USA Cleans House and the Senate! Dems take over both.


C

Chad Harris

Arrogance, delusion and stupidity that amounted to death in Iraq; death to
infants as the new policy not to treat them takes over; death to thousands
because of the mornic non-support of embryonic stem cell research, Taliban
control this morning in Afghanistan; and simply the most incompetent
presidency in history and a disastrous second term has resulted in some of
the most destructive arrogant Senators and House members who exherted no
oversight, many of them funnelling millions in campaign funds to their wives
and in one case a daughter in sham PR shops, many of them pending federal
indictment.

A very constructive move would be to go in and clean out their offices right
now and leave ahead of December.

Microsoft will have to funnel their money to some new lobbyists instead of
$27,000 a month as they did millions to Ralph Reed in the corrupt Abramoff
camp.

I'll always remember the pandering border fence bill passed but not a penny
funded and I'll always remember Cheney saying he's not running so he can do
whatever he wants in Iraq (5 deferments no one in his family in the Armed
Forces).

Hopefully Bush will announce he'll do whatever he wants this morning as the
oversight Jaws music plays and he finds out who controls his purse.

I love the hypocrisy of blocking embryonic stems by veto allegedly for the
sancity of life (blastocysts) while 450,000 frozen embryos are trashed, and
passing legislation with the Senate Majority leader a physician pushing
legislation that cuts off treatment of critically ill babies.

Compassionate Conservatism: Raising Revenues for Big Oil and Cutting off
Treatment of Babies (Try to figure out why you got your butts booted
morons!)


http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/03/washington/03medicaid.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

November 3, 2006
Medicaid Wants Citizenship Proof for Infant Care
By ROBERT PEAR

WASHINGTON, Nov. 2 — Under a new federal policy, children born in the United
States to illegal immigrants with low incomes will no longer be
automatically entitled to health insurance through Medicaid, Bush
administration officials said Thursday.

Doctors and hospitals said the policy change would make it more difficult
for such infants, who are United States citizens, to obtain health care
needed in the first year of life.

Illegal immigrants are generally barred from Medicaid but can get coverage
for treatment of emergency medical conditions, including labor and delivery.

In the past, once a woman received emergency care under Medicaid for the
birth of a baby, the child was deemed eligible for coverage as well, and
states had to cover the children for one year from the date of birth.

Under the new policy, an application must be filed for the child, and the
parents must provide documents to prove the child’s citizenship.

The documentation requirements took effect in July, but some states have
been slow to enforce them, and many doctors are only now becoming aware of
the effects on newborns.

Obtaining a birth certificate can take weeks in some states, doctors said.
Moreover, they said, illegal immigrant parents may be reluctant to go to a
state welfare office to file applications because they fear contact with
government agencies that could report their presence to immigration
authorities.

Administration officials said the change was necessary under their reading
of a new law, the Deficit Reduction Act, signed by President Bush in
February. The law did not mention newborns, but generally tightened
documentation requirements because some lawmakers were concerned that
immigrants were fraudulently claiming United States citizenship to get
Medicaid.

Marilyn E. Wilson, a spokeswoman for the Tennessee Medicaid program, said:
“The federal government told us we have no latitude. All states must change
their policies and practices. We will not be able to cover any services for
the newborn until a Medicaid application is filed. That could be days, weeks
or months after the child is born.”

About four million babies are born in the United States each year, and
Medicaid pays for more than one-third of all births. The number involving
illegal immigrant parents is unknown but is likely to be in the tens of
thousands, health experts said.

Doctors and hospitals denounced the policy change and denied that it was
required by the new law. Dr. Jay E. Berkelhamer, president of the American
Academy of Pediatrics, said the policy “punishes babies who, according to
the Constitution, are citizens because they were born here.”

Dr. Martin C. Michaels, a pediatrician in Dalton, Ga., said that continuous
coverage in the first year of life was important because “newborns need care
right from the start.”

“Some Americans may want to grant amnesty to undocumented immigrants, and
others may want to send them home,” Dr. Michaels said. “But the children who
are born here had no say in that debate.”

Under a 1984 law, infants born to pregnant women on Medicaid are in most
cases deemed eligible for Medicaid for one year.

In an interview on Thursday, Leslie V. Norwalk, acting administrator of the
Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, said the new policy “reflects
what the new law says in terms of eligibility.”

“When emergency Medicaid pays for a birth,” Ms. Norwalk said, “the child is
not automatically deemed eligible. But the child could apply and could
qualify for Medicaid because of the family’s poverty status. If anyone knows
about a child being denied care, we want to know about it. Please step up
and tell us.”

Under federal law, hospitals generally have to examine and treat patients
who need emergency care, regardless of their ability to pay. So the new
policy is most likely to affect access to other types of care, including
preventive services and treatment for infections and chronic conditions,
doctors said.

Representative Charlie Norwood, Republican of Georgia, was a principal
architect of the new law.

“Charlie’s intent was that every person receiving Medicaid needs to provide
documentation,” said John E. Stone, a spokesman for Mr. Norwood, who is a
dentist and has been active on health care issues. “With newborns, there
should be no problem. All you have to do is provide a birth certificate or
hospital records verifying birth.”

But Dr. Berkelhamer disagreed. Even when the children are eligible for
Medicaid, he said, illegal immigrants may be afraid to apply because of “the
threat of deportation.”

The new policy “will cost the health care system more in the long run,” Dr.
Berkelhamer added, because children of illegal immigrants may go without
immunizations, preventive care and treatments needed in the first year of
life.

Doctors, children’s hospitals and advocacy groups have been urging states to
preserve the old policy on Medicaid eligibility for children born to illegal
immigrants.

Sara Rosenbaum, a professor of health law at George Washington University,
said: “The new policy reflects a tortured reading of the new law and is
contrary to the language of the 1984 statute, which Congress did not change.
The whole purpose of the earlier law, passed with bipartisan support, was to
make sure that a baby would not have a single day’s break in coverage from
the date of birth through the first year of life.”

California has objected to the new policy. S. Kimberly Belshé, secretary of
the California Health and Human Services Agency, said: “By virtue of being
born in the United States, a child is a U.S. citizen. What more proof does
the federal government need?”

CH
 
Ad

Advertisements

A

Alias

Chad said:
Arrogance, delusion and stupidity that amounted to death in Iraq; death to
infants as the new policy not to treat them takes over; death to thousands
because of the mornic non-support of embryonic stem cell research, Taliban
control this morning in Afghanistan; and simply the most incompetent
presidency in history and a disastrous second term has resulted in some of
the most destructive arrogant Senators and House members who exherted no
oversight, many of them funnelling millions in campaign funds to their wives
and in one case a daughter in sham PR shops, many of them pending federal
indictment.

A very constructive move would be to go in and clean out their offices right
now and leave ahead of December.

Microsoft will have to funnel their money to some new lobbyists instead of
$27,000 a month as they did millions to Ralph Reed in the corrupt Abramoff
camp.

I'll always remember the pandering border fence bill passed but not a penny
funded and I'll always remember Cheney saying he's not running so he can do
whatever he wants in Iraq (5 deferments no one in his family in the Armed
Forces).

Hopefully Bush will announce he'll do whatever he wants this morning as the
oversight Jaws music plays and he finds out who controls his purse.

I love the hypocrisy of blocking embryonic stems by veto allegedly for the
sancity of life (blastocysts) while 450,000 frozen embryos are trashed, and
passing legislation with the Senate Majority leader a physician pushing
legislation that cuts off treatment of critically ill babies.

Compassionate Conservatism: Raising Revenues for Big Oil and Cutting off
Treatment of Babies (Try to figure out why you got your butts booted
morons!)


http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/03/washington/03medicaid.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

November 3, 2006
Medicaid Wants Citizenship Proof for Infant Care
By ROBERT PEAR

WASHINGTON, Nov. 2 — Under a new federal policy, children born in the United
States to illegal immigrants with low incomes will no longer be
automatically entitled to health insurance through Medicaid, Bush
administration officials said Thursday.

Doctors and hospitals said the policy change would make it more difficult
for such infants, who are United States citizens, to obtain health care
needed in the first year of life.

Illegal immigrants are generally barred from Medicaid but can get coverage
for treatment of emergency medical conditions, including labor and delivery.

In the past, once a woman received emergency care under Medicaid for the
birth of a baby, the child was deemed eligible for coverage as well, and
states had to cover the children for one year from the date of birth.

Under the new policy, an application must be filed for the child, and the
parents must provide documents to prove the child’s citizenship.

The documentation requirements took effect in July, but some states have
been slow to enforce them, and many doctors are only now becoming aware of
the effects on newborns.

Obtaining a birth certificate can take weeks in some states, doctors said.
Moreover, they said, illegal immigrant parents may be reluctant to go to a
state welfare office to file applications because they fear contact with
government agencies that could report their presence to immigration
authorities.

Administration officials said the change was necessary under their reading
of a new law, the Deficit Reduction Act, signed by President Bush in
February. The law did not mention newborns, but generally tightened
documentation requirements because some lawmakers were concerned that
immigrants were fraudulently claiming United States citizenship to get
Medicaid.

Marilyn E. Wilson, a spokeswoman for the Tennessee Medicaid program, said:
“The federal government told us we have no latitude. All states must change
their policies and practices. We will not be able to cover any services for
the newborn until a Medicaid application is filed. That could be days, weeks
or months after the child is born.”

About four million babies are born in the United States each year, and
Medicaid pays for more than one-third of all births. The number involving
illegal immigrant parents is unknown but is likely to be in the tens of
thousands, health experts said.

Doctors and hospitals denounced the policy change and denied that it was
required by the new law. Dr. Jay E. Berkelhamer, president of the American
Academy of Pediatrics, said the policy “punishes babies who, according to
the Constitution, are citizens because they were born here.”

Dr. Martin C. Michaels, a pediatrician in Dalton, Ga., said that continuous
coverage in the first year of life was important because “newborns need care
right from the start.”

“Some Americans may want to grant amnesty to undocumented immigrants, and
others may want to send them home,” Dr. Michaels said. “But the children who
are born here had no say in that debate.”

Under a 1984 law, infants born to pregnant women on Medicaid are in most
cases deemed eligible for Medicaid for one year.

In an interview on Thursday, Leslie V. Norwalk, acting administrator of the
Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, said the new policy “reflects
what the new law says in terms of eligibility.”

“When emergency Medicaid pays for a birth,” Ms. Norwalk said, “the child is
not automatically deemed eligible. But the child could apply and could
qualify for Medicaid because of the family’s poverty status. If anyone knows
about a child being denied care, we want to know about it. Please step up
and tell us.”

Under federal law, hospitals generally have to examine and treat patients
who need emergency care, regardless of their ability to pay. So the new
policy is most likely to affect access to other types of care, including
preventive services and treatment for infections and chronic conditions,
doctors said.

Representative Charlie Norwood, Republican of Georgia, was a principal
architect of the new law.

“Charlie’s intent was that every person receiving Medicaid needs to provide
documentation,” said John E. Stone, a spokesman for Mr. Norwood, who is a
dentist and has been active on health care issues. “With newborns, there
should be no problem. All you have to do is provide a birth certificate or
hospital records verifying birth.”

But Dr. Berkelhamer disagreed. Even when the children are eligible for
Medicaid, he said, illegal immigrants may be afraid to apply because of “the
threat of deportation.”

The new policy “will cost the health care system more in the long run,” Dr.
Berkelhamer added, because children of illegal immigrants may go without
immunizations, preventive care and treatments needed in the first year of
life.

Doctors, children’s hospitals and advocacy groups have been urging states to
preserve the old policy on Medicaid eligibility for children born to illegal
immigrants.

Sara Rosenbaum, a professor of health law at George Washington University,
said: “The new policy reflects a tortured reading of the new law and is
contrary to the language of the 1984 statute, which Congress did not change.
The whole purpose of the earlier law, passed with bipartisan support, was to
make sure that a baby would not have a single day’s break in coverage from
the date of birth through the first year of life.”

California has objected to the new policy. S. Kimberly Belshé, secretary of
the California Health and Human Services Agency, said: “By virtue of being
born in the United States, a child is a U.S. citizen. What more proof does
the federal government need?”

CH

I must admit, this election has restored my faith in US democracy. Now,
what would really do it for me is if Bush and Cheney are impeached for
terrorism.

Alias
 
A

Alias

Bill said:
Actually the Republicans still control the Big Office and the Senate.

The Senate race hasn't been decided yet, although it looks like the Dems
will carry the Senate as well. Don't count your corrupt politicians
before they hatch.

I notice that Bush is being very quiet lately.

Alias
 
B

Buckner

I must admit, this election has restored my faith in US democracy. Now,
what would really do it for me is if Bush and Cheney are impeached for
terrorism.


Now get ready for your taxes to double and the government spend money
like it is going out of style. Same things the democrats do everytime
they get control.
 
Ad

Advertisements

R

Roy Coorne

Alias wrote:
....
I notice that Bush is being very quiet lately.
....


Wondering whether to invite Sen Clinton into the White House for a cup
of tea;-)



rOy
 
K

Kevin John Panzke

Chad said:
Arrogance, delusion and stupidity that amounted to death in Iraq; death to
infants as the new policy not to treat them takes over; death to thousands
because of the mornic non-support of embryonic stem cell research, Taliban
control this morning in Afghanistan; and simply the most incompetent
presidency in history and a disastrous second term has resulted in some of
the most destructive arrogant Senators and House members who exherted no
oversight, many of them funnelling millions in campaign funds to their wives
and in one case a daughter in sham PR shops, many of them pending federal
indictment.

A very constructive move would be to go in and clean out their offices right
now and leave ahead of December.

Microsoft will have to funnel their money to some new lobbyists instead of
$27,000 a month as they did millions to Ralph Reed in the corrupt Abramoff
camp.

I'll always remember the pandering border fence bill passed but not a penny
funded and I'll always remember Cheney saying he's not running so he can do
whatever he wants in Iraq (5 deferments no one in his family in the Armed
Forces).

Hopefully Bush will announce he'll do whatever he wants this morning as the
oversight Jaws music plays and he finds out who controls his purse.

I love the hypocrisy of blocking embryonic stems by veto allegedly for the
sancity of life (blastocysts) while 450,000 frozen embryos are trashed, and
passing legislation with the Senate Majority leader a physician pushing
legislation that cuts off treatment of critically ill babies.

Compassionate Conservatism: Raising Revenues for Big Oil and Cutting off
Treatment of Babies (Try to figure out why you got your butts booted
morons!)


http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/03/washington/03medicaid.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

November 3, 2006
Medicaid Wants Citizenship Proof for Infant Care
By ROBERT PEAR

WASHINGTON, Nov. 2 — Under a new federal policy, children born in the United
States to illegal immigrants with low incomes will no longer be
automatically entitled to health insurance through Medicaid, Bush
administration officials said Thursday.

Doctors and hospitals said the policy change would make it more difficult
for such infants, who are United States citizens, to obtain health care
needed in the first year of life.

Illegal immigrants are generally barred from Medicaid but can get coverage
for treatment of emergency medical conditions, including labor and delivery.

In the past, once a woman received emergency care under Medicaid for the
birth of a baby, the child was deemed eligible for coverage as well, and
states had to cover the children for one year from the date of birth.

Under the new policy, an application must be filed for the child, and the
parents must provide documents to prove the child’s citizenship.

The documentation requirements took effect in July, but some states have
been slow to enforce them, and many doctors are only now becoming aware of
the effects on newborns.

Obtaining a birth certificate can take weeks in some states, doctors said.
Moreover, they said, illegal immigrant parents may be reluctant to go to a
state welfare office to file applications because they fear contact with
government agencies that could report their presence to immigration
authorities.

Administration officials said the change was necessary under their reading
of a new law, the Deficit Reduction Act, signed by President Bush in
February. The law did not mention newborns, but generally tightened
documentation requirements because some lawmakers were concerned that
immigrants were fraudulently claiming United States citizenship to get
Medicaid.

Marilyn E. Wilson, a spokeswoman for the Tennessee Medicaid program, said:
“The federal government told us we have no latitude. All states must change
their policies and practices. We will not be able to cover any services for
the newborn until a Medicaid application is filed. That could be days, weeks
or months after the child is born.”

About four million babies are born in the United States each year, and
Medicaid pays for more than one-third of all births. The number involving
illegal immigrant parents is unknown but is likely to be in the tens of
thousands, health experts said.

Doctors and hospitals denounced the policy change and denied that it was
required by the new law. Dr. Jay E. Berkelhamer, president of the American
Academy of Pediatrics, said the policy “punishes babies who, according to
the Constitution, are citizens because they were born here.”

Dr. Martin C. Michaels, a pediatrician in Dalton, Ga., said that continuous
coverage in the first year of life was important because “newborns need care
right from the start.”

“Some Americans may want to grant amnesty to undocumented immigrants, and
others may want to send them home,” Dr. Michaels said. “But the children who
are born here had no say in that debate.”

Under a 1984 law, infants born to pregnant women on Medicaid are in most
cases deemed eligible for Medicaid for one year.

In an interview on Thursday, Leslie V. Norwalk, acting administrator of the
Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, said the new policy “reflects
what the new law says in terms of eligibility.”

“When emergency Medicaid pays for a birth,” Ms. Norwalk said, “the child is
not automatically deemed eligible. But the child could apply and could
qualify for Medicaid because of the family’s poverty status. If anyone knows
about a child being denied care, we want to know about it. Please step up
and tell us.”

Under federal law, hospitals generally have to examine and treat patients
who need emergency care, regardless of their ability to pay. So the new
policy is most likely to affect access to other types of care, including
preventive services and treatment for infections and chronic conditions,
doctors said.

Representative Charlie Norwood, Republican of Georgia, was a principal
architect of the new law.

“Charlie’s intent was that every person receiving Medicaid needs to provide
documentation,” said John E. Stone, a spokesman for Mr. Norwood, who is a
dentist and has been active on health care issues. “With newborns, there
should be no problem. All you have to do is provide a birth certificate or
hospital records verifying birth.”

But Dr. Berkelhamer disagreed. Even when the children are eligible for
Medicaid, he said, illegal immigrants may be afraid to apply because of “the
threat of deportation.”

The new policy “will cost the health care system more in the long run,” Dr.
Berkelhamer added, because children of illegal immigrants may go without
immunizations, preventive care and treatments needed in the first year of
life.

Doctors, children’s hospitals and advocacy groups have been urging states to
preserve the old policy on Medicaid eligibility for children born to illegal
immigrants.

Sara Rosenbaum, a professor of health law at George Washington University,
said: “The new policy reflects a tortured reading of the new law and is
contrary to the language of the 1984 statute, which Congress did not change.
The whole purpose of the earlier law, passed with bipartisan support, was to
make sure that a baby would not have a single day’s break in coverage from
the date of birth through the first year of life.”

California has objected to the new policy. S. Kimberly Belshé, secretary of
the California Health and Human Services Agency, said: “By virtue of being
born in the United States, a child is a U.S. citizen. What more proof does
the federal government need?”

CH
Not True, Chad, MSNBC is Reporting that the Montana and Virgina U.S.
Senate Races are Too Close to Call, the Democrats have to win Both of
those Seats in order to Control the U.S. Senate, Just FYI.
 
C

Chad Harris

Nope; Actually, Bill Fisbee has a lot better and comendable grip on his
Windows universe then his political one and in this case, his "election
historical" one. The swamp is being drained as I type this. How do you
like the Bush plan to withdraw neonatal and infant care in your hospitals?
It's been tucked into law now. Right to life should mean right to care,
but that's not how it's going to happen in the next few weeks.

Would you be willing to wager a quad core machine we can work out on the
accuracy fo what I just told you? Put a fork in the senile and soon to be
indicted/convicted Conrad Burns who took a ton of illegal Abramoff money.
Put a fork in George Allen because he is over and is one of the most
destructive, dysfunctrional and superficial Senators in the history of the
US.

If your Windows machines run the way the corrupt and multi convicted "on the
way to Federal Prison" Republican Congress runs, you had better hope that
the Win RE team (Desmond Lee PM) makes some significant efficacy mods to
Startup Repair in Vista over what will RTM tomorrow. Or backup with your
favorite imaging program.

Win RE Blog
http://blogs.msdn.com/winre/archive/2006/09/20/763901.aspx

Realistically, the Big Office as you call it, the West Wing has more
formiodiable problems in its own party than with the Dems. But the
subpoenas now will roll, and the fraud that sent 3000 American soldiers to
deaths that never needed to happen, and nearly 700,000 Iraquis who still
have no consistent power beyond five hours after over three years of Bechtel
and Kellogg-Brown-Root and Bush croney contracts will get a modicum of
exposure and oversight.

There are scores of trends that show the Republicans have lost considerble
rapport with the voters, like Ohio shifting from a Republican bulwark to a
dynamic that has had enough with a non-responsive government focused on
creating breaks for the very wealthy and the corporations that bribe them
(you saw my analogy of hooker (Republicans in Congress/Pimp Lobbyists on and
off K Street (K Street Project leader Senator Rick Santorum has been fired)
and john (large corporations and business interests) --MSFT paid $27,000 a
month to Ralph Reed who was an intimate part of the Abramoff scandle and
escaped indictment in Texas only because the idiot in the DA's office let
the statute of limitations run/Ballmer fired him the second it leaked to the
Seattle and National media).

In the "Big Office" which has essentially been trashed right now, control
is gained by working effectively with the Congress to govern. The Clinton
administration managed to get this done; the Bush administration never will.
To be sure both sides have significant flaws; and much legislation is never
what it seems with hidden riders. Most substantive legislation works this
way: Joe Blow has a staffer with a law degree usually from a quality school
often Ivy League or Ivy League caliber throw together any bill and then it
gets shoved into a House Senate conference committee where the House Version
never prevails and you and people not on the Committee have no idea what
took place or what was horse traded.

Fence bill? No funding. Tell me how many computers Bill Frissbee builds
for free with no funding--how many servers you run with No Funding, and how
many Vista licenses and Longhorn Server and Office 2007 Systems and it's 26
associated programs you're buying or the company you work with with No
Funding. The media and the Big Office kind of left out the no funded
mandate part of that Fence on the Mexico Border bill didn't they? Just a
minor detail that ensures nothing will happen until it is funded.

They didn't tell you now that if you have any experience litigating before
an Immigration judge that most of them now are appointed by Gonzales DOJ and
it's a political hack plub--they have no prior litigation experience in an
Immigration Court and the lawyers who do have to save their butts because
they are embarassingly incompetent and unfamiliar with that litigation (lol
but that's true of many of the federal appellate judges as well who never
actually litigated a case in a federal court room).

They didn't tell you that immigration applications are handled
inconsistently from area to area or that the road to legitimate citizenship
is not like the road that Bill Gates wrote about in his book and that it can
take 10-15 years because of the incompetent DOJ Parent/INS child of DOJ
agency bureaucracy.

The Big Office run by default by Carl Rove and Dick Cheney's staffs has
always lacked the competence to have a scintilla of insight in how to get
that done. That has resulted in the most incompetent treasury hemorrhaging
agenda in your life time by the Oval Office and the Congress that has rubber
stamped it--totally controlled by the Republicans with both the house and
the Senate.. Now the Dems have both and they historically garned more than
60% of the mid-term election vote. This election wasn't about the base Bill,
nor was it about the "vote getting out" machine that the Republicans were
known for.

Let's all chant this mantra in unison: "All Politics was not local; and this
election's source engine, registry, MSI, ready boost, and ribbon was about
***Independent Swing Voters.***

Montana just went to Tester. If there is a recount in Virginia, it will be
an exercise in futulity. The recount boot up would begin on Nov. 27 when
the election is certified in Virginia. There would be a 7 day period for a
recount request, and at the end of that a ten day period when a 3 Judge
panel in Virginia would determine whether a recount is warranted--and that
decision would be non-appelable. Here's the nitty gritty:

No recount of a midterm has translated more than nearly 50 votes. Allen is
ending up several thousand in the hole. He would have to fund a large
portion of the recount, although he will certainly be close enough
percentage wise to request one,but not vote wise for it to change anything.

It's inexcusable but real, that the parade of departing Senators cleaning
out their desks in the Senate and House Office Buildings Office Buildings
will be jumping on the "bus" to Federal Prison as several can look forward
to being indicted and convicted (I don't know if you are privee to this
information for the transparent felonies of transferring campaign money to
dummy PR corporations owned by their wives and in the case of Kurt Weldon
Weldon by his daughter.

See:

www.citizensforethics.org/about/whoweare.php

www.prospect.org/web/view-print.ww?id=10471

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melanie_Sloan

CH
 
G

Guest

This is so boring and lame. Politics and Software Do Not & Should Not MIX.

Try living in the UK with a Health Service that is being destroyed, High
Rising Taxes, and Petroleum at nearly GB£1 per litre (thats probably over
US$5 per gallon).
 
C

Chad Harris

um um um duh Buckner wtf do you call the unparalleled Iraq spending on the
ripoff artists from Kellogg Brown, Root and Bectel and the multiple Bush
Cronies who have no experience other than they can barely dress themselves
in the morning?

Additionally, we aren't talking about a Senate that has a lopsided majority.
We are talking about a dysfunctional dufus in the West Wing who has the
nerve to push killing people not in his family or most Republican families
in Iraq to new levels.

You want to fund that Bridge to no where of Ted Stevens' but not
neurosurgical protection for the troops right? You want to fund subsidies
to enterprises that fail and cut off their employee medical benefits and
pensions after they work there for over 20 years like Delta Airlines right.
Right now Delta is being supported by Tax money. Your party did it (the
imbeciles)--spell Johnny Issacson.

I hope you'll document any significant legislation that the Bush dominated
House and Senate has passed in Six years. I'd look for Win FS first in the
Vista that RTM's because I think you have a better chance searching for
that absent puppy.

You really ought to get out of that steretype knee jerk reflex. The "raise
your taxes" "cut and run" email with the Karl Rove talking points for Fox
and their media extensions just crashed and burned. It's over. Rove failed
and he can look forward to new investigations that may indict him yet.

CH
 
Ad

Advertisements

C

Chad Harris

Wondering actually whether to take the neurlieptics that have been Rx'd for
his delusions about substantive progress in Iraq.

CH
 
C

Chad Harris

Kevin--

You have the same insight into the result of this election that you have
exhibited in your erratic Vista prognostications and analyses of Vista
components and NDAs that are non-existent.

Are you into a wager on the outcome of Montana and Virginia? Make my day.

What part of the result in Montana and Virginia do you think I don't know?

Tester has won in Montana. The recount scenario has as much chance of
helping Allen as you have of Penelope Cruz delivering a Vista RTM to your
door tonight or tomorrow. Recounts in midterm congressional elections
average a net result of about 27 votes on average if they gain any.

That inside straight that Tim Russert kept invoking happened.

Allen is thousands of votes behind. No recount is going to get them back.
It will not be the Supreme Court appoints Bush after losing the popular vote
scenario of 2000 and by the way Katherine Harris just did a goldmine skit
for Jon Stewart and Saturday Night Live and the late nithg
commedians--that's where she is now but still with daddy's inherited
millions intact (she didn't really spend them). Bush the moron wouldn't
appear on the same state with Katherine Harris the moron.

It will not be the Ohio hacked voting machine scenario of 2004.

How about those voting machines that Princeton and MIT hack in five minutes
on film KP? You like that as a compouter securuty model--they must have
been using the same consultants MSFT sends from their DC Office to Homeland
Security and DOJ.

LOL

If I were depending on you for my information, FYI I'd just bag it.

You might want to email Ted Stevens who is right now but soon he will be
removed the Chairman of the Senate Committe that legislates the internet.
He called the internet a series of tubes.

LOL to the 64th

CH
 
C

Chad Harris

Oh but they certainly do UK Neil. Get below the surface. I'm delighted to
participate in your continuing education. MSFT spends more in a month on
lobbyists than you have made or will make in your lifetime.

Microsoft ends ties with Reed SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER WASHINGTON
CORRESPONDENT. WASHINGTON -- Microsoft Corp. has severed its partnership
with conservative consultant Ralph Reed, ...
seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/226210_msftreed28.html

Microsoft Defends Ties to Ralph Reed; Critics Want Conservative ...
Published on Wednesday, April 27, 2005 by the Seattle Post-Intelligencer ...
interested in running a fair-minded company, they would fire Ralph Reed
today. ...
www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0427-08.htm - 17k - Cached -
Similar pages


Mini-Microsoft: We the Microsoft Shareholders Microsoft defends ties
to Ralph Reed Critics want conservative consultant fired By CHARLES POPE
SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER WASHINGTON CORRESPONDENT ...
minimsft.blogspot.com/2005/04/we-microsoft-shareholders.html -
52k - Cached - Similar pages




WTF do you think MSFT paid $27,000 a month to lobbyist Ralph Reed who was a
critical part of the Abramoff scandle and convictions to the tune of
millions of dollars before Ballmer fired him?

Tell MSFT Politics and Software don't mix because General Counsel and VP at
MSFT Brad Smith spends a considerable amount of his time funnelling money to
K Street lobbyists to do just that--to mix politics and software. AFIK MSFT
is a software company ( I understand they're now in the media content movie
and TV show delivery via Xbox because X360 hooks to a TV and bypasses a PC
and they make hardware as well now or get it made for them and sell
it --Zune--Cams, mice, etc).
This is the quintissential MSFT cycle by the way as to politics and
software:;

Defend it Boldly as you use Politics to Mix with Your Software by MSFT

MSFT Defends Ralph Reed
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Microsoft+Defends+Ralph+Reed

Back that Azz Up When they Call you on it or actually stand up to your
litigation initiatives

MSFT Fires Ralph Reed
http://www.google.com/search?num=50...indow=1&safe=off&q=Microsoft+Fires+Ralph+Reed

Neil do you think babies come from this bird that has them hanging from it's
beak in a diaper?
http://www1.istockphoto.com/file_thumbview_approve/763967/2/istockphoto_763967_stork_delivery.jpg


CH
 
A

Alias

Buckner said:
Now get ready for your taxes to double and the government spend money
like it is going out of style. Same things the democrats do everytime
they get control.

Um, Clinton left a budget surplus. Bush has run up the largest deficit
in US history and the dollar is at an all time low, oil at a all time
high as well as gold, silver and platinum. Bush is spending our money
like a drunken sailor. The very rich should get ready for their tax
break to disappear.

Bush has killed more innocent Iraqi people in this unjustified war than
Sadamm has ever dreamed of killing.

Where are you been, under a rock?

Alias
 
J

Jerry P

Chad, take your NY Times paper and go sit on the porch. Keep this junk out
of this useful message board.
Jerry P
 
Ad

Advertisements

A

Alias

Jerry said:
Chad, take your NY Times paper and go sit on the porch. Keep this junk
out of this useful message board.
Jerry P

Sore loser are you?

LOL! LIVE WITH IT!

Alias
 
N

Nina DiBoy

Alias said:
I must admit, this election has restored my faith in US democracy. Now,
what would really do it for me is if Bush and Cheney are impeached for
terrorism.

Alias

:) Me too Alias! Hastert the Bastard has been dethrowned as Majority
leader and most likely Nancy Pelosi will take his place. I'm most
heartened to see a democrat and a woman in the 3rd most powerful
position in the world! Chad, this is also good for stem cell research!

Frist is pissed too! Even though his seat was retained by the
rethuglicans, They will lose the majority in the Senate too.
 
M

MICHAEL

Um, Clinton left a budget surplus.

With the help of a Republican controlled Senate
and House.
Bush has run up the largest deficit in US history

In total dollar amount, yes. As a percentage of GDP,
no. The deficit has actually been falling due to record
corporate tax revenues.
and the dollar is at an all time low,

No, it's not.
oil at a all time

No, it's not.
high as well as gold, silver and platinum.

No, again.
Bush is spending our money like a drunken sailor.

The Democrats filibustered how many
budgets? They sure didn't mind doing that
for a Supreme Court Nominee.
They could have tried, but they didn't.
The very rich should get ready for their tax break to disappear.

That's possible.
Bush has killed more innocent Iraqi people in this unjustified war than Sadamm has ever
dreamed of killing.

How many Democrats voted for the Iraq resolution?
Exactly, what is their plan?
Bush may have blood on his hands, but nothing compared
to Saddam. Please, don't quote for me the Lancet Report-
it's rubish.
Where are you been, under a rock?

Obviously, you slum at the DailyKos.

There's nothing really extraordinary about this election-
an average midterm, with the same lousy average turnout.
This has turned out to be a typical midterm. It definitely
isn't the same as 1994- that was a tsunami. This is a ripple.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/11/08/opinion/meyer/main2161579.shtml

Dick Meyer: Exit Polls Show They Held The Key To 2006's Election Results

This commentary was written by CBSNews.com's Dick Meyer.

On Election Day 2006, American voters did almost exactly what history would predict: giving a
president in the sixth year of his administration a serious smackdown, as an electorate wary of
politicians and parties hedged its bets and chose a divided government.

Since World War II, the parties that controlled the White House for two terms have lost an
average of 29 House seats and six Senate seats in their second midterm elections.

This election fits tidily into that pattern. President Bush bucked another ubiquitous trap of
modern presidents when he actually picked up Congressional seats for his party in the 2002
midterms, a little more than a year after 9/11. This year his luck ran out.

President Bush may have run into another historical buzz saw this year: the voters'
predilection for divided government. Since Richard Nixon was elected in 1968, there have been
only ten years in which one party controlled the White House and both chambers of Congress.

While the Republicans' losses this year are not any kind of historical aberration, it is clear
that voters were voting on national issues and soundly protesting President Bush and his party.
In CBS News exit polls, fully 60 percent said that national, not local, issues determined their
vote. And 59 percent said they were either dissatisfied or angry with the Bush administration.

This election in large part was - as the Republicans had feared and the Democrats hoped - a
referendum on President Bush. And President Bush lost.

Does this mean that the president will be a lame duck for his remaining two years?

Not necessarily. First of all, it's not like the president has been flying high for the past
two or three years.

Support for the war in Iraq and Mr. Bush's national security policy has been steadily eroding
in the electorate and Congress, where relatively little has been accomplished lately, and the
most ambitious parts of the Bush domestic agenda have been held in check by Democrats and
divisions in his own party.

Another thing to consider: sometimes, after large "Throw the bums out!" elections, moments of
bipartisanship emerge.

"The first reaction after Democrats were wiped out in '94 was that it would be the end of the
presidency for Clinton," said Norm Ornstein, a Congressional scholar at the American Enterprise
Institute, a conservative but officially non-partisan think tank. "But it ended up being a
savior. Things got done."

After the GOP 1994 landslide, for example, Republicans worked with President Clinton to pass
welfare reform legislation that had been debated for years.

That bipartisan moment was brief and only a few years later, the country was embroiled in
impeachment hearings.

Conditions for cooperation are not exactly ripe now. "Bush will also have to work with
Democratic leaders who don't like him and don't trust him," said Ornstein. "The feeling is
mutual."

The events of Sept. 11, 2001, failed to generate a prolonged period of bipartisan cooperation
and the hard truth is that it's difficult to envision a sustained period of pragmatic harmony
emerging from what has been one of the nastiest midterm elections on record.

The Center for Responsive Politics estimates that $2.6 billion was spent on this election, much
of it on television advertising and much of that on negative ads. And this year's negative ads
were some of the dirtiest ever.

Soon-to-be Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi may have a hard time bringing her party to the
bargaining table.

"Pelosi will have a full-time job just keeping her caucus together," said Harrison Hickman, a
Democratic pollster and CBS News consultant. "The Democrats are badly fractured on fundamental
issues. The leadership is very much further to the left than the members."

The danger is that the campaign of '06 will simply continue under the name of "government."
Many Democrats, for example, are dead set on a new round of aggressive hearings about
everything from pre-war intelligence to homeland security to the hunt for Osama bin Laden. The
theater of Grand Congressional Inquisitions is generally an enemy of statesmanship.

And when it comes to the issue Democrats rode to victory on - opposition to the war in Iraq -
there are no easy fixes or popular votes. "The Democrats now have to demonstrate they can get
stuff done," Republican pollster Linda Divall, a consultant for CBS News, observed as the
election results rolled in. "Especially on Iraq, which a lot of Democrats ran on, they have no
solution, and now they will have to present some."

If the Democrats do end up with control of the Senate, the pressure to cooperate with the White
House will be even greater.

The results of this election could convince politicians of both parties that cooperation, oddly
enough, would be in their self-interest.

Why? Because exit polls show there's a large chunk of the electorate that is moderate,
independent-minded and turned off by partisanship. In exit polls, 47 percent of voters
described their views as moderate, 21 percent liberal and 32 percent conservative. And 61
percent of the moderates voted Democratic this year.

On party identification, 26 percent said they're Independent, which is in line with recent
elections. But this year, Independents went Democratic by a 57-39 margin. That's what gave the
day to Democrats. In the 2002 midterm, by contrast, Independents went Republican in a 48-45
split.

The bottom line: candidates ignore the middle and nonpartisan at their own peril.


-Michael
 
Ad

Advertisements

R

Roy Coorne

Chad said:
Wondering actually whether to take the neurlieptics that have been Rx'd for
his delusions about substantive progress in Iraq.

CH

But not too sad that Don has to leave...

RC
 

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.

Ask a Question

Top