A supermarket tabloid that recently exposed Sen. John Edwards' affair with a documentary filmmaker is now reporting that former Vice President Al Gore attacked a Portland masseuse at a local hotel. AlGore's bad luck continues. Sounds like he called up wanting a "massage", and got a honest-to-god masseuse. Always a bummer when that happens, but you've got to expect it at some fancy upscale places.
In a bold headline next to a photo of Gore, the current issue of the National Enquirer claims Gore assaulted a Portland masseuse in October of 2006 while staying in town at an "upscale hotel". Gore recently split with his wife, Tipper, after 40 years of marriage.
The reasons for the split have not been made public but the Enquirer claims Tipper "suspected her husband was involved with "a gorgeous massage therapist.""
The Enquirer, better known for trumpeting celebrity gossip and other stories that have seemingly stretched the truth (and resulted in lawsuits), was nonetheless on target in their reporting on Edwards' affair with Rielle Hunter and a resulting pregnancy. The story effectively ended Edwards' hopes for any future presidential bids.
The paper claims it has documents that back up their story about Gore and the masseuse, who was not named. KATU News and other journalism outlets are working to verify the Enquirer's claims.
Posted by: Fred ||
06/24/2010 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[9 views]
Top|| File under:
#11
like any of us didn't see this coming (pardon, npi)...anyways, this slimy charlatan of the new greeniac cult was always due to show his true colors eventually. Gore hypocritically duped millions into believing the AGW crap while still leading the very lifestyle he denounced. He's a class-A scumbag just like Edwards. I'm sure Tipper was aware of his deeds, most women have that intuition. (not that I give a crap about her - the same broad w/the PMRC that went after rock music in the 80s to make a name for herself).
#15
The District AttorneyÂ’s office in Multnomah County, Oregon, and Portland police both released statements saying a woman had raised a complaint in 2006 but withdrawn it in 2007, before giving her statement in 2009, prompting police to investigate.
Ooh, goona be tough to explain that away, Al. Should have gotten one of your your Chinese PLA buddies to rub you down. I hear they are discrete.
The statements were made after the assault claims were published in the National Enquirer, which said the victim was a 54-year-old whose identity was being kept secret. It also reported the massage appointment cost US$540.
For $540 I'd expect a happy ending and hot pizza.
Posted by: ed ||
06/24/2010 12:01 Comments ||
Top||
#16
...Tipper...the same broad w/the PMRC that went after rock music in the 80s to make a name for herself...
How can anyone forget the look on Al's face in the wake of Dee Snider's testimony before Congress here
(note: youtube.com is offline a/o 9amPST for whatever reason...check back for a trip down memory lane)
#21
It seems that once a politician is out of office, he/she self-destructs. They're probably engaging in the same behavior during their careers, but it's all covered up by the "old boy system". Anyone as egotistical as Gore should be taken out and shot, like they do horses that have outlived their usefulness.
Posted by: Old Patriot ||
06/24/2010 14:30 Comments ||
Top||
#22
It seems that once a politician is out of office, he/she self-destructs.
It gets swept under the rug by the security-media bubble.
They're probably engaging in the same behavior during their careers, but it's all covered up by the "old boy system".
Bingo. Their use to the power brokers and social shapers is over.
Posted by: ed ||
06/24/2010 14:56 Comments ||
Top||
#23
It also reported the massage appointment cost US$540.
Goodness. The lady I occasionally go to costs about $65/hour. She was recommended by the nearby chiropractor. The chiropractor himself probably costs $165/hour, if paid out of pocket. What kind of specialty does our complainant claim to charge half a thousand dollars per hour?
They're probably engaging in the same behavior during their careers, but it's all covered up by the "old boy system".
I would suspect, rather, that idle hands are the devil's playground, and the retired politicians don't quite know what to do with all that time that's no longer taken up by meetings, kissing babies, and nefarious back-room plotting.
#24
I looked at the youtube vid. When did the Ex Mrs Gore have a role in Star-Trek?
???
I was referring to Dee's statement, "...Tipper Gore was looking for sado-masochism & violence & she found it..." & the Goracle reaction. However, this video is edited. With YouTube down this morning, I couldn't find the specific one I wanted. 'Star Trek'? Sorry...I don't get it.
Americans are more pessimistic about the state of the country and less confident in President Barack Obama's leadership than at any point since Mr. Obama entered the White House, according to a new Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll. Might have something to do with not being straight with and disdain for the American people. Radical left agenda? Jobs and economy? Sucking up to our enemies and abusing our friends? Treatment of Israel? Shoving health care down our throats? Cap and trade. Gulf of Mexico mess? Moratorium on drilling. Immigration? Lack of border control? Higher taxes coming? Handling of Afghanistan? Lack of ethics and transparency? Chicago style politics and sleaziness? Pick a reason.
The survey also shows grave and growing concerns about the Gulf oil spill, with overwhelming majorities of adults favoring stronger regulation of the oil industry and believing that the spill will affect the nation's economy and environment.
Sixty-two percent of adults in the survey feel the country is on the wrong track, the highest level since before the 2008 election. Just one-third think the economy will get better over the next year, a 7-point drop from a month ago and the low point of Mr. Obama's tenure.
Amid anxiety over the nation's course, support for Mr. Obama and other incumbents is eroding. For the first time, more people disapprove of Mr. Obama's job performance than approve. And 57% of voters would prefer to elect a new person to Congress than re-elect their local representatives, the highest share in 18 years. That low?
#2
Fewer than half give him positive marks when asked if he is "honest and straightforward.''
[BWOOOPÂ…BWOOOP All hands on deckÂ…this is not a drill!]
AxelrodÂ…the jig is upÂ…your blame Bush strategy isnÂ’t working anymore. Where we at with the new and improved Republican gridlock narrative? GibbsÂ…BurtonÂ…get in here! We need the real dirt on BPÂ…emailsÂ…comprimising photosÂ…whatever your bootlickers in the press can get their hands on. And maybe you can find some Banking Fat Cat we can hang out to dry. Now JoeÂ…I need you to get out and really sell the shit outtta that Stimulus mess. HellÂ…make it up as you go along if you have toÂ…your good at that kinda thing anyway. HillaryÂ…were pretty good right now but we may need anotherÂ…uhemÂ…leak in the foreign press. And I hate to drop this on you but we may need Bill to take another bullet. Sounds like Holder has pleanty of lawsuits in the hopperÂ…so were good there. Allright nowÂ…Valerie make sure Tweedle-dee and Tweedle-dumÂ…Pelosi and Reid are on the same page for once ferchrisakes. IÂ’d ask Rham but heÂ’s busy whippin our Union boyzÂ…not ta mention that Sestak thing and all the Blago crap back home. OkÂ…now can someone find me a kid with some funky disease that I can exploit for my next health care speechÂ…the rubes really eat that shit upÂ…and not cancerÂ…we just did thatÂ…didnÂ’t we? OkÂ…lets do this! RememberÂ…if this doesnÂ’t work were goin old school and takin it to the streets. Race card baybeeÂ…Race card.
Overwhelm the system (this is the only person to admit being at Columbia University with Obama !!)
Barack Obama is no fool. He is not incompetent. To the contrary, he is brilliant. He knows exactly what he's doing. He is purposely overwhelming the U.S. economy to create systemic failure, economic crisis and social chaos -- thereby destroying capitalism and our country from within.
Barack Obama is my college classmate (Columbia University, class of '83). As Glenn Beck correctly predicted from day one, Obama is following the plan of Cloward & Piven, two professors at Columbia University. They outlined a plan to socialize America by overwhelming the system with government spending and entitlement demands. Add up the clues below. Taken individually they're alarming. Taken as a whole, it is a brilliant, Machiavellian game plan to turn the United States into a socialist/Marxist state with a permanent majority that desperately needs government for survival ... and can be counted on to always vote for bigger government. Why not? They have no responsibility to pay for it.
-- Universal health care. The health care bill had very little to do with health care. It had everything to do with unionizing millions of hospital and health care workers, as well as adding 15,000 to 20,000 new IRS agents (who will join government employee unions). Obama doesn't care that giving free health care to 30 million Americans will add trillions to the national debt. What he does care about is that it cements the dependence of those 30 million voters to Democrats and big government. Who but a socialist revolutionary would pass this reckless spending bill in the middle of a depression?
-- Cap and trade. Like health care legislation having nothing to do with health care, cap and trade has nothing to do with global warming. It has everything to do with redistribution of income, government control of the economy and a criminal payoff to Obama's biggest contributors. Those powerful and wealthy unions and contributors (like GE, which owns NBC, MSNBC and CNBC) can then be counted on to support everything Obama wants. They will kick-back hundreds of millions of dollars in contributions to Obama and the Democratic Party to keep them in power. The bonus is that all the new taxes on Americans with bigger cars, bigger homes and businesses helps Obama "spread the wealth around."
-- Make Puerto Rico a state. Why? Who's asking for a 51st state? Who's asking for millions of new welfare recipients and government entitlement addicts in the middle of a depression? Certainly not American taxpayers. But this has been Obama's plan all along. His goal is to add two new Democrat senators, five Democrat congressman and a million loyal Democratic voters who are dependent on big government.
-- Legalize 12 million illegal immigrants. Just giving these 12 million potential new citizens free health care alone could overwhelm the system and bankrupt America. But it adds 12 million reliable new Democrat voters who can be counted on to support big government. Add another few trillion dollars in welfare, aid to dependent children, food stamps, free medical, education, tax credits for the poor, and eventually Social Security.
-- Stimulus and bailouts. Where did all that money go? It went to Democrat contributors, organizations (ACORN), and unions -- including billions of dollars to save or create jobs of government employees across the country. It went to save GM and Chrysler so that their employees could keep paying union dues. It went to AIG so that Goldman Sachs could be bailed out (after giving Obama almost $1 million in contributions). A staggering $125 billion went to teachers (thereby protecting their union dues). All those public employees will vote loyally Democrat to protect their bloated salaries and pensions that are bankrupting America. The country goes broke, future generations face a bleak future, but Obama, the Democrat Party, government, and the unions grow more powerful. The ends justify the means.
-- Raise taxes on small business owners, high-income earners, and job creators. Put the entire burden on only the top 20 percent of taxpayers, redistribute the income, punish success, and reward those who did nothing to deserve it (except vote for Obama). Reagan wanted to dramatically cut taxes in order to starve the government. Obama wants to dramatically raise taxes to starve his political opposition.
With the acts outlined above, Obama and his regime have created a vast and rapidly expanding constituency of voters dependent on big government; a vast privileged class of public employees who work for big government; and a government dedicated to destroying capitalism and installing themselves as socialist rulers by overwhelming the system.
Add it up and you've got the perfect Marxist scheme -- all devised by my Columbia University college classmate Barack Obama using the Cloward and Piven Plan.
Arizona Democrats facing tough reelection races are distancing themselves from the Obama administration as it prepares to file a lawsuit against the state over its controversial immigration law.
Rep. Harry Mitchell (D-Ariz.) on Monday sent a sharply worded letter to President Barack Obama urging him not to sue.
"I believe your administration's time, efforts and resources would be much better spent securing the border and fixing our broken immigration system," the two-term congressman wrote in the letter. "Arizonans are tired of the grandstanding, and tired of waiting for help from Washington. ... [A] lawsuit won't solve the problem. It won't secure the border, and it won't fix our broken immigration system."
Republican primaries in Arizona won't be decided until August, but the prospective challengers have been hitting Democrats for not supporting the law or not staking out a specific position.
Democrats, meanwhile, are trying to maneuver past the controversial issue by focusing on border security and calling for action on immigration reform at the federal level. But if the Obama administration goes ahead with the suit, it will put the issue front and center during a campaign in which Democrats already face a tough environment.
This week Mitchell was joined by two other vulnerable Democrats in expressing public opposition to the administration's legal strategy. Reps. Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.) and Ann Kirkpatrick (D-Ariz.) are also urging the administration to reconsider its suit.
"Congresswoman Giffords wants more federal agents on the Arizona border, not federal lawyers in court arguing with state lawyers about a law that will do nothing to increase public safety in the communities she represents," C.J. Karamargin, a spokesman for the congresswoman, told The Hill.
Kirkpatrick likewise said the administration should focus on border security.
"I am calling on the president and the attorney general to abandon preparations for a lawsuit against Arizona, and to recommit to finding a national solution to fixing this national problem," the freshman lawmaker said in a statement released Monday. "The administration should focus on working with Arizona to put together a long-term strategy to secure our borders and reform our immigration policy. ... The time for talk is over, and the time for action is here."
Posted by: Fred ||
06/24/2010 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[10 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
The beltway crowd thinks (or cynically sells the notion) that this issue boils down to bigoted white hicks hating on harmless immigrant dayworkers in the parking lot at Home Depot. See stories all over the Burg about murdered ranchers, no-go zones and kidnappings by AK 47 armed narco thugs to find out about what Arizonans are really worried about...
Posted by: M. Murcek ||
06/24/2010 0:40 Comments ||
Top||
#2
And, McShame has not had his "come to Jesus" moment on securing the border. He's mouthing what he thinks he needs to say to get re-elected, then it'll be back to the old tricks again. Buyer voter beware...
Posted by: M. Murcek ||
06/24/2010 0:43 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Maybe the AZ Dems would get 0's attention if they said they will drop out of their races if he files a suit against 1070.
#5
Maybe the AZ Dems would get 0's attention if they said they will drop out of their races if he files a suit against 1070.
No. Zero doesn't care, that should be obvious by now. His mission is to sow chaos and wreak devastation on us...and then leverage it to do more damage. Two words; Cloward-Piven.
If you don't know what that means, read up on it.
Posted by: Secret Asian Man ||
06/24/2010 7:57 Comments ||
Top||
#6
Well, well, well.
Looks like we got us a "who's the biggest democrat" contest on our hands.
Rep. Bob Inglis (R-S.C.) became the third House member to lose a primary this cycle, suffering a resounding defeat in Tuesday's runoff against Spartanburg prosecutor Trey Gowdy (R).
With 177 of 265 precincts reporting, Gowdy had 72 percent of the vote, Inglis took 28.
Inglis also came in second in the June 8th election with 27 percent of the vote, trailing Gowdy by almost 12 points.
Inglis closed the final days of the runoff election by touting his experience, an argument that has been met with mixed results as an anti-incumbent mood roils the country.
The six-term lawmaker also rolled out the endorsement of Bob Jones III, the chancellor of Bob Jones University, which is in his district. Jones, however, was unavailable to appear for Inglis because he was traveling.
Gowdy, meanwhile, launched a 30-second TV ad that touted his conservative principles. He also has the support of Bob Taylor, a Greenville County councilman and dean of the College of Arts and Science at Bob Jones University.
Inglis represents one of the most conservative districts in the country. But he angered his constituents by voting for the Wall Street bailout and with the Democrats on a resolution condemning the Iraq war surge. He's also expressed concern about global warming, which prompted one of his previous opponents to dub him the "Al Gore of the Republican Party."
Perhaps the last straw for some of his critics came when he told constituents at a forum on healthcare to "turn Glenn Beck off."
Posted by: Fred ||
06/24/2010 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[6 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Another RINO bites the dust. Don't let the door hitcha etc., etc.
State Rep. Tim Scott took a step toward history Tuesday night, handily locking up the Republican nomination for the 1st Congressional District.
His 3-1 win over his former Charleston County Council colleague Paul Thurmond makes him likely to become the first black Republican to serve in Congress since J.C. Watts of Oklahoma retired six years ago.
With all five counties reporting, Scott had won about 68 percent of the vote to Thurmond's 32 percent. In Horry and Georgetown counties, where Thurmond had garnered a lot of support from local candidates, Scott still won by a smaller margin with about 56 percent of the vote in both counties.
If these unofficial results hold and Scott also wins on Nov. 2, he would become the first black Republican elected to Congress from the Deep South since Reconstruction.
During their campaign, both Scott and Thurmond, whose late father had a record-setting Senate career that included early opposition to integration, played down the historical implications of their race.
"This election is about our future as a country," Scott told his cheering supporters. "This election is about finding a way to bring us together so our country continues to lead the world on every front possible."
Thurmond's father, Strom Thurmond, is remembered in part for his 1948 presidential bid as a segregationist "Dixiecrat" almost three decades before Paul Thurmond was born.
Thurmond avoided interviews from national journalists exploring that angle. After the polls closed, Thurmond said any candidate who defeats eight others in an extended primary contest is legitimate.
"It has nothing to do with their skin. It's about their ability to connect with the people," he said. Thurmond, 34, said of Scott, "If some bridges are torn down because of this, that's a great thing."
Scott's big win is a bright spot for national Republicans trying to diversify their party. While Michael Steele, the first black to head the Republican National Committee, recruited 32 African-American candidates, most have lost or are expected to lose.
Andy Sere, spokesman for the National Republican Campaign Committee, said Scott didn't bring his race into the campaign but instead stressed his conservative message. The NRCC remained neutral, but former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, former Alaska Gov. and vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin, and the Club for Growth lined up behind Scott.
"There's been a lot of excitement about his candidacy, especially in the last two weeks, in the national Republican ranks," Sere said.
Posted by: Fred ||
06/24/2010 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Club For Growth really picked some good ones to support this year.
A University of Hawaii cinema professor, who is also President Barack Obama's brother-in-law, is serving as acting director of the Smithsonian Asian Pacific American Program this summer.
The UH Manoa Academy for Creative Media said Konrad Ng, an assistant professor and scholar of Asian-American cinema and digital media, is managing the Asian Pacific American Program while the Smithsonian searches for a permanent director.
Ng was a scholar-in-residence at the Smithsonian Asian Pacific American Program last fall, and has a decade-long history of working in Asian and Asian-American cultural institutions, programs, and organizations.
The Smithsonian program was founded and headed by former UH Manoa professor Franklin Odo, who recently retired.
"The Smithsonian felt that Dr. Ng's scholarship in cinema and digital media, and his previous administrative and curatorial experience in cultural organizations would be helpful in developing this prestigious national program," said Tom Brislin, the chairman of the UH Manoa Academy for Creative Media.
"I am grateful for the opportunity to return to the Smithsonian Asian Pacific American Program as its acting director for the summer," Ng said in a news release. "The program plays an important role in highlighting the experience of Asians, Pacific Islanders and Native Hawaiians in the telling of the American story. The University of Hawaii at Manoa and its students can play a role in telling this story, and I am excited to explore ways we can add these voices."
Ng is married to Maya Soetoro-Ng, the president's sister.
Posted by: Fred ||
06/24/2010 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Really...?
How interesting....?
out of 309,575,485 million citizen... his brother-in-law is chosen.....
In a shot across the bow to the insurance industry Tuesday, President Obama warned companies facing higher costs in part because of his health care law not to hike their prices, saying "we'll be watching closely."
Backing up his rhetoric behind the scenes, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is quietly working on a new regulation to determine when insurance price increases are "unreasonable" and potentially prohibited by law.
The move may provide political cover heading into November's elections as the President tries to keep the public from linking recent premium hikes to his newly-passed health care law.
But critics warn price controls could lead to either rationing or insurance companies going out of business, and point to Massachusetts's experience with insurance price controls as a cautionary tale of what happens when pricing "turns political."
Proponents, meanwhile, say without strict controls, the design of the health care law will lead to dramatic premium spikes. They also point to California regulations on automobile insurance as an example of where insurance price controls have been successful.
State regulators May 12 floated ideas to HHS about how to best institute the controls. The states said HHS should establish a set of criteria to flag price increases as "potentially unreasonable," leaving HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius to make a final decision on whether a price hike is justified.
"The process should identify 'potentially unreasonable' increases, with further review . . . to determine any mitigating or exacerbating factors and decide whether the increase is actually unreasonable," the National Association of Insurance Commissioners said.
The issue is complicated because under the health care law, HHS does not have the authority to simply deny premium hikes. A slew of states already have that power, and HHS has significant leverage over how states implement the reasonableness review in doling out $250 million in grants for its implementation.
The federal government has often used such funds to require states to implement additional provisions, and proponents of strict price controls are urging HHS to have states require "prior approval" of insurance rate hikes to accept the money.
"In the absence of a federal mandate for prior approval regulation," activist group Consumer Watchdog said, "HHS should use section 2794's grants to encourage states to adopt the most effective rate approval process available, prior approval rate regulation."
The combination of federal and state authorities, in its own byzantine way, could eventually comprise price controls of insurance premiums, proponents hope and critics fear.
HHS spokeswoman Jessica Santillo said under the health care law "insurers will be required to publicly justify the kind of unreasonable rate increases that have made coverage unaffordable for so many American families. Reviewing rate increases will go a long way toward ensuring that consumers finally get the value they deserve for their premium dollar and this new transparency in the health insurance market will encourage insurers to do more to control health care costs."
In Massachusetts, Democratic Gov. Deval Patrick's administration implemented strict price controls on insurance premiums under that state's health care law,
Obama's health care plan is in many ways based on the Massachusetts law, and Patrick shares with Obama a top political advisor in David Axelrod.
However, Massachusetts's price controls did not work out as planned. E-mails later showed top state officials warning the controls would have adverse consequences, including undercutting the solvency of the state's insurance companies.
Posted by: Fred ||
06/24/2010 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[5 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
HHS has significant leverage over how states implement the reasonableness review in doling out $250 million in grants for its implementation. That is less than $1 per capita, when the total outlay for health insurance is on the order of several thousand dollars per capita per year.
#2
Proponents, meanwhile, say without strict controls, the design of the health care law will lead to dramatic premium spikes.
Funny, I don't remember the president saying this during the health care debate.
Insurance companies can only write insurance if they having the capital to support doing so. So, if you want more health insurance, don't you want to create conditions that favor capital flowing into the health insurance companies? Price controls do the opposite. But, hey, what do I know, I'm not the Lightbringer.
Posted by: Matt ||
06/24/2010 7:55 Comments ||
Top||
BP, that is the mystery in this whole thing. Kids are getting out of med school with $500G in debt and are now being told basically that they're government employees. How do you "bend the cost curve down" without increasing the supply of the service in question? Price controls will work for about a picosecond until the market adjusts.
Posted by: Matt ||
06/24/2010 8:54 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Price Controls ==> Shortages ==> Rationing ==> Death Panels
Funny how Obumbles omitted that little detail. Didn't someone else mention it?
#7
Why become a docter when a person could become a lawyer and argue/be employed forever to interpret the bill passed without being read.
The government wants price controls for insurance, but won't address their own price controls aka a budget? All I know is my insurance went up 30%, and there is only one thing which has changed since I subscribed. One thing. I will say it again, Sebelius does not make decisions she has only sold them.
If somebody wanted to have some fun, take the Sebelius speeches following the Greensburg tornado about how the feds should let go control of the National Guards so they are available to deal with state problems and apply that to Arizona et al.
#9
How can you have price controls on a publicly traded company?
A company officer's fiduciary responsibility is to the stockholders, i.e. to make them as much money as is legally possible. If they can raise rates and offset increased expenses to do that.... wouldn't it be kind of, um, criminal not to?
These guys have put themselves between a rock and a hardcase. They thought they were going to make out like bandits, so they piled on the bandwagon towards the end. Now they are probably coming to the conclusion that they are going to take it up the pipe like the rest of us.
#10
How can you have price controls on a publicly traded company?
I don't know all the details, but state insurance regulators have been doing that for health insurance plans for many years now. They do have to consider whether or not the prices they permit/deny will support/destroy the financial viability of the insurance company.
#11
They do have to consider whether or not the prices they permit/deny will support/destroy the financial viability of the insurance company.
The road to single payer (i.e government) medical care is thus laid out.
Posted by: ed ||
06/24/2010 13:19 Comments ||
Top||
#12
I'm not saying this is bad, but when you extend child coverage to 26, ban denying pre-existing conditions, do away with maximum payout, etc etc, something has to give. The money to pay these increased benefits doesn't come from the tooth fairy. If the government had a program that only covered the difference for these additional benefits, to pay for them they would have raise taxes or print money.
What's next? Everyone deserves a credit card regardless of worthiness and there should be a limit on interest rates?
How about everyone deserves to own a house. Oops we tried that!
Why doesn't the government restrict the money paid to hospital worker unions like SEIU, after all don't they drive up healthcare cost? Oh, I forgot the Dems owe their soul to the unions.
Bottom line, price controls have consequences. Wage and price controls have terrible consequences. Keep it up Dems and we'll have a healthcare system manned by third world doctors and run by militant unions. Welcome to Britain.
#13
Its crazy, my guess is that my hike is a last ditch effort to make money, then close up shop. If it were a gas station before a hurrican would be taken to court, except in this case the court is the hurricane.
My last shopping trip, looking at dental coverage wife needs expensive procedure:
"How much?" : extra $100/month
"When does it take effect?" : Immediately
"Prier conditions?" : allowed
"Obligation?" : cancel anytime
"So what keeps me from getting dental, getting the procedure, then cancelling?" : nothing
#14
Wage and price controls have terrible consequences. I agree. But even without Health Care Deform, the US economy has been on the edge of a cliff for many months and this administration is incapable of appreciating that danger.
Which Columbia University did the "O" attend?Overwhelm the system and the people will demand you fix it.
"Cloward-Piven is a strategy for forcing political change through orchestrated crisis.
The strategy was first proposed in 1966 by Columbia University political scientists Richard Andrew Cloward and Frances Fox Piven as a plan to bankrupt the welfare system and produce radical change. Sometimes known as the "crisis strategy" or the the "flood-the-rolls, bankrupt-the-cities strategy," the Cloward-Piven approach called for swamping the welfare rolls with new applicants - more than the system could bear. It was hoped that the resulting economic collapse would lead to political turmoil and ultimately socialism.
The National Welfare Rights Organization (NWRO), founded by African-American militant George Alvin Wiley, put the Cloward-Piven strategy to work in the streets. Its activities led directly to the welfare crisis that bankrupted New York City in 1975.
Veterans of NWRO went on to found the Living Wage Movement and the Voting Rights Movement, both of which rely on the Cloward-Piven strategy and both of which are spear-headed by the radical cult ACORN.
Both the Living Wage and Voting Rights movements depend heavily on financial support from George Soros's Open Society Institute."
#17
Explain why drug co-pays on my plan went from $18 to $50 after the med bill passed?
Oh, and why the premiums went up?
I can't believe the drug costs went up that much in these few months.
The same reason hospitals charge private patients $10 for an aspirin, it covers the cost of meeting government mandated prices/reimbursement. If you can't raise your premiums and you can't reduce your coverage you charge more for co-pays. The money has to come from somewhere.
#19
Precisely correct Devil Dog. Furthermore, insurance companies have already begun elevating premiums in anticipation of having to cover "pre-existing condition" applicants. Private medical insurance should be unafordable very soon, which only leaves the common man the Obama, gummit insurance solution. Barry loves it....when a plan comes together.
#20
My wife's hairdresser is from Afghanistan. She and her sisters brought their aged parents to the states and shortly thereafter the parents health went downhill. The father is on hemodialysis and the mother took ill and went into a coma and on life support. After 5 months the sisters finally agreed to pull the plug on the mother.
The parents never paid a dime into the system and all their treatment has been paid for by the taxpayers. In my business I see this type scenario repeated over and over again with no solution in sight. In Fremont CA immigrants are signed up for all the goodies by advocates before they find housing.
#21
Themoney to pay these increased benefits doesn't come from the tooth fairy.
I thought it came from Obama's stash.... silly me.
One of the reason that Aspirin costs $10 is that the hospital has to track each and every Aspirin. Lock them up, 'dispense' it (and only to qualified personal...). etc....
The bad news for Democrats keeps pouring in. Now it comes from Wal-Mart moms -- women with children under 18 who shop at Wal-Mart. They tend to be Democrats and more of them than not voted for President Obama in 2008. But they're leaning Republican this year. And despite the happy economic talk from the White House, they believe the economy is hurting their families and their situation will be just as bad a year from now.
In Washington today, Wal-Mart officials unveiled a national survey of their female customers, who pollsters said amount to 16 percent of the electorate. "These are voters who are still feeling the economic pinch," said Leslie Dach, a Wal-Mart vice president. "They're feeling this intensified squeeze," and an increasing number of them are "barely able to make ends meet."
Pollster Neil Newhouse said the moms identified themselves mostly as middle class (38 percent) and lower middle class (55 percent). They are slightly less white and more African-American and Hispanic than the country at large. And they are more moderate (46 percent) than conservative (34 percent), approve of Obama's job performance (53 percent), and favor more government action to help people (60 percent).
But while they identify more with Democrats (43 percent) than Republicans (39 percent), they're inclined vote for Republicans (40 percent) over Democrats (37 percent) for Congress in November. And the reason is quite simple: their finances are perilous -- and not improving.
The poll found Wal-Mart moms are forced to take numerous extra steps merely to get by. These include skipping trips to the doctor for themselves and their families and "self-medicating" with vitamins and store-bought medicines, avoiding brand name products, delaying vacations, and doing car repairs themselves. A surprising 42 percent said the bad economy is putting major strains on their marriages or relationships with partners. Two-thirds said they're dissatisfied with their financial situation.
The moms dislike the recently enacted health care bill. Roughly twice as many said the legislation will make their health care worse (42 percent) than said it will make it better (22 percent). By 52 percent to 38 percent, they disapprove of the bill. They were not asked if they favor repeal.
But it was their deep pessimism (73 percent) about the future that was the most striking finding in the survey, conducted on the Internet in late May. Half of Wal-Mart moms are concerned about falling into a lower economic class. They are anxious about joblessness.
Posted by: Fred ||
06/24/2010 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Just tell Barak Obama to fluff the covers periodically, so you don't have to smell him while you sleep., Wal-Mart moms.
Posted by: M. Murcek ||
06/24/2010 0:47 Comments ||
Top||
#3
"Women ...under 18" > HMMM. HMMMM, I'm more inclined to believe age 30 or under. The Wal-Marts I've personally visited back in CONUS do appear to attract a younger female demographic than KMART or Other.
I think it means women whose children are under 18, not women under 18 who have children. Funny language, English. You would think a journalist (or the editor) would have caught that ambiguous sentence.
#7
Was anyone seriously under the impression that the working class serfs in this country like getting screwed any more than the rich do?
Of course they're turning on the Dems, they have f*cked up everything in record time. What's worse is that they seem to be laying the groundwork to REALLY screw us bad with Cap n' Trade, Immigration 'Reform', VAT tax..........
#8
Ummm, let's see - you shop at Walmart and you have kids under 18 -- both of which the Dems haven't been known to actually be big fans of and yet you vote Dem? Stupid doesn't begin to describe it.
Nevada gubernatorial candidate Rory Reid (D) is on the air with his first campaign ad and it's missing one thing: his last name.
Reid, the son of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), doesn't say his name at any point during the ad, but it prominently features his campaign logo, "Rory 2010."
Observers noticed that throughout the gubernatorial primary, Rory Reid seemed to distance himself from his father, who faced high disapproval ratings from voters.
It looks like, for now, Rory Reid is staying with that strategy, although Harry Reid's numbers have been steadily improving and strategists believe Sharron Angle's winning the Republican Senate nomination will help return Sen. Reid to Washington.
Rory Reid's website also neglects to mention his last name on its main banner, which reads "Rory 2010."
The bio section also lacks Rory Reid's last name. It's titled "Meet Rory" and doesn't mention his parents in the paragraph about his personal life. "Rory, 47, grew up in Nevada attending public schools, as do his three great kids. He attended Brigham Young University, graduating with a dual degree in international relations and Spanish, and continued his studies there through law school. He and his wife, Cindy, have been married for 22 years," the bio reads.
Otherwise, Rory Reid's first ad is a positive one, featuring children asking questions about the state's future.
Posted by: Fred ||
06/24/2010 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
doesn't matter....we still know who you are and what you represent. the apple doesn't fall far from the tree..
#2
I only hope that the GOP and Tea Party don't split the vote and let these two get elected. I would hope that the weakest (say 45 days out) would say "Our values are closely aligned and I would rather my opponent win this race rather than a Democrat victory. So I throw my support behind them."
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
In a shot across the bow to the insurance industry Tuesday, President Obama warned companies facing higher costs in part because of his health care law not to hike their prices, saying "we'll be watching closely."
