Olbermann lights off another fusillade!
The Sno’ Ho’ is perfectly willing to prostitute her children in an effort to lie and score political points with the wingdizzie crowd…
Vodpod videos no longer available.
more about “Keith Olbermann’s Light up the Sno’ Ho’“, posted with vodpod
Btx3's Blog 
pelinore
August 11, 2009 at 2:23 PM
Clearly you are a misogynist.
LikeLike
btx3
August 11, 2009 at 3:27 PM
And you are a dilatory obdurate meathead…
LikeLike
pelinore
August 11, 2009 at 5:38 PM
Why do you call a woman you’ve never even met an insulting demeaning name? Do you call other women such names? Do you like doing that? What if someone called your mother that name, though they never met her? Would you like that?
LikeLike
btx3
August 11, 2009 at 6:29 PM
Because, whether we like it or not , Mrs Palin decided to interject herself into our body politic…
Second, because she’s an embarrassment to all the intelligent, well spoken, professional women whose talents, skills, or intelligence I do respect – much in the same way some of the gibbering Uncle Toms like Jesse Lee Peterson or Reverend Mack Daddy Manning are to intelligent black folks…
Third, she’s an embarrassment as a role model to young women – including my own daughters…
And lastly – where do you get off lying about the President of the United States, a man you’ve obviously never met…
Accusing him of planning to kill Palin’s baby, as well as old people because of their infirmities or disabilities?
If President Obama were capable of such Hitleran tactics…
Your dumb ass would be sitting in a concentration camp right about now, waiting for a firing squad to finish…
With the Sno’ Ho’.
LikeLike
Tafaraji
August 11, 2009 at 10:17 PM
bt, put a statcounter on the bottom of your page. It’ll provide you with some interesting data about your blog. It’s on the bottom of my page and fields. Shay has a different one on hers. I have statcounter and the traffic feed. Great Applications. 🙂
LikeLike
btx3
August 11, 2009 at 10:45 PM
Have pretty good analysis tools in terms of who and what is being used to get to the blog.
I haven’t really pushed this blog yet in terms of marketing it like I might a commercial entity.
So far, it’s been quoted by a couple of majors, and linked by two news services.
At this point, I’m still learning some of the ropes!
LikeLike
pelinore
August 12, 2009 at 9:19 AM
So your low opinion of the intelligence of a woman makes it right to call a woman a whore? Why don’t you ask your mother or grandmother whether they think that is courteous or charitable and see what they think? I guess if your daughters decide to run for office and some blogger thinks they are dim-witted you would be ok with that blogger calling them whores? Do you really think that is helpful political discourse? It just makes you look low class.
If you even bothered to read what I wrote about White House Reality Check 4, you will see that I am not questioning the President’s good faith, only his judgment regarding what a Government-option will do to private health insurance and healthcare over time. The very possible result is a Government-only option which of course means rationing. Can you defend these statements of Dr. Ezekiel, advisor to the OMB, in a 1996 article:
“This civic republican or deliberative democratic conception of the good provides both procedural and substantive insights for developing a just alloca- tion of health care resources. Procedurally, it suggests the need for public forums to deliberate about which health services should be considered basic and should be socially guaranteed. Substantively, it suggests services that promote the continuation of the polity-those that ensure healthy future genera- tions, ensure development of practical reasoning skills, and ensure full and active participation by citizens in public deliberations-are to be socially guaranteed as basic. Conversely, services provided to individuals who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens are not basic and should not be guaranteed. An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia. A less obvious example Is is guaranteeing neuropsychological services to ensure children with learning disabilities can read and learn to reason.”
Can you defend these statements?
Oh, and I really like your civility in wishing my execution. Maybe you need to chill out a bit and let go of some of that hate juice working through our brain.
LikeLike
btx3
August 12, 2009 at 12:25 PM
First off – I call her the Sno’ Ho’, which is quite different from the term whore. Suggest you consult an Urban Dictionary before running off half cocked. The difference between a “Ho'” and a “whore”…
Is whores have morals.
The Sno’ Ho’ sold her ass to this man –
Insofar as my girls, one of the universal truths in America as a black person, is that at some point some “upstanding” white citizen, typically from your side of the rock if you are involved in politics – is going to call you names…
Including the “N” word. That hasn’t changed in the 40+ years since your fellows were dumping ketchup, mustard and racial invectives on desegregation protesters at the lunch counter…
Or murdering Civil Rights leaders.
Second, my issue is with the Sno’ Ho’s comment that her child would have to face Obama’s “death panel”.
There is no Dr. Ezekiel working for the OMB. Now, there is a Dr. Ezikiel Emmanuel, who is the brother of Rahm Emmanuel who works for Director of the Clinical Bioethics Department at the U.S. National Institutes of Health and currently advises the OMB. Dr Emmanuel did publish a paper for The Hastings Report, a bio-ethicist forum in 1996. First off – to clear up WHO he is –
Ezekiel Emanuel, who’s currently advising the administration on healthcare reform through a post at the White House Office of Management and Budget, is actually one of the country’s leading medical ethicists, a forceful defender of people approaching the end of their life. Indeed, he opposes even voluntary euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide.
He was an outspoken public opponent of euthanasia when the Supreme Court was considering the legality of physician-assisted suicide.
Next – Your quote left out two specific qualifiers –
The beginning of the text you misquoted –
“Without overstating it (and without fully defending it) not only is there a consensus about the need for a conception of the good, there may even be a consensus about the particular conception of the good that should inform policies on these nonconstitutional political issues.”
And the next line you deliberately didn’t include –
Clearly, more needs to be done to elucidate what specific health care services are basic; however, the overlap between liberalism and communitarianism points to a way of introducing the good back into medical ethics and devising a principled way of distinguishing basic from discretionary health care services.
The discussion was an ethicist discussion, presented to other medical ethicists for critique – not a policy presentation to Congress. There will be limits on the Government provided health care system as adopted by Congress – simply because too few of them have the cajones to do the right thing.
AND, in the scenario discussed, there is absolutely nothing preventing a commercial insurance scumbag carrier from offering insurance products covering “discretionary” care, and continuing to screw the public.
Indeed, my mother has Alzheimer’s, a condition which she has required specialized care for for over 5 years. To date, her Long Term Care carrier, CNA, has screwed me out of near $250,000 in expenses through various nefarious means including non-payment, withholding payment, moving facilities such that mail doesn’t get there on time, changing the reporting fax number, sending policy notices to the wrong address, demanding additional paperwork, denying the existence of a Power of Attorney despite having received 3 copies, denying the receipt of paperwork, losing paperwork, declaring the policy void, declaring the policy terminated, and numerous other maneuvers and mechanizations to keep from paying the bill.
LikeLike
btx3
August 12, 2009 at 12:26 PM
And while I’m on the subject –
Oh, and I really like your civility in wishing my execution.
You really ought to quit smoking that bear shit from Alaska…
LikeLike
t-shirts101
August 11, 2009 at 8:07 PM
🙂
LikeLike
pelinore
August 12, 2009 at 1:28 PM
You accuse me of “deliberately misquoting.” How do you know that? Your attitude towards those who disagree with you seems of a piece — you pretend to know about their souls, such as your comment about having no morals and now this “deliberately” charge. Look maybe I am at fault too for calling you a misogynist and that really is not the way to have a discussion, but I can’t get over the idea that you want to have a real discussion by calling someone a whore. Oh, yes, I looked up your slang (though I didn’t need to) and here is an adequate expression of what people think it means: http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070928082447AAGx22m. Now I know you are not using the term as another way to say “girlfriend” so it leaves only whore.
Back to “deliberately.” Here is what I did. I went to this website after googling Ezekiel Emanuel (one m not two):(http://www.wizbangblog.com/content/2009/07/26/ezekiel-emanuel-deny-coverage-to-elderly-and-disabled-for-the-greater-good.php) saw the quote as an entire quote and pasted it in. The quote seemed pretty stand-alone to me. The quote is in fact an accurate reproduction of the entire paragraph on page 13 carrying over to 14 of that article. There is no misquote or deletion from that paragraph. The “Without overstating . . .” text in taken out of the prior paragraph and really adds nothing except kind of professional detachment from the issues. The “Clearly . . . ” language is from the following paragraph. What is perhaps more surprising about the article once you take it in, is there is no reference to what the Dr. thinks is a “good” for society. It is almost scientifically sterile in its evaluation of the utilitarian vs. common good debate about healthcare. I wonder what his position is on the ethics of partial birth abortion?
You are surely right that a guaranteed Government plan can exist alongside private insurers — Medicare to some extent shows that now, but the establishment of a competing Government insurer can lead to the demise of private insurance and from there to rationing. I am very sorry to hear about your mother. I remember when Long Term Care insurance was first being marketed. It seemed like a good thing, but the last I read on it, there is widespread dissatisfaction because of all the pro-insurer language in the contracts — which sounds like your experience. I do think though there are some companies out there that deal honestly.
LikeLike
btx3
August 12, 2009 at 2:42 PM
A Ho’ is a person of low morals, who is condemned not because they are a prostitute or sexually loose…
But because they will lie, cheat, and steal as a first recourse.
Palin earned the pejorative Sno Ho’ in part, with her comment about President Obama and her son and “death panels”.
So, in view that you are having difficulty with this, and the fact that I haven’t cast any serious aspersions yet at pelinore…
You are Mrs Palin?
If you aren’t – then complaining about the characterization of a third person as an impediment to “debate” is smoke and mirrors…
If you are – then, I assure you I have a several more bones to pick, which – for the sake of getting a couple of questions answered honestly without the bias of talking media heads, I will suspend any further approbations, and or rhetorical posturing, just to have just that discussion.
Two things you should consider before answering. About 1/3 of my regulars are “white hats” – people who are professionally involved in preventing fraud, criminal activity, or espionage across the Internet. So don’t lie. Two, part of that is keeping their mouths shut.
LikeLike
pelinore
August 12, 2009 at 3:35 PM
Yes and you condemn and judge as freely as you threaten with your private internet police. Have you not heard that you should first attend to the log in your eye before pointing out the mote in your brother’s? Or perhaps you prefer our American version — don’t judge a man until you have walked two moons in his moccasins. It is one thing to criticize another’s policy or reasoning or even to say that the facts don’t back them up, but to go the next step and judge their soul is as uncharitable as it is unreasonable. Don’t you see, you then open yourself up to having people you support insulted in demeaning and nasty ways? For example, the President made a comment about how his bowling was like a special olympics scene. Was that a kind and sensitive comment? Many people thought not and thought it was cruel etc. Does that mean they should start calling the President all sorts of low “urban dictionary” names? No. But by your approach to civility and discourse you really couldn’t criticize them if they did. Do you really want to set the level of discourse on important national issues in terms of “hos” and the like?
LikeLike
btx3
August 12, 2009 at 6:46 PM
Pelinore quaffs – Yes and you condemn and judge as freely as you threaten with your private internet police.
Actually they are both of our “Internet Police” – but you are way too stupid to understand that. Much as you are way too stupid to argue the point, other than to whine about the characterization of the Sno’ Ho’s ethics…
Ethics which by the way have been under investigation for 17 separate investigations into various types of malfeasance.
Now – let’s take a look at the Sno’ Ho’s record –
Sarah Palin’s Own Death Panels?
New Ethics Problems Dog Sarah Palin
It’s Not Sarah’s Fault
When it comes to taking responsibility for her failures, Sarah Palin is completely unaccountable. Her finger is always pointed at the most convenient scapegoat.
Yup… That’s a Ho’!
LikeLike
t-shirts101
August 12, 2009 at 9:11 PM
…dayum.
LikeLike
btx3
August 12, 2009 at 10:55 PM
Don’t come in my house half-assed…
LikeLike
t-shirts101
August 12, 2009 at 10:59 PM
I swear BT, conservatism does make you stupid AND crazy. Not just the Palin lover, but over at Booker’s house too. It’s surreal… I can’t stand it anymore.
LikeLike
btx3
August 12, 2009 at 11:21 PM
The only good news is that excess stupidity tends to remove a person from the gene pool early, through their own actions (lighting a match too see if a gas can is full for instance)…
If folks want to be Sno’ Ho’ fans, fine – but don’t tell me it’s because she has an IQ above room temperature.
Noticed over at BR Skinny has been frontin’ the Porch Simian…
You KNOW there is something behind that.
LikeLike
t-shirts101
August 13, 2009 at 8:33 AM
It’s gotta be about drumming up hits ’cause it sure ain’t about making sense of things. Foolishness sells apparently.
LikeLike
btx3
August 13, 2009 at 9:32 AM
Not hits. Direct cash infusions. Right now the conservatives are getting pummeled pretty badly by negative public opinion resulting from the racist actions of their followers. Their response in the past has been to trot out a few reliable Uncle Toms (you know the names) to try and put some cover on that.
Looks like the Porch Simian hit the jackpot.
LikeLike
pelinore
August 13, 2009 at 9:42 AM
Take a look at this article by Dr. Emanuel: http://www.scribd.com/doc/18280675/Principles-for-Allocation-of-Scarce-Medical-Interventions. You will see he proudly endorses what he calls the “complete lives” theory of how to decide who gets medical care. In a nutshell, people like your mother, who have already lived many years, are not entitled to the same level of care as people who are younger. So while the good Doctor may have been against physician-assisted suicide, he certainly endorses allocation of resources away from those who, in his view of the world, just aren’t worth it anymore. Do you like that approach?
LikeLike
btx3
August 13, 2009 at 10:52 AM
I hate to tell you this pelinore, but triage is already a part of medical care – where the triage is done purely for commercial reasons.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triage
It’s a common practice by every single for profit healthcare provider and insurer today. It’s called Denying Coverage.
So, please don’t try and bullshit us about Ezekiel Emmanuel being Dr Death.
Further, such commercial triage results in the untimely deaths of nearly 100,000 people of color a year in this country – which you can find blogs I wrote under the category “American Genocide”, which include references to a book “Medical Apartheid” as well as references from the NIH.
Indeed, the current system results in an infant mortality rate (death in the first year of life) for Minority children 2.5 time that of white children in this country…
Roughly 30,000 black and brown babies murdered by the very people you shill for…
Each and every year.
Now, since you are a Sno’ Ho’ supporter, I’ll assume you are a conservative. I’ll make the second assumption that means you are anti-abortion on moral grounds (and you can feel free to correct me if my assumption is wrong).
So the question becomes – what sort of twisted “morality” allows a person who is supposedly “pro-life” to support a position which results in the preventable deaths of 100,000 people, and 30,000 babies a year?
LikeLike
pelinore
August 13, 2009 at 10:03 AM
And here, to go along with your cut and paste job above, here’s some cold water on your theory about the lies of death panels. You even have liberals questioning the real impact of section 1233. You’ll find all this at http://www.punditandpundette.com/2009/08/obama-ought-to-read-section-1233-of-hr.html:
Does anyone imagine that Barack Obama has sat down with HR 3200 and studied Section 1233 which concerns advanced care planning consultations? Has he seriously considered the implications of the language? Has he, or any supporters of his reforms, even attempted to refute these concerns by referring to the text of the provisions in question? He’s a brilliant Harvard lawyer and U of C law professor. Why doesn’t he go through the troubling language and show us why we shouldn’t be concerned? This is right up his alley. Instead we get this:
The rumor that’s been circulating a lot lately is this idea that somehow the House of Representatives voted for “death panels” that will basically pull the plug on grandma because we’ve decided that we don’t — it’s too expensive to let her live anymore. (Laughter.) And there are various — there are some variations on this theme.
He goes on to speculate about the intentions of the writers of the provisions and the sources of the “rumors.” None of this addresses the language of the bill.
The following people, some of them liberals, have studied or at least read the provisions and are unable to dismiss them in the manner of Obama and company. And their concerns are based on what is written in HR 3200. Among them:
Charles Lane:
Though not mandatory, as some on the right have claimed, the consultations envisioned in Section 1233 aren’t quite “purely voluntary,” as Rep. Sander M. Levin (D-Mich.) asserts. To me, “purely voluntary” means “not unless the patient requests one.” Section 1233, however, lets doctors initiate the chat and gives them an incentive — money — to do so. Indeed, that’s an incentive to insist.
Wesley Smith, who has studied the language closely and offered revisions that would absolutely rule out a mandatory interpretation. The section was revised but the ambiguity remains. Mr. Smith has written extensively on section 1233 and is the source for factual information and analysis on this subject.
Eugene Robinson:
If the government says it has to control health-care costs and then offers to pay doctors to give advice about hospice care, citizens are not delusional to conclude that the goal is to reduce end-of-life spending.
Charles Grassley:
“In the House bill, there is counseling for end of life,” Grassley said. “You have every right to fear. You shouldn’t have counseling at the end of life, you should have done that 20 years before. Should not have a government run plan to decide when to pull the plug on grandma”
Sandy Szwarc:
More importantly, it is clearly an effort to coerce seniors to sign such an order. There are multiple loopholes that open doors for its misuse, and abuse of the elderly, while also including no protections for these patients.
Betsy McCaughey:
“In so many words, it is [mandatory] — because although it is presented in the bill as a Medicare service, when a doctor or a nurse approaches an elderly person who is in poor health, facing a decline in health, and raises these issues, it is not offering a service. It is pressuring them,” McCaughey said Monday. “I would not want that to occur when I am not at my parents’ bedside.”
Lee Siegel:
This reeks of the Big Brother nightmare of oppressive government that the shrewd propagandists on the right are always blathering on about. Except that this time, they could not be more right.
Herbert London:
Although it does not make reference to euthanasia, it is easy to draw the conclusion that counseling by someone, who is not necessarily equipped to make medical decisions, could be interpreted as euthanasia guidance. Suppose someone of 80 has cancer, a condition that may require aggressive and expensive treatment. What will a counselor suggest? My guess is he will point out that the treatment is discomforting and is unlikely to extend life expectancy significantly. Perhaps the best thing to do is let nature take its course. Is this euthanasia? That depends on perspective, but that conclusion cannot be ruled out.
Armstrong Williams:
You can’t control costs without telling someone they will have to either wait or go without. There’s no getting around that fact. Look to European countries and how they’re assigning “value” to human life and procedures. As morbid as it sounds, how else can you quantify access and enumerate costs? Obama and his staff started this. Democrats just codified it in language that offers Medicare coverage for doctors who want to counsel seniors on end-of-life decisions. Has it been blown out of proportion? Yes, but they’re very real concerns. Conservatives shouldn’t get the blame for what frightens constituents, particularly senior citizens.
Tom McClusky:
The biggest question mark comes from who wrote Section 1233 of the House health care overhaul bill. The original language was written by assisted suicide supporter Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.) alongside a group that once was called the Hemlock Society – the nation’s biggest advocates of euthanasia and assisted suicide. The Hemlock Society helped draft Oregon’s assisted suicide law – legislation that has led some afflicted people in Oregon getting letters “consulting” them that, while the state run plan would not pay for their cancer treatments, the state would be happy to pay for assisted suicide if they choose that option.
Additionally, Section 1401 establishes the Center for Comparative Effectiveness Research. A similar center was established in the economic stimulus bill passed in February. The report issued by the House Appropriations Committee at that time explained what they hoped to accomplish with this “research.”:
“By knowing what works best and presenting this information more broadly to patients and healthcare professionals, those items, procedures and interventions that are most effective to prevent, control and treat health conditions will be utilized¸ while those that are found to be less effective and in some cases, more expensive, will no longer be prescribed. (Emphasis added).”
Five times in various committees there were attempts to ensure that “comparative effectiveness research” is not used for rationing purposes. Each time the Democrats on the committees voted the amendments down.
Additionally, the Obama plan relies heavily on cuts to Medicare to pay for the new benefits. Despite these cuts he fails to address the solvency issue of Medicare, inevitably leading to reduction of benefits to participants.
Couple these with public comments of supporters of the leading bills in Congress, like President Obama and Senator Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.), that the federal government would be making decisions that usually are left up to patients and doctors the onus should be on supporters of the bill to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that their legislation would not lead to rationing of care.
And Sarah Palin. She quotes Charles Lane and Eugene Robinson, and the bill, in her FB follow-up to Obama’s dismissal of this issue in Portsmouth on Tuesday:
With all due respect, it’s misleading for the President to describe this section as an entirely voluntary provision that simply increases the information offered to Medicare recipients. The issue is the context in which that information is provided and the coercive effect these consultations will have in that context.
Section 1233 authorizes advanced care planning consultations for senior citizens on Medicare every five years, and more often “if there is a significant change in the health condition of the individual … or upon admission to a skilled nursing facility, a long-term care facility… or a hospice program.” [3] During those consultations, practitioners must explain “the continuum of end-of-life services and supports available, including palliative care and hospice,” and the government benefits available to pay for such services. [4]
Now put this in context. These consultations are authorized whenever a Medicare recipient’s health changes significantly or when they enter a nursing home, and they are part of a bill whose stated purpose is “to reduce the growth in health care spending.” [5] Is it any wonder that senior citizens might view such consultations as attempts to convince them to help reduce health care costs by accepting minimal end-of-life care? As Charles Lane notes in the Washington Post, Section 1233 “addresses compassionate goals in disconcerting proximity to fiscal ones…. If it’s all about alleviating suffering, emotional or physical, what’s it doing in a measure to “bend the curve” on health-care costs?” [6]
Read the rest. For a wild-eyed trailer-trash hillbilly breeder, she sure makes a lot of sense.
More and varied opinions from The Hill Congressional Blog here. Opinions backed up with references to the texts being discussed are worthier of respect. Off-the-cuff ad hominem attacks, less so.
Furshizzle.
LikeLike
pelinore
August 13, 2009 at 10:59 AM
No, it’s not called denying coverage, it’s called not having enough people and resources to actually help everyone at the same time. You miss a critical moral distinction. By electing to help the person who is most in need you are not thereby actively causing the death of another (as in the case of abortions where either saline, chemicals, or cold steel are inserted into the woman to destroy the human within).
LikeLike
btx3
August 13, 2009 at 11:32 AM
You actually are going to sit here with a straight face, and try to claim that the reason the big Health Care Insurers drop or deny coverage to people has nothing to do with costs?
Guffaws!
So… The question still remains, since you have identified yourself a supposedly “Pro-Life”…
Why exactly are you supporting organizations complicit in the murder of over 30,000 black and brown babies in their first year of life?
LikeLike
btx3
August 13, 2009 at 11:21 AM
Does anyone imagine that Barack Obama has sat down with HR 3200 and studied Section 1233 which concerns advanced care planning consultations?
Like most conservatives – you are utterly ignorant of how the very Democratic System and Constitution, which you get drunk, wave the flag and shake your ass for every July 4th…
Actually works.
HR 3200 is a House Bill. While it may have been submitted originally by the President, it’s language, clauses, sections, and subsections are now totally in the hands of the Congress. On a Bill of this scope, there likely will be several thousand changes made by the various members of Congress, through their Committees, and the normal internal political wrangling.
The President is not a member of Congress. As such, he doesn’t get a vote, or voice to change things.
The President gets to Sign or Veto (return the Bill to Congress for modification) the Bill when it’s done – and BOTH Houses agree on it.
It’s called Democracy – a system which conservatives aren’t familiar with. As such, blaming President Obama for the existence of a section of the Bill (which hasn’t even passed the first legislative hurdle in the House yet)…
Is both specious…
And stupid.
Insofar as the opinions expressed by the folks in your cut-and-paste, I see we have moved beyond the Sno’ Ho’ to a different discussion. Opinions are like assholes – everyone has one. The people you quote are exercising their Democratic right to challenge whatever they think is wrong.
HOWEVER – as in the case of the Sno’ Ho’ – you don’t get to lie without someone challenging you.
FACT CHECK: No ‘death panel’ in health care bill
Q: Who supports the provision?
A: The American Medical Association, the National Hospice and Palliative Care Organization and Consumers Union are among the groups supporting the provision. AARP, the seniors’ lobby, is taking out print advertisements this week that label as false the claim that the legislation will empower the government to take over life-and-death decisions from individuals.
Q: Should the federal government be getting involved with living wills and end-of-life questions — decisions that are highly personal and really difficult?
A: It already is.
The government requires hospitals to ask adult patients if they have a living will, or “advance directive.” If the patient doesn’t have one, and wants one, the hospital has to provide assistance. The mandate on hospitals was instituted during a Republican administration, in 1992, under President George H.W. Bush.
Q: How does a living will work, and how is it different from a health care proxy?
A: A living will — also called an advance directive — spells out a patient’s wishes if he or she becomes incapacitated. Often people say they don’t want to be kept alive on breathing machines if their condition is terminal and irreversible.
A health care proxy empowers another person to make medical decisions should the patient become incapacitated.
There’s also a power-of-attorney, which authorizes another person to make financial decisions for someone who is incapacitated.
Such legal documents have become standard estate-planning tools in the last twenty years.
Oooops!
LikeLike
t-shirts101
August 13, 2009 at 12:01 PM
Don’t come in my house half-assed…
by btx3 August 12, 2009 at 10:55 pm
I’ll have the t-shirt printed and shipped ASAP.
😉
LikeLike
pelinore
August 13, 2009 at 2:57 PM
“Well, first of all, another myth that we’ve been hearing about is this notion that somehow we’re going to be cutting your Medicare benefits. We are not. AARP would not be endorsing a bill if it was undermining Medicare, okay? So I just want seniors to be clear about this, because if you look at the polling, it turns out seniors are the ones who are most worried about health care reform. … So I just want to assure we’re not talking about cutting Medicare benefits.” President Obama.
“While the President was correct that AARP will not endorse a health care reform bill that would reduce Medicare benefits, indications that we have endorsed any of the major health care reform bills currently under consideration in Congress are inaccurate.” AARP, the day after.
President pwned.
You can’t have it both ways btx3. Either the President is just sitting back on his constitutional backside waiting to veto or sign or he is actively involved in promoting a particular piece of legislation. What the heck is he talking about when he references “a bill” being endorsed by AARP or the actual “intention” of section 1233? Are you saying he is talking about a bill he never read? Sounds like a pretty unwise move to talk about something you don’t know squat about. Is the President constitutionally required to read any legislation before it comes to his desk for veto or signature? No. Has every President in recent memory actually proposed legislation to Congress or inserted himself in the debate in Congress? Yes, and that is certainly within his Constitutional role to do so. Everything the President is doing is in defense of the particulars of legislation being drafted right now by Congress! What’s more would you actually want a President that didn’t get involved with Congress? Our President frequently invites members of Congress to the White House for chat sessions about legislation, after all, he has the power of veto and can use the threat of that to steer legislation.
I do not support Planned Parenthood if that is what you are asking. The abortions they perform are targeted against minorities in the country, which is no surprise given that their founder Margaret Sanger was an avowed racist and supporter of eugenics.
LikeLike