1. Hello Ragnar,

Just to be correct, I think Nancy called you mean. I called you a sanctimonous jerk. Anyhow, here is the latest exerpt from Yahoo news:

"....On Sunday, House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, said he hopes that Democrats will agree to negotiate once the veto is sustained so that the children's insurance program can be reauthorized.

"We will have the votes to sustain the president's veto," Boehner said. "And I think the differences are resolvable, but we're standing on our principle that poor kids ought to come first."

"Most people don't want government-run health insurance," he added. "Republicans are working on a plan that will provide access to all Americans to high-quality health insurance, make sure that we increase the quality of health insurance that we have in America."

Last week, Pelosi said Democrats were making some progress and hoped to "peel off about 14 votes" to override the veto. Republicans such as Sen. Charles Grassley of Iowa and Orrin Hatch of Utah, who sided with Democrats on the vetoed bill, also were working to sway wavering House GOP lawmakers.

On Sunday, Pelosi did not comment on the predicted vote tally.

"We'll take one step at a time. And, again, we'll maintain our bipartisanship and our fiscal soundness," she said. "And we'll talk to the president at the right time, when he makes an overture to do so, but not an overture that says, 'This is the only thing I'm going to sign.'"

Fratto said it was untrue that Bush had never sought compromise in the vetoed legislation, contending that Democrats had shut out administration officials in the original negotiations. House Democrats have countered that they had already compromised enough because they wanted $50 billion for the program but dropped it down to $35 billion to appease Senate Republicans.

"It is encouraging that Speaker Pelosi has expressed a willingness to find common ground," Fratto said Sunday.

Pelosi spoke on ABC's "This Week," and Hoyer and Boehner appeared on "Fox News Sunday...."

Email Story IM Story Printable View RECOMMEND THIS STORY
Featured IN YAHOO! NEWS

Now, to be totally correct. I said that I was not tied to a particular piece of legislation, I just want needy kids, the US Census has a definition of poverty, which defines poor. This is what leader Boehner said:

"
"We will have the votes to sustain the president's veto," Boehner said. "And I think the differences are resolvable, but we're standing on our principle that poor kids ought to come first."

So, since the pubbies, republicans to you, seem to be for the principle that poor kids should be covered, does this mean that you cut your weekly tithe and now consider donating to NARAL instead?

LOL

Posted by: WVH on October 14, 2007 04:45 PM

2. I noticed you didn't commit to CALL the Congress, as is the point of the post.

I guess it's easier to move your goal posts.
I guess it's easier to "stand" for something as long as that something gets to be changeable upon your whim.
I guess it's easier to think yourself principled instead of actually being principled.

As far as my donations, a good "Catholic" like you should know that we don't "tithe". My contributions are my own business, but I will say I favor Pregnancy Aid and Life Choices. It doesn't surprise me in the least that you would favor NO children over "poor" children.

Gee, now I know how fun it is when you purposely misconstrue words to suit your convenience.

Let's play again sometime, but NOW it's time for the grown-ups to influence a political agenda.

Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on October 14, 2007 05:15 PM

3. Hello Ragnar,

Another part of your persona which is missing is a sense of humor. As for the tithe, didn't you say that you made a weekly donation to the republican party? Wouldn't that be a tithe. Anyhow, here is the dictionary definition:

1.
a. A tenth part of one's annual income contributed voluntarily or due as a tax, especially for the support of the clergy or church.
b. The institution or obligation of paying tithes.
2. A tax or assessment of one tenth.
3.
a. A tenth part.
b. A very small part.

So, if you look at definition 3 a. & 3 b., doesn't your weekly check to the pubbies count? I'm assuming they are big checks which is why they put up with you.

Now, regarding phone calls to sustain the veto, as I have said many times, I am an indie. What you people do in the privacy of the senate and house chambers is up to you. I really don't care how the kids get covered, I just want them covered. So, since Boehner, unlike you, didn't leave his common sense at home, I expect that some sort of deal will be cut which will cover the poor kids. Oh, they will continue to take your tithe, donation, contribution, whatever and the leadership will cut deals because they don't want to get beat over the head with this one at the next election. The poor kids will be covered.

Still LOL.

Posted by: WVH on October 14, 2007 08:54 PM

4. You might find the following link of interest:

20 Archbishop May Drive, St. Louis, MO 63119-5738
erschen@archstl.org

FAQ?s about Tithing
What is tithing?

Why don?t we read about the tithe in the New Testament?

Is tithing still necessary in the Catholic Church today?

Why does the Church often refer to tithing as ?giving back??

Why can?t my parish just ask for my support when it has special needs?

Is anyone exempt from the tithe?

Tithing is such a great sacrifice? Are there any real benefits?

When I decide to work towards a tithe, should I be calculating it based on my gross or net income?

With our current financial obligations, I don?t know how it would be possible for us to convert to giving away a full 10%. Are there any other options?

Is it really such a horrible thing if I decide not to work towards giving a full tithe back to God?

Tithing is such a huge step. How can I find the courage to commit to this way of life?

Is there a simple way to know if I am truly tithing, without doing all the math?

What is tithing?
Tithing is the practice, established by God in the Old Testament, of returning 10% of your blessings to God. Originally the tithe was given to the temple or the Church in the form of produce or livestock, since this really was the only income that the people had. As our society shifted from a barter-based system of trade to a monetary exchange system, the tithe began to be paid in currency. Whether one gave monetary income or profit from the fields was really not as important as it was for the believer to understand that the tithe was what was owed to God. The tithe was not given based on the needs of the priests, of the Church or of the poor. It was given simply in recognition and gratitude for the blessings that God had bestowed on the individual. Thus, every believer had a need to tithe to God.

?The tithes of the herd and the flock shall be determined by ceding to the Lord as sacred every tenth animal as they are counted by the herdsman?s rod.? - Leviticus 27:32

back to questions?

http://www.archstl.org/stewardship/whatis/faq.html

Oh, by the way, you would like the Archbishop of St. Louis, he is your kid of guy, makes the Pope look like a wuss.

Just as you don't like Vatican II, there are different opinions, even in one denomination.
Goodness, you need a sense of humor, cuts down that high blood pressure thing.

Posted by: WVH on October 14, 2007 09:06 PM

5. Another fact: SCHIP is unconstitutional, as per the clear wording and intent of the Tenth Amendment.

Posted by: pudge on October 14, 2007 11:59 PM

6. Hey Pudge,

I really don't care whether they call it SCHIP or libertarian pubbies get the Constitutional shaft. All I care about is poor kids get covered. Your party and the dems will cut some sort of deal and the kids will get covered. So, your quarrel is really with your party. I'll watch as you devour yours and the Cindy Sheehan dems devour Pelosi for in their opinion, caving.

Posted by: WVH on October 15, 2007 12:39 AM

7. WVH:

I really don't care whether they call it SCHIP or libertarian pubbies get the Constitutional shaft. All I care about is poor kids get covered.

I know. And what's scary is that many more people, like you, also reject liberty.

Live Free or Die ... unless it is "for the children," I guess.

WVH: do me a favor: in my presence, NEVER complain about ANY law being broken. Ever. Because you can't complain about what you advocate for.

Posted by: pudge on October 15, 2007 08:03 AM

8. Hey Pudge,

Your view of the Constitution is accepted by you and some of your libertarian wacko friends. Never made Justice Bork might agree with you on a couple of points. The reason why your views are fringe just as the Cindy Sheehan dem wingnut view is fringe is because both ends of the spectrum have ideas that are unworkable when it comes to governing a country. Some kind of bucolic Jeffersonian ideal is what you think you are espousing. The world you want pretty much exists in your mind and no where else. I suspect that you and the rest of the libertarians including the Ron Paul cult are basically just dissatisfied most of the time. Pols of both parties will do what pols do and make compromises, some good, some bad, that is governance and it keeps things going. Admittedly, things aren't going the way you want and I don't accept your view and reading of the Constitution, so yes some things are legal and some illegal. Like it or not, what the people who actually make justice interpret as legal is what we use as the law.

Posted by: WVH on October 15, 2007 08:19 AM

9. "Speaker Pelosi says that for the cost of 41 days in Iraq, 10 million children can receive health insurance for a year... Cut-and run Democrats argue that it's an either/or proposition. The choice, they say, is between defense spending in general and funding the Iraq war in particular and expanding programs like the State Child Health Insurance Program beyond its original intent to meet a need largely already met by the private sector... Democrats such as Rep. David Obey of Wisconsin have proposed a separate 'war tax' to pay for the War on Terror. We have one: It's called the income tax, which began as a 2% levy only on the very rich, but which has morphed into an economy-strangling behemoth that finances an annual budget of $3,000,000,000,000 - that's three trillion dollars. Defense spending constituted only $528 billion of that budget in fiscal 2006 - or about 4% of gross domestic product. In 1953, during the Korean War, it hit a postwar high of 14.2% of GDP. In 1968, in the middle of Vietnam, it reached 9.5%. And in 1986, at the height of the Reagan buildup that doomed the evil empire, it was 6.8%. We're not spending too much on the military. We're spending too little to meet both the needs of the War on Terror and the rising threat of a nuclear Iran, not to mention dealing with the frantic pace at which both Russia and China are arming... The Preamble to the Constitution speaks of the need to 'provide for the common defence' and to 'promote the general welfare.' But 'promoting' doesn't mean providing. And while the Constitution speaks loudly on the structure of our armed forces and the role of Congress and commander in chief, it is silent on things like children's insurance. Democrats forget that the greatest social service that a government can perform for its people is to keep them alive and free." -Investor's Business Daily

"What the politicians are offering is for the massively indebted U.S. government to pay all the medical bills, no matter how small (and, of course, with money they don't have). It's not about health, but about sickness. And it is not insurance. Insurance is about major, unpredictable expenses. Our auto insurance (which we pay for ourselves) does not cover gas, oil, tires, maintenance and depreciation. So why do we keep electing leaders who keep running up bills that they can't pay, who borrow from the Chinese and pass the resulting debts to our children and grandchildren to pay? Because we want something paid for by someone else; that's what the politicians promise they can give us, and we keep believing them. In the end, it is we who are the fools. When are we going to wake up and acknowledge the obvious? We do not have the money to do these things. There is no 'somebody else.' We have to pay for these additional benefits ourselves if we want them." -- Bert McLachlan

"Public servants say, always with the best of intentions, 'What greater service we could render if only we had a little more money and a little more power.' But the truth is that outside of its legitimate function, government does nothing as well or as economically as the private sector. Yet any time you and I question the schemes of the do-gooders, we're denounced as being opposed to their humanitarian goals. It seems impossible to legitimately debate their solutions with the assumption that all of us share the desire to help the less fortunate. They tell us we're always 'against,' never 'for' anything." -- Ronald Reagan

Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on October 15, 2007 02:59 PM

10. WVH:

Your view of the Constitution is accepted by you and some of your libertarian wacko friends.

No, WVH. Everyone who studies it agrees. There is no debate. The only question among honest people who study it, is what to do about it. You're simply wrong.

And you are being dishonest. Not about that -- I accept that you don't know much about the Tenth Amendment, so you're not being dishonest there, really, except in that you seem to have a strong position about something you're admittedly uneducated about -- but you said before that you "really don't care whether ... libertarian pubbies get the Constitutional shaft."

YOU said you don't care what the Constitution says. So don't tell me now that any particular view of the Constitution matters, or doesn't matter, to you.

The world you want pretty much exists in your mind and no where else.

No, it mostly did exist before the Civil War, in fact, and for a little while after.

I suspect that you ... are basically just dissatisfied most of the time.

Well, you're being stupid. Shrug. I am one of the most positive and generally happy people you could meet.

Whatever. The next time a precious right of yours is abridged, I'll remind you of the fact that you said the the Constitution is unimportant. Right to free speech? Right to freedom of religion? Right to vote regardless of skin color? None of it matters, according to you. They are just words, and if society decides those rights are unworkable, then so be it: goodbye rights. According to you, that's OK, if there's a greater good involved, like helping children.

But even though you reject that your rights should be protected by the government, I will still stand up for your rights. You can count on me, WVH.

Posted by: pudge on October 15, 2007 03:52 PM

11. Well, Pudge glad that you are in my corner standing up for my rights. Still say that if the US Supremes don't reject Federalism, well, I'm not standing in the way of progress. And yes, it is for the children.

Ragnar, both sides are going to compromise on this one, so post copies of the letters you send to your leaders telling them what weasels you think they are.

Posted by: WVH on October 15, 2007 09:55 PM

12. Still say that if the US Supremes don't reject Federalism, well, I'm not standing in the way of progress. And yes, it is for the children.

And if the Supreme Court rejects suffrage for blacks? Free speech? For the children? Will you stand in the way of "progress" then?

When you lose Constitutional rights you cherish, you can only blame yourself, because you chose to favor illegally tossing away rights you don't cherish. When it happens, you will have no logical right whatsoever to complain about the Constitution or the law, because you've already decided that's not binding.

Posted by: pudge on October 16, 2007 08:20 AM

13. Hello Pudge,

The way it works is this Dred Scott introduced separate but equal, that was the law of the land until Brown and associated cases. Was it wrong, yes, but it was still the law. You like to use the term false comparisons, but yours really is because Blacks and women were found to have by interpretation of Constitutional rights and amendments to have full citizenship rights. Your interpretation of the federal system is your interpretation. No matter how wrong the Dred Scott decision was, it was still the law. Many of us think Roe is wrong, but guess what, it is the law. So, until five justices accept your interpretation of federalism, guess you will just have to be content with jawboning here.

Posted by: WVH on October 16, 2007 10:45 PM

14. The way it works is this Dred Scott introduced separate but equal, that was the law of the land until Brown and associated cases. Was it wrong, yes, but it was still the law.

Yes, it was wrong, and it was unconstitutional.

You like to use the term false comparisons, but yours really is because Blacks and women were found to have by interpretation of Constitutional rights and amendments to have full citizenship rights.

And this is different from the Tenth Amendment ... how?

Your interpretation of the federal system is your interpretation.

Yes. And it is also an indisputable fact regarding the intent of the Constitution and the Tenth Amendment. NO ONE seriously disputes that.

No matter how wrong the Dred Scott decision was, it was still the law.

Yes, an illegal law. There's lots of illegal laws.

Many of us think Roe is wrong, but guess what, it is the law.

Yes, an unconstitutional, and therefore illegal, law.

So, until five justices accept your interpretation of federalism, guess you will just have to be content with jawboning here.

So you don't believe our elected officials have an obligation to uphold the Constitution. That's good to know.

Note that the officials do not take an oath to uphold only those parts of the Constitution the Supreme Court has ruled on, nor do they take an oath to uphold powers the Supreme Court doesn't say they don't have. They take an oath to uphold the Constitution. But you apparently don't believe they are bound by that oath.

Posted by: pudge on October 17, 2007 08:54 PM

15. http://tinyurl.com/2utz9p

Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on October 18, 2007 09:59 AM

16. http://tinyurl.com/2utz9p

Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on October 18, 2007 09:59 AM

17. Hello Pudge and Ragnar,

Frankly, what I believe is not going to change the fact that five justices of the Supreme Court decide the rules that govern the country. So, unless you manage to get yourself on the Supreme Court and convince four other justices that you are correct, looks like you are stuck talking to me.

Ragnar,

Cute cartoon, but they are going to cut a deal and the kids will be covered. So, unless you get yourself elected, get into leadership, and start directing policy, like Pudge, you are stuck complaining to me and since I don't give any party a dime, I have zip, nada, no power. So, if you need ways to call your leadership a bunch of weasels for covering the kids, I can help you with clever insults.

Posted by: WVH on October 21, 2007 01:21 AM

18. WVH: I wonder if you realize how illogical you are?

Posted by: pudge on October 21, 2007 09:46 PM

19. WVH, I apologize, that was an unprodctive comment. Let me explain.

You would, surely, not have said the same things to me if I were arguing several decades ago that separate-but-equal were unconstitutional. And so I find it to be irrational that your argument against me rests on a standard you would not apply equally to other similar issues.

Posted by: pudge on October 21, 2007 10:15 PM

Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember info?