Obama bills vets for war injuries by piratenews

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)

Unacceptable. There absolutely needs to be a shitstorm raised over this.

It hasn't been approved, and it damned well better NOT be approved.

I think I'll send a nice proposal to my representative, and ask him to introduce a bill that would change the health care Congress is eligible for - let's link it to veterans' health care. What you give the veterans is what you give those who serve in Congress. No more, no less. It's easy for Congress to sit there and make decisions about the health care benefits that OTHERS receive, because they're never going to be part of that system, unless we put them on it!

Mike

The "On Fire" Economy -
The Dow closed at 10,587.60 on January 20, 2001, the day GW Bush took office. Eight years later, it closed below 8000 on the day he left office - a net loss of 25%. That's what conservatives call an economic "success".

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 18, 2009 4:29 AM

FREMDFIRMA

Hell, I say we go full bore with the founders intentions and pay Congress minimum wage.

The only reason they compensated the position in the first place was that it was the only way to get anyone to show up back then.

-F

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 18, 2009 5:11 AM

PIZMOBEACH

... fully loaded, safety off...

fwiw, at the bottom of the article - "Veterans of Foreign Wars Commander Glen M. Gardner Jr. came away from the meeting with a different impression, however. "The president told us that he would not go through with the third-party billing proposal if he felt the veterans' community didn't approve of it," Gardner said in a statement. "We made our opposition clearly known."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 18, 2009 6:47 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by pizmobeach:
fwiw, at the bottom of the article - "Veterans of Foreign Wars Commander Glen M. Gardner Jr. came away from the meeting with a different impression, however. "The president told us that he would not go through with the third-party billing proposal if he felt the veterans' community didn't approve of it," Gardner said in a statement. "We made our opposition clearly known."

Sadly, Obama's word isn't worth much lately. He said he wanted bi-partisan support on the stimulus package and when some Republicans raised a stink about it in his meetings with them he basically said, "I appreciate your input but . . . I won." Then no lobbyists in his administration . . . no more earmarks . . . he went back on his word then so what's to stop him from doing it this time?

Heck, not only pay both houses of Congress minimum wage (or at the very least cut their pay drastically) and have them put on an HMO/PPO like the rest of us, but set term limits as well. Get some of those lifers out of there - Democrats AND Republicans.

Zoe: "Get it running again."
Mal: "Yeah"
Zoe: "So not running now"
Mal: "Not so much"
- Out of Gas

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 18, 2009 6:56 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"To be sure, Obama's earned high marks from government watchdogs for his transition's strict new ethics rules, which bar any lobbyist from working on the transition in any issue area they've lobbied during the past year. Outgoing transition team members who return to the private sector may not lobby the administration on a matter they've worked on in the past year. Also, lobbyists may not donate to the nonprofit organization set up to help finance Obama's transition, and donors to that fund will be disclosed monthly."

"Summary: On his Fox News program, Sean Hannity falsely claimed that President Obama made a "campaign promise" to allow "no earmarks." Hannity then aired a clip of Obama stating his desire to "ban all earmarks" from the economic recovery package, falsely suggesting that Obama was referring to banning all earmarks in general."

That's the weird thing abut Obama - you have to know what he has actually said. And both Faux News and MSM have been extremly sloppy - or dishonest - about things that were said mere weeks ago. You can't trsut them.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 18, 2009 7:08 AM

Here is what Obama said. I mis-spoke about "no more" meaning, no more period, but he explicitly said the stimulus package would not be allowed any earmarks . . .

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/01/06/obama.stimulus/

Zoe: "Get it running again."
Mal: "Yeah"
Zoe: "So not running now"
Mal: "Not so much"
- Out of Gas

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 18, 2009 7:25 AM

Quote:
Posted by RIPWash:

He said he wanted bi-partisan support on the stimulus package and when some Republicans raised a stink about it in his meetings with them he basically said, "I appreciate your input but . . . I won."

Note the operative word in there: He WANTED...

How many times does a President call for bipartisanship, and how often does he actually GET it?

Also, he's a politician. Can you show me one who actually DOES keep his word every single time? So far, you've brought up three instances where you claim Obama broke his word, but two of them have already been pretty roundly debunked. So a politician who breaks his promises a third of the time comes out sounding like a pretty good average, when you think about it. ;) (And yes, I am intentionally spinning that. It's about a third serious and two-thirds sarcasm. You figure out which parts are which.

)

I have to ask: Does Faux News just not report this stuff at all? I've heard on one news source after another (NPR, MSNBC, Sirius Left, NBC, Huffington Post) clear explanations of Obama's lobbying policies, since basically the day he took office. Is it not being reported in the "unbiased" media? And if it's not, don't you have to wonder how "fair and balanced" they really are?

Just a few things to ponder...

Mike

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 18, 2009 7:39 AM

The point I was trying to make is that he claimed to be seeking bi-partisan support and wanted input from the other side of the aisle. It was reported on several occasions that Republicans who were in on those meetings said Obama just smiled and nodded at them but then said, "Thanks but no thanks."

To clear things up (and this may just ban me from ever commenting in this section again

) I am NOT an avid news watcher. What I do watch is, yes, Fox News. But the bulk of what I do get is from a morning radio show out of Pittsburgh and Hannity. Call me uninformed or misinformed if you will. That's fine. Honestly, I'd rather spend my time watching movies and escaping the drivel of day to day life than getting upset and angry over ALL sides of politics. Life's to short for that kind of thing.

Inform and educate if you'd like. I'll gladly look at any side of the coin you'd prefer to show me if I have the time. I just know that what I see and hear on these shows (radio and otherwise) is that people on the other side of the aisle from the one I usually support (okay, yes, Democrats) refuse to answer simple yes or no questions and instead prefer to start raising their voices and getting upset. All the time I'm thinking to myself, "What's the big deal? Just answer the stinkin' question!" Is it true of Republicans as well? I'm sure I've seen it a few times (just not as often) and I think the exact same thing of them.

Politics tire me, to be honest. To much dishonesty on both sides. Many times it DOES come down to chosing the lesser of the two evils (or at least of what I perceive to be evil).

I sure hope you guys don't mind my rambling. I'm just trying to get you to understand where I'm coming from and not make any enemies.

Zoe: "Get it running again."
Mal: "Yeah"
Zoe: "So not running now"
Mal: "Not so much"
- Out of Gas

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 18, 2009 8:06 AM

Rip, politics has an awful lot of definitions. Some of my own are these:

Politics is the art of not answering a question, and doing so in the most eloquent way possible.

Politics is the art of portraying our basest instincts in such a way that they look like our loftiest goals.

Quote:
Is it true of Republicans as well? I'm sure I've seen it a few times (just not as often) and I think the exact same thing of them.

Yes, it's true of Republicans as well. They just don't tend to show those clips on Fox and Hannity. ;)

It was one of my favorite things about Tim Russert, and one of the things that drove my wife nuts: He'd ask the question, and then he'd CONTINUE to ask the question, sometimes seeming like he'd asked the same damned question 20 different ways, trying to tease an honest answer out of these people (Republicans and Democrats both). Their job seems to be to NOT answer a question, ever. Y'know, just in case someone tries to hold them to it later.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 18, 2009 8:54 AM

STORYMARK

Quote:
Originally posted by RIPWash:
The point I was trying to make is that he claimed to be seeking bi-partisan support and wanted input from the other side of the aisle. It was reported on several occasions that Republicans who were in on those meetings said Obama just smiled and nodded at them but then said, "Thanks but no thanks."

Wanting input, and doing what the opposition says - which in this case was more of the same, are not the same thing.

I love how Republicans, who after years of "Do it our way or fuck off" are now whining about bi-partisanship, which to them seems to still mean "Do it our way".

Asking for input does not mean it will be utilized, it just means they get a chance to voice their thoughts - and they did.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 18, 2009 8:55 AM

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 18, 2009 9:02 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:
Quote:
Originally posted by RIPWash:
The point I was trying to make is that he claimed to be seeking bi-partisan support and wanted input from the other side of the aisle. It was reported on several occasions that Republicans who were in on those meetings said Obama just smiled and nodded at them but then said, "Thanks but no thanks."

Wanting input, and doing what the opposition says - which in this case was more of the same, are not the same thing.

I love how Republicans, who after years of "Do it our way or fuck off" are now whining about bi-partisanship, which to them seems to still mean "Do it our way".

Asking for input does not mean it will be utilized, it just means they get a chance to voice their thoughts - and they did.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

Yes, the Democrats were yelling for bipartisanship when Bush was in office and now the tables are turned, I get that. No need for the foul language.

Zoe: "Get it running again."
Mal: "Yeah"
Zoe: "So not running now"
Mal: "Not so much"
- Out of Gas

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 18, 2009 9:24 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Rip, politics has an awful lot of definitions. Some of my own are these:

Politics is the art of not answering a question, and doing so in the most eloquent way possible.

Politics is the art of portraying our basest instincts in such a way that they look like our loftiest goals.

Quote:
Is it true of Republicans as well? I'm sure I've seen it a few times (just not as often) and I think the exact same thing of them.

Yes, it's true of Republicans as well. They just don't tend to show those clips on Fox and Hannity. ;)

It was one of my favorite things about Tim Russert, and one of the things that drove my wife nuts: He'd ask the question, and then he'd CONTINUE to ask the question, sometimes seeming like he'd asked the same damned question 20 different ways, trying to tease an honest answer out of these people (Republicans and Democrats both). Their job seems to be to NOT answer a question, ever. Y'know, just in case someone tries to hold them to it later.

One of my favorite definitions is. "Poli" which comes from latin meaning "many" and Tics which are BLOOD . . . SUCKING . . . LEECHES.

Zoe: "Get it running again."
Mal: "Yeah"
Zoe: "So not running now"
Mal: "Not so much"
- Out of Gas

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 18, 2009 9:38 AM

PIRATENEWS

John Lee, conspiracy therapist at Hollywood award-winner History Channel-mocked SNL-spoofed PirateNew.org wooHOO!!!!!!

The VA has always been the enemy of veterans.

It has 4,000 lawyers working full-time to deny claims, with 1,000s of claims shredded this past month.
www.vawatchdog.org/08/nf08/nfoct08/nf101308-1.htm

My wife's entire retirement pension was stolen, as perped against 95% of all disabled retired vets, with full approval of all presidents and congress critters. This scam is not done in any other job, including federal employment. All recruiters and active duty admin lie about this. The truth is not realized until exiting the military, when the VA says, "oops we made a mistake, you lose your entire pension, sucker!"

But Congress wants to pay full Pentagon retirement pensions to COMMUNIST SOLDIERS IN THE RUSSIAN MILITARY, when never served in US military, and who were the ENEMY of USA! Russian Jews who are illegal aliens already get $60,000/year pensions from US Social Security Administration, with immunity from deportation.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2620588399986448648

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 18, 2009 2:18 PM

PIZMOBEACH

... fully loaded, safety off...

Quote:
Originally posted by RIPWash:
Quote:
Originally posted by pizmobeach:
fwiw, at the bottom of the article - "Veterans of Foreign Wars Commander Glen M. Gardner Jr. came away from the meeting with a different impression, however. "The president told us that he would not go through with the third-party billing proposal if he felt the veterans' community didn't approve of it," Gardner said in a statement. "We made our opposition clearly known."

Sadly, Obama's word isn't worth much lately. He said he wanted bi-partisan support on the stimulus package and when some Republicans raised a stink about it in his meetings with them he basically said, "I appreciate your input but . . . I won." Then no lobbyists in his administration . . . no more earmarks . . . he went back on his word then so what's to stop him from doing it this time?

This was dropped this evening by the White House for anyone keeping score.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 18, 2009 3:01 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"The point I was trying to make is that he claimed to be seeking bi-partisan support ..."

He visited the repubicans in the house and senate and unprecedented 5 times in two weeks - asking for input. They ONLY thing they had to say - and that was before they read the bill - was tax cuts, and also TAX CUTS, plus TAX CUTS !, and TAX CUTS !, additionally TAX CUTS !.

He gave up. Obviously the repubicans were not interested in discussing, but in playing partisan politics, as ususal. I give him high marks for trying. But it takes two.

YOUR SIDE BLEW IT.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 19, 2009 12:31 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by RIPWash:
One of my favorite definitions is. "Poli" which comes from latin meaning "many" and Tics which are BLOOD . . . SUCKING . . . LEECHES.

Poly is Greek not Latin. Latin for many is Multi. Politics is derived from Politikos, meaning everything that happens in a Greek City-State.

A bride on her wedding night says to her husband 'I must confess darling, I was a hooker!'.
He says 'That's all right, dear. Your past is your past, but I must admit that I find it quite erotic. Tell me about it'.
She replies 'Well, my name was Nigel, and I played for Wigan!'

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 19, 2009 2:09 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Quote:
Originally posted by RIPWash:
One of my favorite definitions is. "Poli" which comes from latin meaning "many" and Tics which are BLOOD . . . SUCKING . . . LEECHES.

Poly is Greek not Latin. Latin for many is Multi. Politics is derived from Politikos, meaning everything that happens in a Greek City-State.

A bride on her wedding night says to her husband 'I must confess darling, I was a hooker!'.
He says 'That's all right, dear. Your past is your past, but I must admit that I find it quite erotic. Tell me about it'.
She replies 'Well, my name was Nigel, and I played for Wigan!'

It was a joke, dude. Lighten up!

Zoe: "Get it running again."
Mal: "Yeah"
Zoe: "So not running now"
Mal: "Not so much"
- Out of Gas

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 19, 2009 2:27 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
"The point I was trying to make is that he claimed to be seeking bi-partisan support ..."

He visited the repubicans in the house and senate and unprecedented 5 times in two weeks - asking for input. They ONLY thing they had to say - and that was before they read the bill - was tax cuts, and also TAX CUTS, plus TAX CUTS !, and TAX CUTS !, additionally TAX CUTS !.

He gave up. Obviously the repubicans were not interested in discussing, but in playing partisan politics, as ususal. I give him high marks for trying. But it takes two.

YOUR SIDE BLEW IT.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

Like it or not . . . Tax cuts for everyone works more than tax increases for the rich. My opinion. The less taxes I have to pay, the more I have to spend. The less taxes companies have to pay, the more they can expand and grow and increase their productivity and *GASP* hire more people.

Like I said . . . he didn't listen them or at least didn't seem to seriously take what they had to say into consideration (It's not being serious when you smile and say "I won"). Just because he met with them doesn't mean much. He could have just been putting up a front. I could meet with my enemies 10 times in three months, but if my plan was only an attempt to lull them into a false sense of security then it really didn't mean much outside of that, did it? It was all a political front. Nothing more.

Neither side has really wanted to do this bi-partisan thing for quite some time now. You can put on a display to say "I'm going to be bi-partisan" but if you don't really and truly make the attempt to understand the other side's point of view and instead try to cram your point of view down the other side's throat, nothing will ever change. The time for playing nice is over and it's not just one side's fault. The lines have been drawn, unfortunately. Anyone who tries to cross that line are shunned (look at Joe Lieberman - he decided to agree with Bush on Iraq and the Democrats turned their backs on him until he won back his seat running as an independent).

Zoe: "Get it running again."
Mal: "Yeah"
Zoe: "So not running now"
Mal: "Not so much"
- Out of Gas

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 19, 2009 2:40 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by RIPWash:

I was a joke, dude. Lighten up!

I know, and I got it.

A bride on her wedding night says to her husband 'I must confess darling, I was a hooker!'.
He says 'That's all right, dear. Your past is your past, but I must admit that I find it quite erotic. Tell me about it'.
She replies 'Well, my name was Nigel, and I played for Wigan!'

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 19, 2009 5:59 AM

WASHNWEAR

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Quote:
Originally posted by RIPWash:

I was a joke, dude. Lighten up!

I know, and I got it.

A bride on her wedding night says to her husband 'I must confess darling, I was a hooker!'.
He says 'That's all right, dear. Your past is your past, but I must admit that I find it quite erotic. Tell me about it'.
She replies 'Well, my name was Nigel, and I played for Wigan!'

Speaking of knowing and getting - is "hooker", among other things, a soccer term?

It was like that when we got here!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 19, 2009 7:50 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by WASHnwear:

Speaking of knowing and getting - is "hooker", among other things, a soccer term?

Rugby. Centre position front row of the Scrum in Union rules, the job is to hook the ball with your feet and pass it back to your team to take possession, basically.

I was reading in the paper today about this dwarf that got pickpocketed. How could anyone stoop so low?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 19, 2009 7:52 AM

STORYMARK

Quote:
Originally posted by RIPWash:
Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:
Quote:
Originally posted by RIPWash:
The point I was trying to make is that he claimed to be seeking bi-partisan support and wanted input from the other side of the aisle. It was reported on several occasions that Republicans who were in on those meetings said Obama just smiled and nodded at them but then said, "Thanks but no thanks."

Wanting input, and doing what the opposition says - which in this case was more of the same, are not the same thing.

I love how Republicans, who after years of "Do it our way or fuck off" are now whining about bi-partisanship, which to them seems to still mean "Do it our way".

Asking for input does not mean it will be utilized, it just means they get a chance to voice their thoughts - and they did.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

Yes, the Democrats were yelling for bipartisanship when Bush was in office and now the tables are turned, I get that. No need for the foul language.

Zoe: "Get it running again."
Mal: "Yeah"
Zoe: "So not running now"
Mal: "Not so much"
- Out of Gas

Difference being, Obama is at least trying, Bush didn't. That's why I find the whining from the right all the more amusing.

And sorry if my language offended your sensitive ears, but you'll just have to deal.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 19, 2009 7:56 AM

We'll have to aggree to disagree there, Storymark. Bush tried a few times and his hand got slapped. So he stopped trying.

Zoe: "Get it running again."
Mal: "Yeah"
Zoe: "So not running now"
Mal: "Not so much"
- Out of Gas

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 19, 2009 8:11 AM

Quote:

Like it or not . . . Tax cuts for everyone works more than tax increases for the rich. My opinion. The less taxes I have to pay, the more I have to spend. The less taxes companies have to pay, the more they can expand and grow and increase their productivity and *GASP* hire more people.

I can understand this line of thinking, but historically it hasn't really proven itself. What HAS happened when we've had prolonged periods of "trickle-down" theory put into practice is that we've simultaneously grown the federal government AND hugely increased deficit spending and the national debt (I'm speaking particularly of the periods under the presidencies of Reagan and Dubya). The results have been catastrophic both times.

Now, on the other hand, during the post-war period, the 15-20 years following the end of WWII, we say enormous growth and unprecedented prosperity - all while maintaining exhorbitant top tax rates of seventy, eighty, and even NINETY percent on the top earners. Reagan and Dubya cutting those top tax tiers to 28 and 35 percent, respectively, didn't really create a whole slew of new jobs - except for the ones created overseas, under policies helped along by folks like Slippery Bill Clinton, where it made it that much easier to send a good job elsewhere where safety regs don't exist and the work can be done for pennies instead of dollars.

I don't have a problem with CEOs making money - what I have an issue with is what Rue and Signy continually point out: when you have these ENORMOUS disparities between the very richest of us, and the rest of us, it's never going to go well. I don't have a big problem with Bill Gates being worth $50 billion dollars - but don't try to tell me that taxing him less on his personal paycheck is going to cause HIM to PERSONALLY finance and bankroll a new factory. The COMPANY might build a new factory, but THE COMPANY isn't the one having its top-tier tax rate raised - that's the INDIVIDUAL.

Also, before anyone even goes there... There's always the argument that "if you don't pay the CEOs more, they'll leave and go elsewhere." Why doesn't anyone ever try to apply that logic to, say, THE WORKERS? Or even - GASP! - to TEACHERS?! There's a battle going on right now because some want teachers to get merit raises based on how good they are at their job, and it seems a great number of "free-market" honks are against this, saying that merit raises and merit pay aren't a good barometer of a teacher's worth.

So why are they good indicators of a CEO's worth? Either someone is worth what they're paid, or they're not. Right?

Just a few things to ponder...

Mike

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 19, 2009 8:22 AM