Nov 18, 2008

Cox continues to campaign for governor on the tax-payers dime


Michigan Attorney Mike Cox is continuing his gubernatorial campaign on the tax-payers dime with press conference across the state today to voice his opposition for a pair of House Bills aimed at reforming health coverage in the state.

This comes on the heels on news reported by subscription only MIRS and Gongwer that the House has reached a compromise on the legislation dealing with Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Michigan and the individual health insurance market. Months of work, compromise and committee hearings have gone into House Bills 5851 and 5853 known collectively as the Individual Market Reform package.

The bills, which are backed by Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan, would change and update the rules for individual health insurance coverage as more and more employers choose to end coverage for employees to cut costs. The individual health care market was once just a very small piece of the health insurance business, but it is growing larger fast as employers eliminate care.

Proponents of the bills say that, if passed, they would prevent insurance carriers from increasing rates for people who get sick during their coverage period, establish uniform criteria for all insurers and create a fair and competitive playing field for all consumers and insurers. Opponents say the bills would eliminate competition, increase costs and reduce access to health care.

Cox, who officially announced he was running for governor on Nov. 6, has been a vocal opponent of the package. Cox has been stealthily used the AG's office to campaign for governor shortly after he was re-elected in 2006, using public service announcements with well known spots figures, holding press conferences across the state like he plans today to address issues he has no business being involved in and doing what ever he can to get his name in front of voters.

The compromise was apparently worked out with just the House Democrats and Republicans, and it has not been run past Senate Republicans, who control that body. The package has a long history in the Legislature.

It was approved early in the House with bipartisan support on Oct. 24, 2007 and sent to the Senate where the Health Policy Committee held numerous hearings and introduced substitutes to the bills. The PR machine on both sides of the issue took off, flooding legislative offices with letters and emails.

Despite all of the committee hearings on the bills in the Senate, the Senate Republicans sprang their substitutes out of committee on the Senate floor without allowing Democrats even time to read the complex substitutes. The bills passed along party lines on May 1, 2008 and were then sent to the House for concurrence. The House, however, overwhelmingly rejected the Senate version by a vote of 79-26. A conference committee was named on Sept. 3 to iron out the differences between the two versions.

The compromise was worked out among the three members of the House part of the conference committee, but the three members from the Senate apparently have not seen the compromise. The House and Senate are on a two week break, and are not set to return until Dec. 6.

Any bills not sent to the governor for signature by the end of the Lame Duck session on Dec. 26 die and must be reintroduced in the new session that begins on Jan. 3.

46 comments:

Anonymous said...

I'm shocked. Shocked. Someone is using the attorney general's office for self-promotion? Someone might be using that office as a stepping stone to the governor's office?

Why that's shameful. It's never ever happened in Michigan before...at least not since the last attorney general.

What was her name again?

Communications guru said...

Obviously, this troll is referring to Gov. Jennifer Granholm being the former Michigan Attorney General. But I don't believe the AG's charge is to draft legislation. The AG is part of the executive branch of government, not the legislative. They serve as chief legal advisor to the state government and as the chief law enforcement officer. I don't see how advocating against a piece of legislation meets those missions.

Anonymous said...

So are you saying it would be wrong for an AG to advocate for or against a piece of legislation?

Communications guru said...

I'm saying it's not in their mission statement, at least officially, and holding press conferences across the state to do so makes no sense. He's an elected official. He's a leader of his party. Why doesn't he just get with the Senate Majority Leader to express his opinion. The majority leader is the only one that can allow a vote on the bills or even let it come out of committee. What's the point of holding a press conference, besides getting your name in the paper? Taking a personal opinion on pending legislation is one thing, holding press conferences seems to be another.

If Jennifer Granholm did the same thing she was wrong too.

Anonymous said...

Well, of course she did the same thing. And no one did it as well or as frequently as Frank Kelly, the eternal general.

But to your credit, you are holding them to the same standard, albeit belatedly.

I'm not sure I agree though. The AG is an intensely political position but it also has the opportunity to be a bully pulpit.

It would be nice if every campaign was conducted for solely for altruistic purposes with no thought of political gain. But that fantasy world doesn't exist.

As AG, Granholm used her office to go after a clothing store that targeted teens with provocative catalogues. Surely there were better ways to use her time and surely there was a political gain for her to get TV time and headlines in her campaign to keep our teens pure. But you could also say she was fighting a necessary fight...someone has to speak up for goodness, decency and common sense.

If politicians can speak only when they have no vested interest, then things are going to get mighty quiet.

Communications guru said...

Any examples of either Frank Kelly or Gov. Granholm doing what Cox did? I don't remember the clothing catalogue example you are using, and I might not agree with her stand. However, it would seem to fit the role of the AG as the chief law enforcement officer and consumer protection.

skebber said...

Hi..
Thank you for his all information..
this is info input to me..

Not anonymous said...

He just gave you the example of the clothing stores. I wonder why you think it's okday for her to do that for consumer protection, but you disagree with Cox's stand on consumer protection. The government has not run a business successfully yet with the exception of the military. I certainly don't want them taking over my health care.

Communications guru said...

He? Don’t you mean you, troll? Cox’s free publicity tour has nothing to do with consumer protection. This is pending legislation. It also has nothing to do with government health care. As for your government health care crack, no one is proposing a government take over of health care. If Cox wants to investigate a crime he should look into the fact that 47 million Americans do not have access to health care. That is a crime.

Not anonymous said...

Your facts are wrong. There are not 47 million Americans without health care. 17-20 million are illegal aliens. Not Americans. Your'e also wrong about government takeover of health care. Senator Kennedy returned to the Senate yesterday and said to camera's that he was looking forward to working with Obama on getting Universal Health Care. What's with the name calling? I didn't call you a name.

Communications guru said...

No, my facts are not wrong, troll. Now, the number may be higher than 47 million Americans because so many people are losing their jobs. However, the U.S. Census Bureau says it's 47 million. Plus, it's 47 million Americans, not illegal aliens. Here's a link:
http://www.cbpp.org/8-29-06health.htm

Good for President Obama and Sen. Kennedy. I can't wait to see their proposal for Universal Health Care. However, I am not aware of a current proposal out there.

I didn't call you a name. I called you what you are; an anonymous troll.

Anonymous said...

You see, you can't have a civil conversation with this guy. He resorts to name calling, juvenile taunts and banalities.

The clothing issue had to do with catalogues at Abercrombie & Fitch. The young but buff models were sexually appealing and she went on a very public campaign against them. Apparently while she was AG and Engler was gov, the most important problem she could find to solve was scantily clad models in clothing store catalogues. Really.

And you can't be serious about Kelly. He was famed for press conferences and press releases in which he bravely stood up for the consumer. Nothing wrong with that, although it surely was done with the idea of getting favorable press. As you said, he could have cracked down without making a spectacle of it. But he wanted the PR. His critics said he could have been spending some of that effort going after organized crime. His style worked politically. He was elected over and over and over again. He did try to leverage that popularity into a run for governor but he failed...badly, I believe.

You switch sides on arguments depending on whether you are attacking a Republican or defending a Democrat. In the same breath, you say there is no consumer issue at stake when Cox addresses health care; but you argue that it's a crime when someone doesn't have health care. It may well be a moral issue, but tell me...if you would..what law was broken. Cite your source with a link as well.

Communications guru said...

I don't get it. How is saying your name, name-calling. Also, when you say, "you can't have a civil conversation with this guy" who the hell are you talking to or about?

Great, can you tell me how her alleged position against Abercrombie and Fitch is advocating for a piece of Legislation pending before the House and Senate? It seems to me she is standing up for the consumer, and that is her statutory duty.

When was Frank Kelley holding press conferences across the state in a thinly disguised campaign for Governor? He ran for U.S. Senate in 1972 and lost, but I do not believe he ever ran for Governor. Right, Michigan has a huge organized crime problem. I don't have a problem with Cox calling a press conference in Lansing to announce accomplishments by the AG's office, new programs or consumer protection items, like the press conference he called to announce he was cheating on his wife, but traveling across the state to affect pending legislation is wrong. He is campaigning; pure and simple. Again, he could get with the Speaker of the House or the Senate Majority Leader, who is also a Republican if he has problems with the bills. No wait, he's running for governor, too.

You really had to twist that last paragraphs to try and make a point. Cox is not addressing health care; he is addressing pending legislation; that is not his job. I do believe it's a crime and immoral that 47 million Americans do not have health care. That crime is figureatevly not literately, troll.

Not anonymous said...

So you don't see that calling someone a "troll" is calling them a name. This is typical of a liberal. When they have no argument, they try to play word games and get angry and start calling others names. In your case, you got upset when anonymous used pedophilia as an example. He didn't even call you a name. He used it as an example of your position. It's funny, I don't see namecalling on conservative websites. You don't deal with the issues, you ignore other positions and start the namecalling. Very childish.

Communications guru said...

No, I don't see that as name calling. Anyone who posts continuously but remains anonymous is a troll to me. I used to post over on "Right Michigan" as Communications Guru, and I had to register to post there. I was still called a troll, and that was the tame stuff I was called.

If you want to stop being a troll, register with a screen name; not with my blog, of course, with Google.

I have also made it pretty clear what words I will not tolerate, and that's one of them. This is your last warning, troll. He/you did call me that word you will not use, not that it matters. A warning is a warning, and you/he continued to ignore them.

You don't see name calling on conservative websites? Are you serious? You're half right because they do not allow non-conservative posters. I suggest you go back and look at "Right Michigan" and see the name-calling I received before I was banned for giving back a little of what I received.

Not anonymous said...

If you don't want me posting as "Not Anonymous" then you should remove the ability to post with that name. I was warned that you like to "out" people that dare to disagree with you, so as long as it's permitted on your site, I will continue to post my name as "not anonymous". You may address me as "not" if you like, but if you use anything other than what I post my name as, you're name calling. I don't care what's been done to you, or what you claim has been done to you on other websites. You could choose to be above it but you obviously choose to be filled with hate. I am not Anonymous, I am "not anonymous". If that bothers you, then all I can say is that I won't lose any sleep over your fixation on a person's name.

Communications guru said...

Sorry, troll, you are anonymous. If people have something to say once in a while, they should be able to say it, but if you are going to post continuously, I don't understand why you don't choose a screen name. That screen name can be "not anonymous" if no one else has chosen it. But it will appear as that name all the time and you can't hide under another. I have no idea what the hell you are talking about. How do you "out" somebody?

Here's the thing, I can take being called names, but I was banned. I am not "filled with hate. You are the one who made the ridiculous claim that you don't see "namecalling on conservative websites" I won't lose any sleep either over your cowardice to even take ownership of what you write, anonymous troll.

Not anonymous said...

More hate speech from you. No wonder anonymous used that comparison. You can't be trusted around children.

Anonymous said...

First, I made a mistake. Unlike guru, I will own up to it. Frank ran for US Senate, not governor...but the point is still accurate. He often used his office to get positive press coverage. It worked when he ran for AG; it didn't help him in the senate race. And remember, I'm not criticizing Frank; I liked him and eagerly voted for him every election that I could.

To argue that BC/BS legislation has nothing to do with the consumer or health care is the height of lunacy.

To say that Granholm was standing up for the consumer is a bit of a stretch. Should she have been picketing Victoria's Secret as well for their risque' mannequins? These were catalogues for a clothing store, for gosh sakes. No one was pushing anything past consumers. If parents didn't want their kids in that store, they shouldn't have been paying the excessive prices for clothes that the store charged. If I recall, guru thought people who picketed Victoria Secret and the adult store in Brigton were rightwing bigots. But his precious governor is a consumer advocate because she treats a sales catalogue as though it were poronography? It was a publicity grab pure and simple...and it worked for her.

As for the name calling, etc. Guru has a short memory...or he hopes others do. Guru used to post on another site and he consistently lied about who he was. I can't recall all the details, but I think he was banned under his original name and came back under a different name. Every time someone called him out for who he was, he indignantly replied, "I am not Kevin." He also piously claimed that he never lied. Then he finally came clean...after it was clear to everyone..that he was indeed Kevin. No explanation for the longstanding deception. Typical.

He doesn't ban us because he needs the anonymous posters; otherwise there is no activity on his blog...other than the perverted dargo. I appreciate the comments from "not anonymous." It's clear that is someone other than the several "anonymous" posters. Doesn't matter to Guru.

Note...he has every right to ban any words he wants. He could ban "decency" and "honesty." It's his blog. But I and others have asked him several times to show where I accused him of a deviant act. He fails to even acknowledge that. Because, as Non Anonymous points out, my post was clearly an example of his twisted and unfair logic. It was not an accusation. But he uses it as a convenient red herring. Note he hasn't told dargo to quit his quite vulgar attacks. The difference: Dargo agrees with him.

Communications guru said...

First, anonymous troll, you are talking about yourself. Second, I haven’t used “hate speech.” Third, this is your last warning about using false, cowardly smears.

Not anonymous said...

Anonymous,

While I never voted for Frank Kelly, I think I should have in the later years. Not because Granholm got the position but rather because a politician that isn't in control of his own faculties and sits around drooling all of the time is far better than to have someone in there with an agenda. Now we have poliiticans that aren't in control of their own faculties but instead cater to special interest groups on both sides. The most important thing to them is their next election.

I didn't know that Guru's name was really Kevin. I didn't really care. I prefer talking about the issues but I've noticed that each time it degrades into name calling.

I was writing on here as anonymous but he started lumping all of us together as one. I think there were three of us. So I decided to use the name "Not anonymous" to clear up some of the confusion. It didn't matter. He still accuses us of being each other. I guess I could call myself Proud Republican but then I'd probably have to start writing down the names he'd call me and save them for later.

He is within his rights to ban us whether we call him names or not. I expect it of him. I've about run the gamut on this over the past couple of weeks and I'm beginning to find it boring. It's fun to watch him make his accusations in the things he writes, but then I asked him what the "official" blog for the Republicans were and he claims he already told me. I'm not great with computers, but I've looked throughout his writings directly to me and I haven't found it. So I just assume it's another one of his lies that he likes to put up. The constant lies get very boring. He's predictable in everything he says.

I know what you mean about the dargo guy. I told you once or maybe I told him that I found out about this blog from someone else on another blog. The guy that runs the other blog told me that he received 60 vulgar E-mails from dargo one night and that he just rejected all of them. He said that he doesn't understand how someone can spend all of that time sending 60 E-mails knowing that they would be rejected. He said that he was laughing through it because it took him all of about 30 seconds to delete them where it must have taken dargo half an hour to write them all and send them individually.

Not anonymous said...

Another last warning? Well it's my first warning so I guess I'm now a member of the "don't you dare say that again or I'll delete you" club.

Communications guru said...

I have admitted and corrected every mistake I have made, troll.

The BC/BS package of bills is pending legislation. The AG is part of the executive branch of government. I never, ever said it didn’t have anything to do with health care. The AG has nothing to do with health care. Yes, not only was Granholm standing up for consumers, she was fulfilling her role as the chief law enforcement officer. Here in Livingston County, students were charged with possession of child pornography because they passed around a nude photo taken by a cell phone, so the catalog could be classified the same way. Yes, the people who picketed the Victoria’s secret store in Brighton were rightwing bigots. I don’t even remember this catalog incident you are talking about, and I’m not sure I agree with her actions. But from the few details, it seems to be in her job description.

That is a complete lie about me posting as someone else somewhere else. You must be talking about Republican Michigander. I posted as Kevin S. Dan kicked me off by requiring people to register, and I did when I started my own blog in 2006. I never lied or pretended to be anyone else. As for name-calling, I didn’t give anymore than I got.

“He doesn’t ban us?” You are the same person, troll. I don’t give a shit if you comment or not. I would just as soon you stopped posting this garbage. I pride myself on replying to every comment and not censoring anyone. I hated deleting comments, and I only deleted comments after repeated warnings. I don’t have to stand for that kind of cowardly smear, and I will not stand for it.

Please tell me how to tell one anonymous posted from another, troll. Putting the word “not” in front of anonymous makes no difference because anyone of a 100 people can do that.

Communications guru said...

Wow. You must be losing it, troll; talking to yourself.

My name has never been a secret. I posted some of the same posts under my own name when I worker for Michigan Messenger, and the same posts go under my real name on Opinion Artillery.

Stop playing stupid, troll. All you have to do is register a screen name at Google. It can be “Not Anonymous” or Proud Republican” if they are not taken. That way, you can’t hide and you can for the first time take ownership of the garbage you write.

You are really deranged. I told you directly what the “official” Republican blog was. Also, I have never lied, and I challenge you to prove I did.

Communications guru said...

You have received more than one warning, troll.

Not anonymous said...

Your name may not have been a secret. I never said that it was. I just never cared who you were. I look at the issues only. Yet each time I say something about the issue you resort to name calling. Thank you for once again telling me to register a screen name. I've heard about you trying to put names and addresses on here. I don't play those games. You can be Communications Guru, or Kevin or Henrietta for all I care. My name remains "not anonymous". I really don't see what difference a name is anyway. If you want to talk issues I'm glad to debate issues. Debate does not mean "I'm right, you're wrong, troll". If all you have is hate and name calling you aren't much of a man or a woman. You do make a pretty good child though. Now you add "deranged". You must really be a female although I've never seen a female that has had PMS last for three weeks.

Not anonymous said...

I should start taking bets. Will the next person he calls a name be me or anonymous? Let's make it a twofer. Will he use the same old name or will he find something new to call people? So far, troll and deranged are the favored ones. Anyone care to guess at what name he'll come up with next?

Anonymous said...

Well, you know, he says he corrects every mistake, but he never makes mistakes. Odd. Still, knowing it's a waste of time, I'll give him another chance to own up to his own boasts.

1. You keep saying I smeared you with a false accusation. Prove it. (Others have reprinted the quotes and they clearly are not accusing you of anything.)

2. You claim the county Republicans broke campaign laws with regard to the recent Brighton school election. You can't support that claim, but you keep making it.

3. You say my remarks are offensive, but dargo can accuse people of sucking their mother's tit. How is that allowed?

4. You continually denied being Kevin on the other site until you admitted that you were. Now you deny it. One of those statements has to be false.

5. You have made up a rule that says the AG can't get involved with, or campaign for or against pending legislation. Want to show us your source for that bit of wisdom (and don't say it's because he's in the executive branch...that doesn't preclude him from having an opinion on legislation...governors weigh in on bills all the time.)

6. He has continually accused posters of being people they aren't (e.g., brett). But has never backed down from these obviously false accusations.

7. He calls people names and then defends himself by saying he isn't doing what he is doing.

Now here's something I don't know but I think it's worth asking. He sounds as though he works at a state job. How much of this posting and posing is done on the taxpayer's dime? I wonder.

Communications guru said...

You just said you had no idea what my first name was. I do not resort to name-calling. You are an anonymous troll. That is a fact. You've heard about me "trying to put names and addresses on here." That would be a lie. This has to be brett. You put your real name here, and I put your address here to call your bluff. I don't regret that for a minute, and you know what you had to do to get me to remove it. Here's a hint, brett, troll or who-ever-you-are: make sure your screen name is not your real name.

You have engaged in just as much name-calling as I have, so stop taking the holier-than-thou attitude, troll.

Communications guru said...

I'll take that bet. You are an Anonymous troll; that is a fact. You can't possibly be denying that? Anyone who talks to themselves is a little deranged.

Communications guru said...

1. I have proved that one over and over again, and I will not address it again, troll.

2. I have supported the claim time after time.

3. When I continuously warn you to stop using those words, and you childishly continue to do it repeatedly on multiple threads, then those posts will be deleted.

4. That is a complete lie. I have never denied being who I said I was.

5. The AG was campaigning for governor on the taxpayer's dime. If you don't think so, that’s your right to have another opinion.

6. Anonymous is Anonymous and Anonymous can be anyone.

7. Calling someone what they are is not name-calling. You are an Anonymous troll. That is a simple fact.

That would incorrect. If you feel otherwise, be my guest and file a complaint.

Anonymous said...

Just like you filed a complaint about the "illegal" Republican activity?

Your first two points are complete lies. You've been asked to substantiate them; you refuse to do so and then ignore the requests; then you say you have proved the points. You haven't. That's been documented on your own site.

You have said the AG has no business involved in the BC/BS discussion. That's ridiculous. BC/BS gets special tax-free status from the state; access to insurance is one of the state's biggest issues; he has every right/oblibation to weigh in. I don't even know if I agree with him, but I see no problem with his involvement in such an important issue.

To accuse him of running for higher office while AG is laughable. Every elected official does this. I don't recall John McCain or B. Hussein Obama resigning from the U.S. Senate when they ran for president.

You are so partisan it is ugly. You criticize Republicans for doing the same things that Dems do, and then deny Dems do it or twist facts to ludicrous ends to show how the Dem's act was different.

Thus, you say it's okay for Granholm as AG to wage a media war against a clothing store because of the models in their catalogues. But it's wrong for citizens to protest against a window display at Victoria Secrets.

Thus you also say that Spitzer is a stand-up guy because he resigned after it was revealed that he pay thousands of dollars to a hooker. If he was a standup guy, he wouldn't have done that. He resigned to: a) get the publicity off him; b) protect his income that comes from his family and his wife; and c) once the rancor died down, the authorities decided not to press charges even though they had him dead to rights. You think perhaps the resignation and the dropped charges might have been related?

There is nothing wrong with saying the Spitzer was a total ball-busting, arrogant, hypocritical bully. That's the truth. It says nothing about the party. There are low class folks in each party. But you can't bring yourself to do it because it would be a small step toward judging things by content in facts rather than be party and rhetoric. And that's a world you can't live in.

Communications guru said...

Sorry, troll; the first two points are correct.

I said, the AG has no business holding press conference across the state to do so. He can "weigh in" all he wants, but what difference does it make that the press writes about it? He can "weigh in" by making his views known to the Senate Majority Leader, who is a member of his party, and to the Speaker of the House. Again, this is a legislative issue, unless BC/BS is breaking the law.

That may be true that elected officials are already running for their next office with the disastrous term limits in Michigan, but they don't spend taxpayer dollars dong it. McCain and Obama didn't spend tax money to campaign with. By the way, it's President Barack Hussein Obama, troll.

Yes, I am partisan, but I am not partisan to the point of lying or rooting for my state and country to do badly to keep my party in power. You will have to give me an example of me twisting things. I have a suggestion for you, troll. I'll point out the crimes, pit falls and hypocrisy of Republicans, and you can do the same on your blog for Democrats.

Back in November 2006, I said the Victoria Secret "protest" was another case of a small, misguided minority appointing themselves as the community censor to decide what you and I can and cannot see. That still stands.

In 1999, Granholm's office sent three children- aged 10, 13 and 14 - to an Abercrombie & Fitch store in Okemos. Even though the catalog was covered in shrink wrap and had a "mature content" label, all three were able to buy the $6 catalog without adults present. That, I believe, is illegal, and as the state's chief law enforcement officer, that is part of her job.

Wow, you're bringing up Elliott Spitzer again? When I had that debate with you, or whoever, you claimed Democrats, or liberals, don't take responsibility for their actions. Spitzer was the first person who came to mind who did. He resigned and faced the music. I'm not sure how the case was adjudicated, but that's irrelevant. I'm still waiting for David Vitter, who did basically the same thing, to resign, as well as Ted Stevens.

Anonymous said...

Wow. The state's attorney general used young children as pawns to entrap a legitimate store. How very upstanding of her. Yes, I'm sure that was the most important thing she could be doing and she wasn't at all thinking about the positive publicity she could generate. I wonder why she didn't oust the Okemos Police Department for obviously ignoring such a serious plague on their community.

It wasn't pornography. It was very mature advertising aimed at teenage buyers. Such advertising is not my cup of tea, and I wouldn't let my 10-year-old buy it. Granholm apparently is fine with using 10-year-olds that way. But I'm wondering why she didn't go into almost any book store or drug store to see if the swimsuit edition of Sports Illustrated was available to minors. Those photos are far more revealing than the A&F pics, but such an act would have held her up to ridicule.

But using your logic, if it was her job, why hold press conferences and issue press releases and go on the radio and TV to get lots of free publicity? Why not just go to the local police and tell them to enforce the law...if indeed there was a law broken? Why is Cox grandstanding on the taxpayers' dime but Granholm is just doing her job to keep advertising catalogues aways from the young public...I truly don't see the difference.

People running for office while holding another began long before term limits. Like when Kelly ran for U.S. Senator, for instance.

And give me a break about B. Hussein Obama and J. MiddleName McCain not using the taxpayers' dime. They kept their salaries as U.S. Senators, didn't they? They surely were spending more time as candidates than as senators. Who else..other than the independently wealthy...can run for office for two years while keeping their job?

By the way, it's not President B. Hussein Obama. He's not president yet.

But I don't get your anger at my use of his name. You said it's not name-calling if you call people trolls because in your opinion it's accurate. What is inaccurate about B. Hussein Obama?

And is it okay to say you miss sucking on your mamma's tit? For some reason you won't answer that question. Odd.




On Points 1 and 2, it's obvious that you are defeated. It would be easy to prove your point if evidence existed; it doesn't.

health insurance said...

is its true that blue cross blue shield will now cover pre-existing Conditions?

Communications guru said...

“The state's attorney general used young children as pawns to entrap a legitimate store?” Man, you are really stretching to reach that ridiculous conclusion. Law enforcement agencies use underage decoys all the time under supervision, such as purchasing cigarettes and alcohol. This is no different.

No one said it was pornography. Neither is Playboy magazine, but it shouldn’t be sold to a 10-year-old. I’m not sure the SI swim suit edition would be sold to a 10-year-old, but there is no nudity. She wasn’t trying to “entrap a legitimate store.” She was enforcing the law, and it’s a statewide chain. The Okemos Police Department enforces the law in Okemos, but not the entire state. That’s the job of the state’s chief law enforcement officer.

Once again, no one ever said there is anything wrong with “people running for office while holding another.”

No, you give me a break about B. Hussein Obama, troll. It’s pretty clear what you’re tying to do. I have never heard the name G. Walker Bush or J. Sydney McCain, But, come to think of it, keep using B. Hussein Obama; it worked so well in the campaign. That’s why it’s President Obama.

Again, I never said there was anything wrong with President Obama and Sen. McCain running for President while they are Senators. Here’s the difference between them and Cox; they were spending campaign money; Cox is spending tax money.

I never said anything about “sucking on your mamma's tit. “ Yes, it is OK to say that; as long as Dargo says it.

Communications guru said...

As I understand the compromise worked out for the conference committee on the bills covering the individual market reform, it will cover existing conditions within six months after purchasing coverage. Check out Gongwer if you can for the details.

Anonymous said...

There is indeed nudity in the swimsuit edition.

Why won't you answer my question? If the catalogue was a lawmbreaker, why not just have the police do something about it? State police if you want instead of Okemos. Why have a press conference, issue press releases, go on radio and TV? All on the taxpayer's dime, as you say.

And what law was she enforcing. It was a publicity stunt and you are too pig-headed to admit it.

You say that "troll" isn't name calling because it's true. Well, B. Hussein Obama is true, so what's your problem?

So it's okay if I say dargo sucks a mother's tits? But you and dargo are the same people. That gets strange, doesn't it?

Communications guru said...

I don’t believe there is nudity in the swim suit issue. I did answer your question. The AG is the chief law enforcement officer for the state. Why have a press conference? Why not? It’s in her job description; it’s not in Cox’s job description. She went across the state holding press conferences? I wasn’t aware of that. Do you have any thing to back that up? How much does it costs to go on TV and radio? News coverage is free.

Like I said, troll. Keep using B. Hussein Obama. It worked so well in the election; just remember to add President Obama.

You never answered my question. Why would I post as two different people on my own blog, troll? We are not the same people. As for if it’s OK to say “dargo sucks a mother's tits” you will have to ask him. I can’t answer for him, but maybe it’s your mother’s tits he’s sucking.

Anonymous said...

Omigod, troll, you don't "believe" there was nudity. It's a fact but you can dismiss it because you don't believe it true? I imagine you as this sorry-ass troll, looking out at the horizon and saying "I believe the world is flat" and because you believe it, you think it is true. SI swimsuit editions had more nudity and are every bit as sexually provocative, if not more so, that the store's catalogues.

By the way, what law did the store break? They agreed to her demands to get away from the PR-addicted, PMS-crazed AG that was making their life miserable. She got her headlines and they went back to making a profit, something Dem politicians don't know how to do, but they do like grabbing a share once other people have earned them.

Your blog is far more profane than that catalogue...what a vulgar remark from you; I can only imagine that you come up empty with arguments and resort to such crudity. You should be ashamed. But it does show even more clearly that you and dargo are the same person.

I can't blame you for not remembering the details...you seem to be a little bit of senile troll. But it was all over the place and she was doing it on the public dime.

And what consumer threat was she battling? Was there really a concern that 10-year-olds were grabbing the car keys, driving to the mall, wandering through the store and purchasing provocative catalogues? Other than the 10-year-old decoy used to entrap the store clerk, was there any evidence that anyone that young was getting a catalogue with or without their parents knowledge?

You know, when conservatives do stuff like that, your type gets all up in arms about free speech and "quit trying to legislate morality" and "if you don't like it, don't shop there," and "don't try to protect people from the real world," and "these are learning opportunities for the parent," etc. But Granholm launches an obvious publicity stunt and you make her out to be a fearless crime fighter when in fact she provided a cure for which there was no disease.

I guess the only thing that would make her more heroic in your eyes would be if she donned some leather and did some unspeakable sex acts with your other hero, Elliot Spitzer...but only if she charged him a few thousand bucks.

His name is B. Hussein Obama. Why do you have a problem with that? Should he be ashamed of his name? Are you?

Anonymous said...

Come on, guru/troll/darga...what is Cox had gone after a store's catalogue? You would have ripped into him. You would have ridiculed him. But Jenny does it, and it's all okay? Your decisions are not based on facts or logic; they are totally driven by whether or not it favors Republicans or Democrats.

That's your choice. But it makes you a partisan hack.

Communications guru said...

"Omigod?" What are you, 13? Use OMG next time. Are you serous, troll? I'm a troll on my own blog? Obviously, you have no idea what the term means. Try looking it up in the On-line Dictionary of Computing and then looking in the mirror. First, anything you say I am skeptical of. With that being said, I don't believe the SI swimsuit issue has any nudity; the key word here is swimsuit. It may be "sexually provocative," but I will venture a guess and say the models are over 18 and the magazine is not marketed to teens and pre-teens.

If this is the same troll – and the there is no reason to believe otherwise - that said "The wrong time of the month" about the governor you just proved how sexist you are by calling her the "PMS-crazed AG." What a piece of sexist shit you are, troll.

You said the store "went back to making a profit, something Dem politicians don't know how to do?" So politicians are supposed to make a profit? That's the first time I ever heard that. Do you really believe Democrats are the only party to levy and spend taxes? When Engler was governor and Republicans controlled both the House and Senate and the Supreme Court, you still paid taxes didn't you? The answer is yes.

This is an adult blog, troll. If you can’t handle that go someplace else. What crude remark are you talking about, troll? Is it more vile than calling someone a child molester? I don't think so. Dargo and I are not the same person. Check our profiles.

I can't remember details, but neither can you. The said part is it's your argument, and I provided more details than you did.

You don't think young kids go to the mall themselves? How is that entrapment? Police use prostitution stings all the time, as well as using minors to purchase cigarettes and booze all the time. Is that entrapment?

I have no problem with people viewing or reading just about anything in the privacy their own home, but I draw the line at children. I prefer my grandchildren to not have the catalog or the SI Swimsuit issue or to view many of the reality shows, but if adults want to that's OK.

You keep bringing up Elliott Spitzer. It appears you not only do not write well, but you cannot read well, either. You claimed Democrats do not take responsibility for their actions, and I offered Spitzer as an example of one who did. When are David Vitter, Ted Stevens or Kevin Green going to take responsibility for their actions?

Communications guru said...

Once again, I and Dargo are two different people. I am from Howell, and you can look me up in the phone book.

I'll tell you what, troll; call me old fashioned, but where I grew up, you don't anonymously write something about somebody you would not look that same person in the eye and say to them. And, if you are going to say something as false and disgusting as what you called me, then you should have the balls to look me in the eye and say it and to accept he consequences for saying it. It was once, and it was not because they "disagreed" with me; it was for the exact same thing you called me. I guess that makes me wonder if you are not the same person. By the way, I don't own a gun, nor do I need one.

Anonymous said...

You don't think Sports Illustrated is marketed to teens? What a buffoon you are...and you seem proud of it. Yes, it's called a swimsuit issue...and the joke is that usually the models are wearing little if any swimsuit. It's a fact.

Are you suggesting the catalogue models are under 18? If so, and if it were pornography, why didn't she prosecute? It's because there was NOTHING wrong with the photos...the decision to let someone look at them should rest with the parents...but apparently that's beyond comprehension for the Nanny State you and the gov prefer.

Odd you would call someone out when you make false accusations. I never accused you of anything. And every time I ask you to prove it, you run away and hide.

If 10 year-old are getting to the malls and wandering around by themselves, I think there are bigger problems than a shrink-wrapped catalogue on a counter. But tell me again, how many times did that ever happen other than the entrapment stings promoted by a PR-excited governor?

Yes, police use stings...for important crimes like prostitution and under-age drinking and drug use. Not for the serious offense of possession and distribution of clothing store catalogues. What next? A crackdown on GQ, Esquire, Vanity Fair and Ladies Home Journal (some very explicit bra ads, you know...and yes, I bet you do know.)

So this is an adult blog? How do you stop 10-year-olds from reading? I mean, they have to do something now that their catalogue supply has dried up. And how does bringing in someone's mother and tit-sucking make this an adult blog? You/dargo are really men to make that type of remark. You sexist? Heaven's no.

And, yes, I believe you and dargo are the same and, yes, you are a troll.

Anonymous said...

If you know that OMG is used by teens and pre-teens, I'll take your word for it. You apparently hang around young children more than I do. Do you IM them a lot?

Not anonymous said...

Anonymous..that last comment was hilarious. Or should I say lol? So Dargo, guru and Mark Foley are the same person? Ewwww