RE: President Of New York State Politics

RE: President Of New York State Politics (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Mercnbeth -> RE: President Of New York State Politics (9/21/2009 2:00:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl No Merc. You are good at spinning away from issues when its convenient for you to do so. You gave me a challenge, remember? I took up said challenge, and did damn well with it, proving my point. So, the Czars... proven. tazzy, I'm glad you proved there were other people labeled Czars in other Administrations. The issue was Obama's Czars, his decision concerning who should be in charge. His appointment of so many, so fast, and without vetting. I don't use "Well - HE did it!" in the past, as an excuse for anything. The most recent removal of the 'green czar' was a waste of this Administration's time and resources. It also serves to illustrate Obama's decision process which generated this controversy in the first place. It also showed how loyal he is to people. No wonder nobody is willing to come forth and give themselves as a named source concerning the Administration's position on the NY Governor. Regarding czars, I didn't, and don't, think it mattered and didn't care how many or when. You did and found the answers - congratulations! Was there something I missed and didn't respond to? quote: The Health care bill... so many lies and deceptions there. And yet you have to date accepted or acknowledged that they were lies or distortions. Which version? What is a lie on one Bill is a fact on others. Did you listen to the President this weekend? Even he doesn't know what version of the Bill will be presented - if any. On the other hand I know there are lies and distortions in any version being considered. You'd be foolish to think there weren't. quote: And you try and berate others for not wanting to play by your rules? No, I was wondering why he called the governor of NY a failure? Was there anyone else making that reference? quote: Try playing the game as it is intended... a give and take. Ignoring what is so very obvious does nothing for your cause except make you look like Sanity more and more. Your mistake is thinking I have a "cause" to advance. I have only opinion, and represent facts as pragmatic. I didn't know you were posting for a "cause" and will consider that there is an agenda behind your position in the future.

tazzygirl -> RE: President Of New York State Politics (9/21/2009 2:04:20 PM)
As far as asking Paterson not to run by the White House. Im left with this thought. How is this much different than what happened to Paul... quote: Ron Paul plans to take his message outside GOP state convention Friday Presidential candidate Ron Paul, effectively denied a chance to address this weekend's Republican State Convention, plans to speak instead to his supporters and other participants Friday morning outside the Mayo Civic Center convention site in Rochester. The decision follows several unsuccessful requests to the state GOP seeking a speaking slot for the Texas congressman, according to Marianne Stebbins, Minnesota coordinator for the Paul presidential campaign. Stebbins said that a letter from GOP chair Ron Carey on Friday said he would only consider allowing Paul to speak if he "withdraws from the presidential race and publicly endorses our presumptive nominee, Senator John McCain, prior to our convention." http://www.minnpost.com/craigwestover/2008/05/27/2003/ron_paul_plans_to_take_his_message_outside_gop_state_convention_friday I see both parties attempting to use their muscle to decide who we want in our election choices... with no regard for the voters... just so that their "person" of choice has a better chance of winning. But, kudos to Paul for refusing to give in and instead speaking outside the convention to 15000 people.

tazzygirl -> RE: President Of New York State Politics (9/21/2009 2:06:03 PM)
quote: I didn't know you were posting for a "cause" and will consider that there is an agenda behind your position in the future. My cause is the truth, as it should be for all of us. Or do we have different truths based upon who we believe should be in office?

ThatDamnedPanda -> RE: President Of New York State Politics (9/21/2009 2:18:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth quote: There isn't a lot of detail in that story, but it does have the basic facts. It's not missing any, but it also doesn't compare. VP Cheney wanted him to run for governor, your link pointing to a fund raising effort on Pawlenty's behalf. From your source; "This governor's race is important to the president and to me, because we respect this man and his record," Cheney says. The involvement was not to berate or run Pawlenty out of office, it was to try to secure two offices, the Senate seat AND the governorship. Honestly, do you think that's the intent of this Administration with Governor Paterson? Does Obama have a cabinet post in mind? The Obama Administration wants Paterson out completely. They don't have him earmarked as a cornerstone of the next election. I think you know that and understand the distinction. It's not a semantic argument and I did seek any example of putting pressure on a standing representative to not run. Even with that consideration your example still doesn't fit the parameters. Pawlenty was NOT the sitting Senator, he was CONSIDERING a run. Also - He IS the current Governor. The "logical contortion" you seek is basic. He wasn't the sitting Senator, and the result is he was backed by the same administration in his successful run as Governor. I understand Cheney's effort to keep the party track and on message. The message was, we have other and better things for you. What's the similarity to the current, "don't let the door hit you in the ass" message being given to Governor Patterson by Obama's Party? What exactly are we debating here? The propriety of a sitting president interfering in a state-level political campaign, or Obama's loyalty to other party members? When I joined in, I thought we were just talking about the former. The latter is another discussion altogether, as far as I'm concerned. At any rate, I still see it as a distinction without a significant difference. The White House makes a decision - right or wrong, and for whatever reason - that it would be better for the party if a certain candidate either does or does not run for a certain office, and uses the political power of the presidency to put pressure on someone either to run or not to run. Democratic president or republican president, incumbent governor, potential gubernatorial or senatorial candidate, "we've got better things in mind for you" or "don't let the door hit you in the ass", whatever. What's the difference? If Patterson doesn't like it, now's his chance to do some horsetrading - "OK, I'll step aside, what are you going to do for me when I decide to run for Gillibrand's Senate seat?" That's the way the game is played, and Patterson knows it. Heavyhanded? Sure, no question about that. But that's tough shit. Politics is supposed to be a tough business. It's supposed to be coldblooded, cutthroat, and downright ruthless at times. That's an essential quality in a president. Without getting into the rightness or wrongness of this particular decision (because I just don't know enough about New York politics), in principle I have no problem with this at all. If anything, I'd say it's about time Obama started showing some of his ruthless side; I only wish he'd start turning it against the republicans for a change.

Mercnbeth -> RE: President Of New York State Politics (9/21/2009 2:33:34 PM)
quote: How is this much different than what happened to Paul... Welllllll he wasn't the sitting incumbent governor of any State being told by the President, representing the same party NOT to run. What was the similarity? quote: My cause is the truth, as it should be for all of us. Or do we have different truths based upon who we believe should be in office? Is it? Or is it truth based upon your perspective? My belief of who should be in office in any position is ability and integrity. What exactly are you saying is a lie; Obama pressuring Patterson not to run, or all the sources reporting it? In the face of every source saying the White House wanting Governor Patterson out you don't think any truthfully represent reality. Yet, in other instances from similar sources, like the NY Times, you are convinced without question and verification that their "truth" is a reality. Agenda based truth isn't what you are representing as an ideal cause, are you? How can my "truth" be political party based, when I have no party affiliation? I see no difference in party affiliation, obviously you do. Is there reconcilable "truth"?

tazzygirl -> RE: President Of New York State Politics (9/21/2009 2:41:00 PM)
quote: No, I was wondering why he called the governor of NY a failure? Was there anyone else making that reference? yes, the NY Post quote: PATERSON THE KING OF FLOPGOV FACES DOOM AFTER YEAR OF FIASCOSLast Updated: 8:29 PM, March 7, 2009 Posted: 8:29 PM, March 7, 2009 Paterson's first year was so calamitous that few in state political circles believe the governor can withstand an all-but-certain Democratic primary challenge. His strongest potential rival is Attorney General Andrew Cuomo. Things have gotten so bad for the governor that even some of his most ardent supporters, including senior Democrats in the Legislature and officials of his own administration, take for granted that Paterson will lose to Cuomo or not run for office next year. The reasons for Paterson's failure are easy to discern. http://www.nypost.com/p/news/paterson_the_king_of_flop_A3NDrmp2rQ0UNJLHk71XkN

Mercnbeth -> RE: President Of New York State Politics (9/21/2009 2:43:22 PM)
quote: What exactly are we debating here? Simple Panda - exactly what is occurring in NY State. A sitting Governor who wants to run for reelection seeking his party's President to support him. Instead, he has not only gotten the cold shoulder he's being pressured not to seek reelection in the face of bad polling numbers. What happened to the representation that you made the "this is nothing new"? Seems your research of other examples supported my position that the attack on Governor Patterson is not only new but unique. Is this an example of a dysfunctional party or an exposing indicator of a egomaniac demigod party head needing to control all things within the party? A question not a statement.

Mercnbeth -> RE: President Of New York State Politics (9/21/2009 2:47:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl quote: No, I was wondering why he called the governor of NY a failure? Was there anyone else making that reference? yes, the NY Post quote: PATERSON THE KING OF FLOPGOV FACES DOOM AFTER YEAR OF FIASCOSLast Updated: 8:29 PM, March 7, 2009 Posted: 8:29 PM, March 7, 2009 Paterson's first year was so calamitous that few in state political circles believe the governor can withstand an all-but-certain Democratic primary challenge. His strongest potential rival is Attorney General Andrew Cuomo. Things have gotten so bad for the governor that even some of his most ardent supporters, including senior Democrats in the Legislature and officials of his own administration, take for granted that Paterson will lose to Cuomo or not run for office next year. The reasons for Paterson's failure are easy to discern. http://www.nypost.com/p/news/paterson_the_king_of_flop_A3NDrmp2rQ0UNJLHk71XkN I didn't know the NY Post was a contributing poster on CM, but if we open this up to ALL source considerations, I stipulate that there are MANY other sources calling Governor Patterson a "failure". I dare say you can find numerous sources supporting him too. Not White House sources, but similarly as relevant as citing the NY Post as as one.

tazzygirl -> RE: President Of New York State Politics (9/21/2009 2:53:23 PM)
Perhaps, perhaps not. You did not indicate you meant only the CM boards as being the basis. And no, he wasnt. He was told to drop out of a race for president if he wished to speak because many who were attending the convention wished to hear him speak. and told so by the RNC. is it now up to the two parties to decide who should run and who shouldnt? And if the RNC can tell someone who is running for office to drop out, the white house cant? Interesting....

Mercnbeth -> RE: President Of New York State Politics (9/21/2009 3:12:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl Perhaps, perhaps not. You did not indicate you meant only the CM boards as being the basis. And no, he wasnt. He was told to drop out of a race for president if he wished to speak because many who were attending the convention wished to hear him speak. and told so by the RNC. is it now up to the two parties to decide who should run and who shouldnt? And if the RNC can tell someone who is running for office to drop out, the white house cant? Interesting.... That's more spin than I would ever consider you making tazzy. The NY Post never posted to CM. You know who told Ron Paul not to run for President? The people who didn't vote for him. The party conventions (BOTH parties) are coronation events meant to consolidate the party. I don't think Paul speaking to the audience would have not accomplished that, do you? As I recall he had his own speaking opportunity attended by his supporters. However, you put that in the same context as a sitting governor being pressured not to run? Okay, all of those are the "truth" - your "cause" is now clear.

tazzygirl -> RE: President Of New York State Politics (9/21/2009 3:28:31 PM)
it is huh? as clear as those death panels? what is my "cause"?

Mercnbeth -> RE: President Of New York State Politics (9/21/2009 4:02:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl it is huh? as clear as those death panels? what is my "cause"? What is that response given in reference to? Changing the subject, unfortunately for you, doesn't change the result. BTW - Whether "death panels" were or weren't in whatever version of the health-care Bill President Obama amended to remove after they were pointed out; my personal position would be that they should be IN any nationalization of the health care industry. I'm sure you listened, as I did, to the President's many appearances over the weekend. What do you think of him saying that everyone with the ability over a certain income, MUST pay for health care or be subject to a fine as much as $3,800/family? There are many issues to discuss on this however I'll focus on one. How do you reconcile mandatory purchase of health insurance with the separation of Church and State in the case of Christian Scientists, and other religions? Were that mandated by any Bill these people would be required to buy insurance coverage. However going to the doctor would be against their Church dogma. As a corollary, does that mean that Christian Science practitioners would be eligible to receive compensation for their 'work'? I know that the Administration has spent a lot of time considering the political implications of the NY governorship, but you think someone would have brought that aspect of his 'play or pay' health plan to his attention before his TV appearances?

tazzygirl -> RE: President Of New York State Politics (9/21/2009 4:28:32 PM)
quote: Okay, all of those are the "truth" - your "cause" is now clear. My cause is clear... to you is the implied part... my response.. as clear as the death panels? you used the word cause... i asked you what my cause was. there is NO change of subject Reference to the bill... i have seen only one version.. the one Obama gave to Congress... if you have seen another, i would appreciate the link. if not, then there is only one at this point, and it never mentioned death panels or anything close, as i have pointed out numerous times. Reference to insurance or fines... I have no issue with this. The same is done with car insurance. You drive a car, you must insure it. We have bitched that we dont have affordable health insurance. If its provided at an affordable rate, then buy it or get fined. I have no problem with that. Cant moan and whine about not having something that say.. no thanks.. when you are given what you asked for. As a medical professional, my views are way to skewed for me to answer that question, Merc, in regards to Christian Scientists, or any group who views medicine in that same light. quote: As a corollary, does that mean that Christian Science practitioners would be eligible to receive compensation for their 'work'? Im going on the basis that you are implying they be compensated. quote: Any student of Christian Science who has taken the 'intensive' two-week class instruction in Christian Science healing may use the initials 'C.S.,' and take patients as a practitioner. Those desiring to be in the full-time practice usually do this for several years and must be members of the Mother Church, the global organization headquartered in Boston. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Science_practitioner I do hope you arent implying they are even on the same level as a physician. quote: I know that the Administration has spent a lot of time considering the political implications of the NY governorship, but you think someone would have brought that aspect of his 'play or pay' health plan to his attention before his TV appearances? It was part of his original bill. Didnt you read it yet?

SpinnerofTales -> RE: President Of New York State Politics (9/21/2009 4:31:37 PM)
Actually, while I am sure this will be no comfort to those who want to consider Obama a combination of the devil, Charles Manson and Louis Farrakhan, I have a strong idea of why the president took the action of letting Paterson know that he didn't want him to run. Not long ago, Paterson went on an irrational rant saying that the press was trying to screw him over because he was black. He also tried to draw Obama into that by saying that Obama was facing the same thing. Like it or not, Obama has tried his damnedest to avoid the race card. Whether he is doing this, as I believe, because he is not a racist and doesn't want this to become more of an issue in his presidency than it is or whether he knows that it is going to do him no good to start down that road, he does not want to go there. He will not go there. And he doesn't intend to let anyone take him for a ride there. So I feel that the president put out a message loud and clear to Paterson and all members of his party. If you try to get him involved in playing the race card, he is going to use his political clout to make life unpleasant for you. You can call it right. You can call it wrong. But it does seem to send the message that Obama views playing the race card as a very bad play to make.

LookieNoNookie -> RE: President Of New York State Politics (9/21/2009 4:36:51 PM)
quote: Actually, while I am sure this will be no comfort to those who want to consider Obama a combination of the devil, Charles Manson and Louis Farrakhan, I'm thinking he's a combination of his Mom and his Dad.

Mercnbeth -> RE: President Of New York State Politics (9/21/2009 4:55:18 PM)
quote: it never mentioned death panels or anything close, as i have pointed out numerous times . Not now - there was, unless this link I saved from Yahoo was lying. quote: Thu Aug 13, 1:55 pm ET – via YahooNews WASHINGTON – Key senators are excluding a provision on end-of-life care from health overhaul legislation after language in a House bill caused a furor. Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa, top Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, said in a statement Thursday that the provision had been dropped from consideration because it could be misinterpreted or implemented incorrectly. A health care bill passed by three House committees allows Medicare to reimburse doctors for voluntary counseling sessions about end-of-life decisions. But critics have claimed the provision could lead to death panels and euthanasia for seniors. The Senate Finance Committee is still working to complete a bill. quote: Reference to the bill... i have seen only one version.. the one Obama gave to Congress... You're going on record representing President Obama and the White House was the original source of the current version of the Bill being debated. Reality is the Bill is only now coming out of the Senate Finance committee. Any version you have prior to September 16th is gone, unless you think they will go back to committee. You may want to go back and refer to your "how a Bill becomes law" post. At least this version is only 223 pages. Maybe some more will actually read it. Is this the version you are basing your position? The much-ballyhooed, long-wrangled-over Baucus health care proposal , which meets many of the requirements President Obama has laid out for remaking an industry that accounts for about one-sixth of the American economy, is now public. Only to be wrangled over some more. Note - it's represented to "meet many of the requirements President Obama has laid out". It is NOT what Obama gave to Congress. Key: The bill closely resembles what Mr. Obama said he wanted, except that it does not include a new government insurance plan to compete with private insurers. What is does: Under the Baucus bill, insurers won�t be able to charge more if you are sick, but they will be able to charge more if you are older asking you to pay five times as much as a young invincible. (Under the House bill, HR3200, premiums for older customers are capped at twice what insurers bill younger Americans.) If you are a single parent, you pay 80 percent more than a single adult a pretty stiff penalty for single parenthood since children usually need substantially less health care. Finally, there is a 50 percent surcharge for smokers. I looked, I never asked for your "cause" I disagreed with your representing my opinion had one. You volunteered that "truth" was yours. I'm happy to be able to provide it for you.

SpinnerofTales -> RE: President Of New York State Politics (9/21/2009 5:05:27 PM)
Oh....I'm sorry. I thought that this thread was about the President and New York Politics. I feel just as if I'd walked into the lady's room by mistake.

tazzygirl -> RE: President Of New York State Politics (9/21/2009 5:07:35 PM)
No, i am not basing my responses upon anything Baucus is pushing forward. Im referring to the HR 3200, the almost 1100 page bill. The link has been posted over and over on the P&R boards.

Mercnbeth -> RE: President Of New York State Politics (9/21/2009 5:46:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl No, i am not basing my responses upon anything Baucus is pushing forward. Im referring to the HR 3200, the almost 1100 page bill. The link has been posted over and over on the P&R boards. See now - that's why I asked which Bill. Glad we cleared that up. Can a Bill be debated in the Senate without first coming out of Senator Baucus' committee? So will the one you've been focusing on go back to Baucus committee and the Committee's work abandoned, or will the Baucus Bill replace the one you've spent all your time? BTW - what happened to the issue of the 'death panels'? Was Yahoo lying?

tazzygirl -> RE: President Of New York State Politics (9/21/2009 5:58:43 PM)
5 SEC. 1233. ADVANCE CARE PLANNING CONSULTATION. 6 (a) MEDICARE.— 7 (1) IN GENERAL.—Section 1861 of the Social 8 Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395x) is amended— 9 (A) in subsection (s)(2)— 10 (i) by striking ‘‘and’’ at the end of 11 subparagraph (DD); 12 (ii) by adding ‘‘and’’ at the end of 13 subparagraph (EE); and 14 (iii) by adding at the end the fol15 lowing new subparagraph: 16 ‘‘(FF) advance care planning consultation (as 17 defined in subsection (hhh)(1));’’; and 18 (B) by adding at the end the following new 19 subsection: 20 ‘‘Advance Care Planning Consultation 21 ‘‘(hhh)(1) Subject to paragraphs (3) and (4), the 22 term ‘advance care planning consultation’ means a con23 sultation between the individual and a practitioner de24 scribed in paragraph (2) regarding advance care planning, 25 if, subject to paragraph (3), the individual involved has 1 not had such a consultation within the last 5 years. Such 2 consultation shall include the following: 3 ‘‘(A) An explanation by the practitioner of ad4 vance care planning, including key questions and 5 considerations, important steps, and suggested peo6 ple to talk to. 7 ‘‘(B) An explanation by the practitioner of ad8 vance directives, including living wills and durable 9 powers of attorney, and their uses. 10 ‘‘(C) An explanation by the practitioner of the 11 role and responsibilities of a health care proxy. 12 ‘‘(D) The provision by the practitioner of a list 13 of national and State-specific resources to assist con14 sumers and their families with advance care plan15 ning, including the national toll-free hotline, the ad16 vance care planning clearinghouses, and State legal 17 service organizations (including those funded 18 through the Older Americans Act of 1965). 19 ‘‘(E) An explanation by the practitioner of the 20 continuum of end-of-life services and supports avail21 able, including palliative care and hospice, and bene22 fits for such services and supports that are available 23 under this title. 1 ‘‘(F)(i) Subject to clause (ii), an explanation of 2 orders regarding life sustaining treatment or similar 3 orders, which shall include— 4 ‘‘(I) the reasons why the development of 5 such an order is beneficial to the individual and 6 the individual’s family and the reasons why 7 such an order should be updated periodically as 8 the health of the individual changes; 9 ‘‘(II) the information needed for an indi10 vidual or legal surrogate to make informed deci11 sions regarding the completion of such an 12 order; and 13 ‘‘(III) the identification of resources that 14 an individual may use to determine the require15 ments of the State in which such individual re16 sides so that the treatment wishes of that indi17 vidual will be carried out if the individual is un18 able to communicate those wishes, including re19 quirements regarding the designation of a sur sur20 rogate decisionmaker (also known as a health 21 care proxy). 22 ‘‘(ii) The Secretary shall limit the requirement 23 for explanations under clause (i) to consultations 24 furnished in a State— 1 ‘‘(I) in which all legal barriers have been 2 addressed for enabling orders for life sustaining 3 treatment to constitute a set of medical orders 4 respected across all care settings; and 5 ‘‘(II) that has in effect a program for or6 ders for life sustaining treatment described in 7 clause (iii). 8 ‘‘(iii) A program for orders for life sustaining 9 treatment for a States described in this clause is a 10 program that— 11 ‘‘(I) ensures such orders are standardized 12 and uniquely identifiable throughout the State; 13 ‘‘(II) distributes or makes accessible such 14 orders to physicians and other health profes15 sionals that (acting within the scope of the pro16 fessional’s authority under State law) may sign 17 orders for life sustaining treatment; 18 ‘‘(III) provides training for health care 19 professionals across the continuum of care 20 about the goals and use of orders for life sus21 taining treatment; and 22 ‘‘(IV) is guided by a coalition of stake23 holders includes representatives from emergency 24 medical services, emergency department physi25 cians or nurses, state long-term care associa- 1 tion, state medical association, state surveyors, 2 agency responsible for senior services, state de3 partment of health, state hospital association, 4 home health association, state bar association, 5 and state hospice association. There is more. But, i will allow you to make the determination for yourself. You are an intelligent man.

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

6.298828E-02