Let me get this straight re: Health Plan

[Fly Rod]

We're going to pass a health care plan written by a committee whose head says he doesn't understand it, passed by a Congress that hasn't read it but exempts themselves from it, signed by a president that also hasn't read it, and who smokes, with funding administered by a treasury chief who didn't pay his taxes, overseen by a surgeon general who is obese, and financed by a country that's nearly broke.


What possibly could go wrong?

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Fly Rod

We're going to pass a health care plan written by a committee whose head says he doesn't understand it, passed by a Congress that hasn't read it but exempts themselves from it, signed by a president that also hasn't read it, and who smokes, with funding administered by a treasury chief who didn't pay his taxes, overseen by a surgeon general who is obese, and financed by a country that's nearly broke.


What possibly could go wrong?

yup, and now it will be named after and pushed for a vile, obese, alcoholic, misogynistic, child of privledge for whom every rule was bent, who supported and engorged every government program that is now on the verge of collapse ..... BRILLIANT!

[justplugit]

What are they saying, "do it for Ted"?????

That has to be the most illogical thinking i have ever heard.

[spence]

Originally Posted by scottw

yup, and now it will be named after and pushed for a vile, obese, alcoholic, misogynistic, child of privledge for whom every rule was bent, who supported and engorged every government program that is now on the verge of collapse ..... BRILLIANT!

Of course, that's just your opinion.

-spence

[Fly Rod]

The medical bill will not pass naming the bill after him.

People in the mid west or the west coast do not care about Teddy.

[buckman]

Originally Posted by Fly Rod

We're going to pass a health care plan written by a committee whose head says he doesn't understand it, passed by a Congress that hasn't read it but exempts themselves from it, signed by a president that also hasn't read it, and who smokes, with funding administered by a treasury chief who didn't pay his taxes, overseen by a surgeon general who is obese, and financed by a country that's nearly broke.


What possibly could go wrong?

Yes, they will pass it with what you describe..but they won't pass it with Ted's name attached to it....You people are kidding right... They don't give a sh$t what any of you think.They know what's best for you. Don't you get that part yet?

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

Of course, that's just your opinion.

-spence

opinion based in fact...well, I left out treasonous...this being a healthcare thread and all...

first reported on December 8, 2003:

One of the documents, a KGB report to bosses in the Soviet Communist Party Central Committee, revealed that “In 1978, American Sen. Edward Kennedy requested the assistance of the KGB to establish a relationship” between the Soviet apparatus and a firm owned by former Sen. John Tunney (D-Ca.). KGB recommended that they be permitted to do this because Tunney's firm was already connected with a KGB agent in France named David Karr. This document was found by the knowledgeable Russian journalist Yevgenia Albats and published in Moscow's Izvestia in June 1992.

Another KGB report to their bosses revealed that on March 5, 1980, John Tunney met with the KGB in Moscow on behalf of Sen. Kennedy. Tunney expressed Kennedy’s opinion that “nonsense about ‘the Soviet military threat’ and Soviet ambitions for military expansion in the Persian Gulf… was being fueled by [President Jimmy] Carter, [National Security Advisor Zbigniew] Brzezinski, the Pentagon and the military industrial complex.”

Kennedy offered to speak out against President Carter on Afghanistan. Shortly thereafter he made public speeches opposing President Carter on this issue. This document was found in KGB archives by Vasiliy Mitrokhin, a courageous KGB officer, who copied documents from the files and then defected to the West. He wrote about this document in a February 2002 paper on Afghanistan that he released through the Cold War International History Project of the Woodrow Wilson Center.

Tim Sebastian, a reporter for the London Times, found contemporaneous KGB documentation and published a story in February of 1992 of an additional communiqué by Ted Kennedy to the Soviet intelligence agency through Tunney. Full text of the letter from the appendix of Paul Kengor’s book The Crusader: Ronald Reagan and the Fall of Communism can be found here.

This time it was President Reagan in Kennedy’s crosshairs as he attempted to arrange a meeting between Kennedy and General Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union Yuri Andropov.

In this May 14, 1983, letter written by underling Viktor Chebrikov to Andropov, he relayed Kennedy’s offer to meet, Chebrikov explaining that Kennedy blamed poor American-Soviet relations not on the Communist country, but on President Reagan. According to Chebrikov’s letter, Kennedy said he wanted to stop Reagan’s re-election effort in 1984.

Chebrikov’s letter also claimed that Kennedy was “very impressed” with Andropov and that Kennedy was reaching out to the Soviets to thwart Reagan’s forceful defense policies. Kennedy suggested the Soviets reach out specifically to Barbara Walters and Walter Cronkite to counter in the American media what he said Kennedy considered Reagan “propaganda.”

Chebrikov's letter to Andropov also stated that Kennedy himself had offered to travel to Moscow to meet with Andropov if he would extend an invitation.

These revelations reported in 1992 suggest insight into a man so obsessed with the acquisition of personal political power that he would reach out to the communist Soviet Union for help in undermining not one but two American presidents, one from his own political party.

I guess when you are a Kennedy, these things get overlooked...

[spence]

Originally Posted by scottw

opinion based in fact...well, I left out treasonous...this being a healthcare thread and all...

From "documents smuggled out of the former Soviet Union?"



-spence

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

From "documents smuggled out of the former Soviet Union?"



-spence

We all know how devious the "former Soviet Union" was, but what you're implying here raises its level of devious to unheard of heights of brilliance. Are we to assume that you mock the veracity of these documents because the Old Soviets planted stories about Teddy making nice with them, kept these docs hidden within their iron curtain so that they could be "smuggled" out to later smear an opponent of their greatest opponent (Ronald Reagan) . . . so that . . .ugh . . . well, who knows what motivated that "riddle wrapped in a mystery inside of an enigma" that Churchill called Russia to craft this supreme ruse?

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Are we to assume that you mock the veracity of these documents because the Old Soviets planted stories about Teddy making nice with them, kept these docs hidden within their iron curtain so that they could be "smuggled" out to later smear an opponent of their greatest opponent (Ronald Reagan) . . . so that . . .ugh . . . well, who knows what motivated that "riddle wrapped in a mystery inside of an enigma" that Churchill called Russia to craft this supreme ruse?

You talk about the event like it's a wrote fact.

-spence

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

You talk about the event like it's a wrote fact.

-spence

Of course, facts ARE before they are written. The writing only informs those that don't know. Of course, not all writing is true. Neither is all writing false. I don't know if the docs are true. The fact that there is more than one source cited to similar events adds credibility. If they are true, what would you think then? Would you simply say "who cares?" It is wrote fact that these docs, true or not, exist. They are cited to former KGB. If they actually were smuggled out of the Soviet Union archives, then, either the Kennedy events DID happen, or, the Soviets concocted the brilliant deviousness to an unknown end to which I referred. If the docs were never in the Soviet archives, then somebody else has concocted a nefarious and multi-collaborated plot, a mini-conspiracy, that was so hushed, that we are just now getting to hear about it. The best way, of course, to sweep away embarrasing "facts" is to ignore them. Cast a quick, unsubstantiated suspicion their way and move on.

[spence]

From what I understand there was a single document uncovered by a UK reporter in the former Soviet Union, and his story was referenced in a book.

It's never been officially vetted, aside from some person involved having some other people look at it and they think it looks quite real.

And that's enough of an iron clad case to be accusing the man of treason on his death bed?

I wonder how many times you've cursed Dan Rather...come on now, be honest.

-spence

[scottw]

a Philadelphia news outlet did ask Kennedy for a statement, there was no denial by Kennedy nor his staff of the existence or validity of the document, they instead questioned the "interpretation" of the document, being a liberal democrat is never having to say you are sorry for undermining your own country...I have no doubt that this is perfectly acceptable and defensable among the Kennedy admirers...

Spence, you will remember that the liberal media and elites rallied around Rather and bestowed awards on the rat...

[spence]

Originally Posted by scottw

a Philadelphia news outlet did ask Kennedy for a statement, there was no denial by Kennedy nor his staff of the existence or validity of the document, they instead questioned the "interpretation" of the document, being a liberal democrat is never having to say you are sorry for undermining your own country...I have no doubt that this is perfectly acceptable and defensable among the Kennedy admirers...

The old "prove a negative" argument...sort of like saying that because the meeting between Atta and Iraqi agents in Prague hasn't been completely shot down, there's a chance it still could have happened.

A lot of hearsay in your argument. Perhaps there's a good reason why nobody seemed to care.

-spence

[scottw]

more likely, noone was surprised...

[justplugit]

Getting back to HC, Secretary of HHS, Kathleen Sibelius
says we should plan HC asking the question, "What would Teddy do."

Brilliant thinking.

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by justplugit

Getting back to HC, Secretary of HHS, Kathleen Sibelius
says we should plan HC asking the question, "What would Teddy do."

Brilliant thinking.

Moronic.

[buckman]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

Moronic.

You said it JD.
" Do it for Teddy" , don't they realize he was the butt of jokes for most outside the people that voted for him.

[Joe]

Originally Posted by justplugit

What are they saying, "do it for Ted"?????

That has to be the most illogical thinking i have ever heard.

Illogical yes, but passage of legislation after the death of a political figure who supported it is not without precedence. The assassination of President Kennedy in November 1963 contributed to the passage of civil rights legislation four months later.

[spence]

To be honest, in this instance it's not that contrived. Kennedy was clearly one of the most influential Senators of our time and highly regarded by both sides of the aisle. Health care coverage for all Americans was one of, if not his greatest ambition.

That being said, attaching the Bill to his name isn't going to make it any more palatable for the average voter. Obama still hasn't made the case for sustainable cost cuts.

-spence