HuffPost Social News

Newsmonger's Comments (18)

View Comments:   Sort:
Left, Right & Center: CEO Pay, Public Option, Obama vs. Fox, Saving Journalism

Left, Right & Center: CEO Pay, Public Option, Obama vs. Fox, Saving Journalism

Commented Oct 24, 2009 at 13:50:24 in Politics

“That is democracy in its finest. If the public holds majority share in a company, their voice should be heard as well, if the companies do not like it that way, they can buy the public out of the company.

He who pays the piper dictates the tunes.”
Kyl Hit with Local Ads Showing His No-Need-For-Maternity-Care Statement

Kyl Hit with Local Ads Showing His No-Need-For-Maternity-Care Statement

Commented Oct 05, 2009 at 14:02:57 in Politics

“To some extend in most of the existing insurances, women pay more...the copay for maternity care are always high.

e.g. my normal copay to see the doctor is $25; but the last time my wife gave birth, we paid about $250.00 as copay and the insurance company covered the rest.”
Obama Team Stops Another 9/11, Gets Help From Unlikely Source (Najibullah Zazi's Lawyer)

Obama Team Stops Another 9/11, Gets Help From Unlikely Source (Najibullah Zazi's Lawyer)

Commented Sep 26, 2009 at 22:10:11 in Denver

“The truth is the US either under Bush or Obama is fully equip to prevent these types of attacks. The only difference is during the Bush years, no one thought they will be so bold to carry out an attack of such a magnitude in the homeland, hence the warnings were not taken seriously then.

9/11 was a wake-up call for America, hopefully if we do not become complicent and go to sleep again, it will be very difficult for the enemy to do us harm again despite who is the commander-in-chief.”
Arianna Appears On

Arianna Appears On "Real Time with Bill Maher," Spars With Jack Kingston And Darrell Issa

Commented Aug 09, 2009 at 09:41:02 in Politics

“If the GOP do not want Government run programs, why stop at public options?

Let take away all government involvements e.g:

1. Tax breaks for businesses.
2. Subsidies for business & companies.
3. Medicaid
4. Medicare
5. Social Security.
6. Research funds to Science Programs.
7. Research funds to Big Pharma.

etc! etc!! etc!!!”

liveinhope23 replied on Aug 09, 2009 at 10:39:30

“Yes - they should also realize that would also include closing down the police, the fire departments and the military.
Come to think of it, isn't the government a government run program?”

swimbiker replied on Aug 09, 2009 at 10:27:22

“Don't forget tax exemptions for churches.”

truthkills09 replied on Aug 09, 2009 at 10:17:41

“this is what I'm talking about.....­..Get rid of all of it.....Tax­es are only needed for Defense,Public Schooling,­Police,FBI­,etc......­Roads,High­ways,Bridg­es........­.and each state should be run separately,so we can find out who does it the best.....t­he states should be making their own rules on Social Issues(anything not covered in the Constituti­on)....Thi­s is how our forefathers wanted it”

truthkills09 replied on Aug 09, 2009 at 10:12:01

“yes...it all must go....tax cuts are the reversal of socialism.­...subsidi­es are terrible(if you cant do it alone...by­e bye business).­...social security was the biggest mistake ever...pay $100,000..­.and take $500,000 (i wonder why its in trouble)..­..Big Business can fund their own research(obama thinks we live to long now)....I finally agree with a Liberal...­.Entitleme­nts,Price/­Rent Control,Re­gulation/D­eregulatio­n.....all destroy the economy,and the middle class.....­I would opt out of social security if I could....(­they would have to give me the money I put in so far)...I will invest that 8% myself....­I don't need the government to be mediocre..­..I need LESS government ..to be rich”

AlexNYC replied on Aug 09, 2009 at 10:05:07

“8. Health benefits for elected officials in the Congress and Senate.”
New Rule: Smart President ≠ Smart Country

New Rule: Smart President ≠ Smart Country

Commented Aug 08, 2009 at 09:18:21 in Comedy

“Simply put, the main reason we are becoming dumber is because we are becoming lazy by the day.

The average America gets his news either from Hannity or Keith; they are satisfied with those opinions without doing further research, that is our problem.

We are also dumb because we do not listen to contrary opinions. It is a sign of strength to listen to what your opponent have to say. It is the height of weakness, insecurity to shut your opponent down, refuse to listen to him, etc.”
The Constitution Says Obama Can't Be President.  And Neither Could Reagan.

The Constitution Says Obama Can't Be President. And Neither Could Reagan.

Commented Aug 04, 2009 at 10:53:26 in Politics

“The requirement to be a President was very clear by the framers of the constitution and they are just three requirements and one exception:

Requirements:
1. Must be natural born.
2. Must be at least age 35.
3. Must have resided in the US for at least 14 yrs.

Exception:
Since not all the framers of the constitution were natural born citizens at that time; we all knew they were from Europe and they obtained their citizenship here in America, something like the naturalization process of INS today. They then include an exception to requirment number 1.

i.e.

Or Must be a citizen at the time of the adoption of the constitution.

Now since all the framers of the consitution have passed, no one can qualify to be President based on the exception.”
The Constitution Says Obama Can't Be President.  And Neither Could Reagan.

The Constitution Says Obama Can't Be President. And Neither Could Reagan.

Commented Aug 04, 2009 at 08:52:44 in Politics

“Chris Kelly,

I have to disagree with you. Do your research very well. Obama is a natural born citizen and as such qualify to be the President.

It is clear that the Framers viewed both those born within the territory of the United States (jus soli) and those born of a US Citizen abroad (jus sanguinus) as "natural born" citizens.

Obama was born in Hawaii, a US State...th­at allows him to be President by "jus soli".

By the way, there is the comparison between the Obama forged birth certificate and a copy of an Austrialian Birth certificate that appear to be the source of the forgery:

http://img232.imageshack.us/img232/9981/kenyaaussiobamamatch.jpg
The Constitution Says Obama Can't Be President.  And Neither Could Reagan.

The Constitution Says Obama Can't Be President. And Neither Could Reagan.

Commented Aug 03, 2009 at 19:12:03 in Politics

“Even if none his parents were US citizens as long as he is born on US soil, he is a natural born citizen along as his parent as subject to the jurisdiction of the US at the time he was born.; this exclude children of diplomats who are born in the US.”
The Constitution Says Obama Can't Be President.  And Neither Could Reagan.

The Constitution Says Obama Can't Be President. And Neither Could Reagan.

Commented Aug 03, 2009 at 19:10:10 in Politics

“It baffles me how people cannot intepret this simple constitutional requirement or do some reading on it before wring articles or responding to on:

The framers of the constitution had two set of people in mind when they drafted that clause.

1. Natural Born - Though they did not provide what this meant, but common law & cases law have determined that, it means if you are borned on US soil, it has nothing to do with the citizenship of your parents. And yes, any child born in the US to two illegal immigrats is a natural born citizen, except children of diplomats offcourse. if you have something that proved otherwise, please post it.

2. British or other foreigners who were in position of power then, but were not borned in the United States was covered by the second part of that statement. The are also eligible to be President despite the fact that they were not natural born. Since they have all died; you can only become President by been born in the US.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural-born_citizen”

ariveria replied on Aug 03, 2009 at 19:35:15

“so neither candidate in the last election was a natural born citizen

it must be nice to post a reference that disagrees with your points.

do you think you can find a reference that agrees with your points”
President's Field Team Targets Blue Dogs' Districts Over Health Care Battle

President's Field Team Targets Blue Dogs' Districts Over Health Care Battle

Commented Aug 01, 2009 at 10:08:25 in Politics

“We should at least understand the predicament these BlueDog face.

A greater % of the motive behind every congressman's vote is his or her constituent; they want to win the next election and it is only the people at the district that have the power to either vote them in or vote them out.

These are or suppose to be Republican Districts that should have gone to Republicans. That was why when Rahm Emanuel was recruiting from these district, he looked for people that will appeal to the conservative base and that was why Democrats won those districts. These Districts are toss-up districts, BlueDogs want to appeal to their conservative base and still be seen as working with the democrats.

We should understand that every democrat in congress cannot vote like chuck schumer in NY. Chuck's base is ultra liberal, but not every liberal have that type of level playing field.

My conclusion on the BlueDogs is; they want to pass the health care bill; but they also want to present themselves as conservative to their base and also to be seen as been concern about the cost.

No matter what liberals do or how many attack ads they run in those districts; there are not enough voting democrats that will affect the elections of these BlueDogs one way or the other. We even run a greater risk of discouraging enough democrats in these districts from voting for the BlueDogs, thereby ensuring that the districts return to Republicans.”

strangelet replied on Aug 01, 2009 at 15:41:48

“You contradict yourself. There may not be enough voting Democrats in some of these districts to *elect* a Dog; but there are certainly enough to affect their election "one way of the other" -- specifically, to cause them to lose by not voting for them.

I understand the electoral predicament some of them are in, but if they will not support the Democratic Party position on at least some major issues, it is irrelevant whether or not they are called "Democrats". If such is the case, Rahm's strategy was misguided, and we would be better off if there seats*were* filled by Republicans, who could at least be marginalized.”

juhar replied on Aug 01, 2009 at 13:35:07

“I could be more understanding with healthcare. I can't possibly consider believing the sincerity of the "compassionate conservative" message without it.”

17ladyslippers replied on Aug 01, 2009 at 12:39:34

“My conclusion on the Blue Dogs is: they couldn't have been elected as Republicans and went to Plan B. They are not doing the work of the VOTERS that ELECTED them - their constituents. And, now they owe the corporations because of the BIG money that has gone to them and the Republicans to derail Real Health Insurance Reform.”

who38 replied on Aug 01, 2009 at 10:30:57

“Jane Harmon lives in a "liberal" district and does not need to present hwerself as so "fiscally conservative" that she cannot support health care. Jane, like many Blue Dogs, is a mouthpiece for various special interest groups. Big pharma and big insurance do not want health care reform so Jane doesn't want it either.”
huffingtonpost entry

Help Me Fight for a Public Option

Commented Jul 24, 2009 at 08:25:03 in Politics

“Listen people, Republicans & Democrats!

Lets stop deciding ourselve, if the healt care bill passed or not..

We already have a "Public Option" Health in this country and it is called the "Emergency Room". The taxpayers have been funding this public option for the longest time and guess, what? It is the most expensive Public Option anyone can think of...

The last time I checked, the emergency room do not turn anyone away.

So we either passed a public option where everyone have coverage and they also pay their share into the system or we wait and when they go to the emergency room, they will get all the care & will not pay a dime!

The case in FL comes to mind, where a hospital have spend almost $1.5 million caring for an illegal immigrate from Guadamela; in an attempt to cut their lost; they arranged with a relative in Guatemala who agreed to take the guy; the hospital then chartered a flight for $30,000.00 and took this guy back to his country. The hospital is now been sued for $1.0 million in FL for neglecting to care for this guy...gues­s what?

Now what wrong had the Hospital done? They discontinued an illegal immigrate's "public option". They are already out $1.5 million + $30,000.00 + attorney fees; add another likely $1.0 million to that tally.

Who do you think will pay the Hospital back?..you guess it? me & you - the taxpayers.”

EdgedInBlue replied on Jul 24, 2009 at 15:04:36

“You do understand, don't you, that hospitals are required only to stabilize your condition prior to releasing you. That even if you don't have insurance, they still bill you? If you don't pay, public taxes don't pay, they either take it to collections or they write it off as a loss.

Most importantly do you understand that while you can go into an emergency room with a broken arm and they will stabilize that broken arm prior to referring you to an orthopedic specialist, you CANNOT walk into a hospital and say "I have cancer, treat me". Cancer, unless far enough advanced to to point of imminent death, is not an emergency. It is a long term, debilitating disease that may or may not result in your death.

And, just as an added bonus, could you provide a referring link to a document when citing public events, such as the Honduran who cost a hospital $1.5 million? Thanks ever so.”
huffingtonpost entry

Help Me Fight for a Public Option

Commented Jul 24, 2009 at 07:54:52 in Politics

“You clearly missed the point....p­eriod!

What your wife is drawing from is S ocial Secu rity disability insu rance....N­ot everyone will become disable like your wife, so someone somewhere is paying into the system that will not collect a dime!

It is the same way the Auto Insur ance works...le­t assume you bought a brand new honda car for say $25,000.00 today and pays an insur ance premium of say $300.00 every month. The fact that you total the car in two months time after paying a premium of only $600.00 and the insu rance company is left to payoff almost $24,000.00 does not mean the insur ance company has lost money. Insurance companies still make alot of money today, because just like your wife and the above car owner, not everyone will be in a position to get paid.

If soci al sec urity is managed efficiently, it is an insurance system that will last for a very long time.”
huffingtonpost entry

Help Me Fight for a Public Option

Commented Jul 24, 2009 at 07:52:31 in Politics

“You clearly missed the point..per­iod!

What your wife is drawing from is Social Security disability insurance.­...Not everyone will become disable like your wife, so someone somewhere is paying into the system that will not collect a dime!

It is the same way the Auto Insurance works...le­t assume you bought a brand new honda car for say $25,000.00 today and pays an insurance premium of say $300.00 every month. The fact that you total the car in two months time after paying a premium of only $600.00 and the insurance company is left to payoff almost $24,000.00 does not mean the insurance company has lost money. Insurance companies still make alot of money today, because just like your wife and the above car owner, not everyone will be in a position to get paid.

If social security is managed efficiently, it is an insurance system that will last for a very long time.”

twogunmojo replied on Jul 24, 2009 at 09:31:26

“so in 20 years she will draw real ss along with her ssd....how will you pay for half the country...­..”

GoodConservative replied on Jul 24, 2009 at 08:25:00

“Who do you expect will manage it efficiently?”
Lou Dobbs Demands to See Proof of Obama Conception

Lou Dobbs Demands to See Proof of Obama Conception

Commented Jul 24, 2009 at 01:26:48 in Comedy

“Have you heard of "Opposition Research"? Each Presential Campaign have at least one team fully dedicated to that!

Believe me, if there was anything remotely close to that, Hillary or the GOP would have unearthed it during the Campaign. That was a sure way for to win...

Also, if there was another birth certificate somewhere we would have known about it. In discovery, you cannot be forced to produce what you do not have. You simply state in the reply to the discovery that you do not have it; the onus will then shift to the other side.”
Sarah Palin Resigning as Alaska's Governor (VIDEO)

Sarah Palin Resigning as Alaska's Governor (VIDEO)

Commented Jul 05, 2009 at 07:36:45 in Politics

“If the threat to sue meets a stubborn defendant, then they will have too much on their hands than they originaly bargained for.

The best thing the Palin side could do, is to ignore the situation because with that, if there is nothing about it, it is going to die away quickly.

Threating to sue people and even suing anyone, gives the story a new life of its own.

They should also remember that the defendant have the right of discovery in other to get materials that they will use to defend themselves.

Do Palin's Attorney really want the Bloggers, NewsPapers, etc to have access to every and anything Palin's? Believe me, alot of news organizations will loved to be sued if only they can get their hands through discovery on information and had until now been private. Moreso, cases that borders on free speech are very delicate and will make it all the way the the highest court of the land and will many interested parties e.g. ACLU, the Press, etc will join the case along the line; do the Palin want to really take on this huge task?”

bbriani3842 replied on Jul 05, 2009 at 09:34:13

“Just ask Bill O'Reilly. . .he really helped out a certain newly elected Senator from Minnesota!”

greatblue replied on Jul 05, 2009 at 09:02:46

“And Palin would have to prove damage to her reputation. Since everything regarding her reputation is relevant, there is really no limit to what could be discoverable if she is stupid enough to file a defamation suit.”
huffingtonpost entry

All 13 Democrats are voting for new HELP health care bill

Commented Jul 02, 2009 at 13:24:18 in Politics

“You can't get 100% coverage; even you pay ppl to get it, there some ppl that will reject it.”

amdan replied on Jul 02, 2009 at 13:32:15

“What do you mean "You Can't". Germany, Denmark, Norway, Sweden and on and on and on has 100% literacy health care, social services.

So again W T F?”
Obama Wins One For the Gipper

Obama Wins One For the Gipper

Commented May 18, 2009 at 10:48:27 in Politics

“You can only change people's mind through God's grace. Enacting a law will not solve the problem. God would have chose to use his almighty power to make human beings obey his commands; but he instead chose to send Jesus who when he arrived on the scene did not do anything to change the policies of the government of his day but he changed people live by preaching love & reaching out in grace.”

Suny replied on May 18, 2009 at 14:09:37

“BTW, after a lifetime in Catholic schools that never imposed Catholicism on the whole student body, I was an Anglican (Episcopalian) who actually chose to convert to Catholicism as an adult, precisely because of the "universal" inclusiveness of the church. So, my family and I struggled but stayed with the church despite the sex scandals..­.refusing to condemn all for the sins of a group. But then came 2004: I was sickened by elders strutting around with large Bush-Cheney buttons in Church, even as the death tolls rose daily in Iraq and the was not a hint of concern from the pulpit. As the election drew closer, being greeted by life size posters of fetuses and plastic models of a uterus, literally at the Church door, every Sunday and being handed the "Good Catholic's Voter Guide " were the straws that broke this camel's back. My family and I left left the Catholic church, returning to the Episcopalian Church that is pro choice and pro life, except that it promotes value of Life, even more so after it is born, rather than pick and choose or judge which life is more worthy based upon material or political advantage.”
The Choice Is Ours Now

The Choice Is Ours Now

Commented Dec 23, 2008 at 08:55:07 in Entertainment

“Well said.
I think the Gay community should be measured in their response. They should not be seen as over-playing their hands or seen as pushing the President-elect in one or another.

Agreed they contributed to him becoming elected, but they should be cautious and not overblown their contribution. The state where they have the most influence was California; I believe a democrat can carry that state any day any time. I am not in anyway trying to diminishing their contribution. They should realize that there are other interest groups who far outnumbered the gay community that also contributed.

They should be happy that, for a very long time and for the next 4/8 years they have someone who beliefs in equal rights to all and he will not do anything to jeopardize their rights. They should be happy that they have an important voice that will make a contribution in their favor whenever a national or international Gay right's is the topic.

They should also realize that a lot of Christians voted for Obama, even some Christians from Rick’s congregation. The recent financial crises have thought us that, we are one people and one nation and we rise and fall together. We have seen how foreclosures in far away towns came across multiple time zones and crippled Wall Street in NYC.

Lets come together, find our commonality and work to enact laws that protects/progresses our common objectives while we sort our differences.”

JayJonson replied on Dec 23, 2008 at 09:02:33

“How patronizing and uninformed. Sorry, we are not going to shut up. When Obama runs for reelection in 2012 promising to get our troops out of Iraq and to end DADT, enact ENDA, include gays in hate crimes legislation, and repeal DOMA, that will sound all too familiar. I for one will keep my checkbook closed.”