expand the provision of child health insurance to uninsured, low-income children.
SCHIP is administered by the states which have three options for providing SCHIP coverage. They can:
create separate SCHIP programs;
expand eligibility for benefits under the state’s Medicaid plan (a Medicaid SCHIP program); or
use both approaches in combination.
Within federal guidelines, states determine their SCHIP program(s):
design,
eligibility rules,
benefits packages,
payment levels, and
administrative and operating procedures.
At the federal level, SCHIP is administered by the Department of Health and Human Services though the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS).
There is nothing here about enrolling all the children in private insurance. That is at the discretion of the states. According to this they can expand the Medicaid coverage for SCHIP...government administered. At the federal level, it is administered by Medicare/Medicaid. Goverment administered. So to say it is not government administered is an untruth.
"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."
That is also an untruth. This is from the bill itself:
SEC. 110. LIMITATION ON MATCHING RATE FOR STATES THAT PROPOSE TO COVER CHILDREN WITH EFFECTIVE FAMILY INCOME THAT EXCEEDS 300 PERCENT OF THE POVERTY LINE.
(a) FMAP Applied to Expenditures- Section 2105(c) (42 U.S.C. 1397ee(c)) is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
`(8) LIMITATION ON MATCHING RATE FOR EXPENDITURES FOR CHILD HEALTH ASSISTANCE PROVIDED TO CHILDREN WHOSE EFFECTIVE FAMILY INCOME EXCEEDS 300 PERCENT OF THE POVERTY LINE-
`(A) FMAP APPLIED TO EXPENDITURES- Except as provided in subparagraph (B), for fiscal years beginning with fiscal year 2008, the Federal medical assistance percentage (as determined under section 1905(b) without regard to clause (4) of such section) shall be substituted for the enhanced FMAP under subsection (a)(1) with respect to any expenditures for providing child health assistance or health benefits coverage for a targeted low-income child whose effective family income would exceed 300 percent of the poverty line but for the application of a general exclusion of a block of income that is not determined by type of expense or type of income.
`(B) EXCEPTION- Subparagraph (A) shall not apply to any State that, on the date of enactment of the Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2007, has an approved State plan amendment or waiver to provide, or has enacted a State law to submit a State plan amendment to provide, expenditures described in such subparagraph under the State child health plan.'.
It does NOT exclude coverage for those OVER the 300% marker. It only limits matching funds. And you notice it says EXCEEDS 300% of the poverty line. So anything UP TO 300% of the poverty line would be covered under the proposal sent to Bush, which equals the $82,600. Bush understands the bill better than this guy does. It does leave it open for New York or anywhere else to put people on the program right up to $82,600 per year income. Just like Bush said. I did not make this up. It is copied directly from the bill that is posted on the Library of Congress website.
Just making sure the whole story is told.
here is that story...
Commissioner dismissal controversy
On July 11, 2008, Governor Palin dismissed Walter Monegan as Commissioner of Public Safety and instead offered him a position as executive director of the state Alcoholic Beverage Control Board, which he subsequently turned down.[44][45] Monegan alleged shortly after his dismissal that it may have been partly due to his reluctance to fire an Alaska State Trooper, Mike Wooten, who had been involved in a divorce and child custody battle with Palin's sister, Molly McCann.[46] In 2006, before Palin was governor, Wooten was briefly suspended for ten days for threatening to kill McCann's (and Palin's) father, tasering his 11-year-old stepson (at the stepson's request), and violating game laws. After a union protest, the suspension was reduced to five days.[47]
Governor Palin asserts that her dismissal of Monegan was unrelated to the fact that he had not fired Wooten, and asserts that Monegan was instead dismissed for not adequately filling state trooper vacancies, and because he "did not turn out to be a team player on budgeting issues."[48] Palin acknowledges that a member of her administration, Frank Bailey, did contact the Department of Public Safety regarding Wooten, but both Palin and Bailey say that happened without her knowledge and was unrelated to her dismissal of Monegan.[48] Bailey was put on leave for two months for acting outside the scope of his authority as the Director of Boards and Commissions.
In response to Palin's statement that she had nothing to hide, in August 2008 the Alaska Legislature hired Steve Branchflower to investigate Palin and her staff for possible abuse of power surrounding the dismissal, though lawmakers acknowledge that "Monegan and other commissioners serve at will, meaning they can be fired by Palin at any time."[49] The investigation is being overseen by Democratic State Senator Hollis French, who says that the Palin administration has been cooperating and thus subpoenas are unnecessary.[50] The Palin administration itself was the first to release an audiotape of Bailey making inquiries about the status of the Wooten investigation.[48][51]
|
