Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
this is all about the elite few not giving up their cash cow in the wake of this recession. In fact, a failing economy only fuels the neo-conservatives into convincing the masses that all taxes would be hurtful to the economy..when in fact, its an absurdly low tax rate which has caused this deficit nightmare. Oh, there is another lie...that we've SPENT our way into this mess, when in actuality, the low tax rates, combined with a stagnant economy (read, no hiring) means the government isn't able to collect as much as it once did.
Our current deficit is a product of the GOP choking off the beast for the last 30 years and now they are going in for the kill. Sad.
Another whistleblower dead. WOW
http://beforeitsnews.com/story/837/232/Now_Two_Murdoch_Whistleblowers_Dead.html
). so, like, her church thinks the pope is the anti-christ and catholics are devil worshipers or something. pretty hilarious.
Obama’s Untrue Anecdote
President Obama's much-told story about his mother's fight to get cancer coverage was untrue, according to a recently published book. And the White House isn't disputing the author's account.
The New York Times reports that Janny Scott, in her biography, “A Singular Woman: The Untold Story of Barack Obama’s Mother,” writes that Stanley Ann Dunham's health insurance provider did, in fact, cover most of the medical expenses related to her uterine and ovarian cancer.
New York Times, July 13: In her book, published in May by Riverhead Books, Ms. Scott writes that Mr. Obama's mother, Ann Dunham, had an employer-provided health insurance policy that paid her hospital bills directly, leaving her "to pay only the deductible and any uncovered expenses, which, she said, came to several hundred dollars a month."
Obama, during the 2008 presidential campaign and the many months before he signed the health care law last year, often spoke of his mother's complications as a reason to overhaul the nation's health care system, saying that she nearly was denied health insurance coverage due to the fact that her illness was considered a preexisting condition. For example, when Obama was asked at an AARP tele-town hall two years ago if insurers would be required to cover people with preexisting conditions under his health care proposal, he replied:
Obama, July 28, 2009: The answer is yes. And so let me talk just a little bit about the kind of insurance reform that we're proposing as part of the broader reform package.
Number one, if you've got a preexisting condition, insurance companies will still have to insure you. This is something very personal for me. My mother, when she contracted cancer, the insurance companies started suggesting that, well, maybe this was a preexisting condition; maybe you could have diagnosed it before you actually purchased your insurance. Ultimately, they gave in, but she had to spend weeks fighting with insurance companies while she's in the hospital bed, writing letters back and forth just to get coverage for insurance that she had already paid premiums on. And that happens all across the country. We are going to put a stop to that. That's point number one.
But according to the Times, Scott writes that Dunham's dispute wasn't over health insurance coverage at all, but rather over a disability insurance policy. Such disability policies aren't covered by the new health care law for which Obama was arguing.
New York Times, July 13: The Cigna disability policy, according to Ms. Scott, allowed the company to deny a claim if a patient had seen a doctor about the condition that caused the disability in the three months before employment. During that period, Ms. Dunham visited a New York gynecologist. When Cigna obtained the doctor’s notes, it learned that she had formed a working hypothesis that Ms. Dunham might have uterine cancer, Ms. Scott wrote.
The doctor ordered up a series of tests, and Ms. Dunham submitted to most of them. “None of these tests indicated that I had cancer,” Ms. Dunham wrote to Cigna, according to the book.
After several months, Cigna denied the claim.
Scott, who calls Obama's version of what happened "abbreviated" in her book, told the paper that she found no evidence that Dunham encountered similar challenges from Dunham's actual health insurance provider.
Nicholas Papas, a White House spokesman, did not challenge Scott's account, which was based on actual letters Dunham had written to CIGNA, according to the Times. “We have not reviewed the letters or other material on which the author bases her account,” he told the paper. “The president has told this story based on his recollection of events that took place more than 15 years ago.”
Matt Moran, campaign manager for O'Donnell, alluded to what may come next. "Sloan, like the George Soros-financed CREW, is a shameless fool who may possibly lose her legal license and face criminal charges in the near future," Moran said in a statement.
http://www.delawareonline.com/article/20110717/NEWS02/107170335/O-Donnell-backers-take-aim-group?odyssey=mod|newswell|text|Home|s
Feds end criminal probe of O'Donnell
DOVER, Del. (AP) — An attorney for former Delaware Senate candidate Christine O'Donnell wants federal prosecutors to investigate the head of a group that filed a complaint last year alleging O'Donnell had illegally spent campaign money.
O'Donnell's lawyer alleged in a letter to the U.S. Attorney's office that Melanie Sloan, executive director of Citizens for Ethics and Responsibility in Washington, knowingly made false statements in the complaint against O'Donnell. O'Donnell's lawyer says the complaint was based on an affidavit from a former campaign worker that contained false information and was not properly vetted.
Sloan, a former prosecutor, said O'Donnell and her lawyers were unfamiliar with the law and that CREW was unconcerned.
Federal prosecutors informed O'Donnell's campaign lawyer Friday that they were closing their review and did not intend to pursue criminal charges.
does this story have a link or did big brother delete them all?
they probably didn't have authorization to use the music. scary crap.
don't be naive. it was the libs that got the Birth of K-State Football banned from youtube as well.
I got married in the rose garden
don't worry about it, these guys shop at dollar general store. also, i know a rich girl (loaded) who got married there too.Sasha Kaun is not poor.he drives a brand new 'Lade sittin on 20's. he's no poor man.
Quote"The Obama ..."
This video is no longer available due to a copyright claim by Just Isn't Music / Counter Records.
Sorry about that.
Probably the State Controlled Media that pulled it down
Good lord. Who would have thought?
Basically, it outlines what has happened since the Obama presidency. It shows what unemployment, the price of gas per gallon, and the price of gold in 2008, then it shows today ... nearly doubled.
The greatest stat was something like ... If I gave you a million dollars every day since the birth of Christ, it would not total Obama's deficit spending in just one year.
It's pretty telling stuff, and the statistics and charts are all there, ripe for blabbering Democrats to try to denounce.
It's scary that it's no longer up there.
If it was a problem when George Bush did it, why isn't it a problem now?
B.O. has added to the deficit in 2 1/2 years what Bush added to it in 8. Regardless, that's history, the problem has been identified (spending) now its time to solve it you dumb mother effers. Keep belching you nonsensical talking points, if that's what makes you feel good about supporting this fool.
Not sure if you heard, but Obama wants to cut the budget by $4 trillion and reform the entire Social Security/Medicare systems. Republicans are the ones holding up the process based on their inability to compromise. The simple fact of the matter is that government generates about 99% of its revenue from taxes.You do, however, seem to have an uncanny ability to lap up and regurgitate the mindless babble that dribbles out of the mouth of the psychopathic, sycophant we call "president"; an indictment on your ability to form any semblance of independent thought and further evidence of your own insanity. 'grats Beems, you effing lunatics.
LOL at BMW
Please place the "Obama wants to cut $4T" in the "here what I say not what I do" category, next to Gitmo, Bush Tax Cuts, Public Option, End Illegal Wars, etc.
Which programs did he suggest get cut to get that figure??? Oh yeah, none, he just said it because he's doing everything in his power to politicize this (as are both parties).
He already cut the entire NASA shuttle program, along with several wasteful military defense projects. You are blinded by irrational hate.
Why does it matter what the framers would say or do about anything that is going on today, really? None of that matters. It's a constitution, not a religion.
Looks like the White House went after Fox News in 2009 after all
As the U.K. phone-hacking scandal continues to engulf News Corp's British segment, one of the company's top-performing assets in the U.S. is enjoying a bit of unrelated vindication.
Rewind to October 2009: Fox News Channel and the White House were at war. In one particularly heated incident, Fox claimed the Obama administration had tried to oust the "fair & balanced" network from an interview with Treasury official Kenneth Feinberg, when the other four news nets in the TV coverage pool had been offered access. In the end, Fox was included, and a Treasury Department spokesman snarled: "There was no plot to exclude Fox News, and they had the same interview that their competitors did. Much ado about absolutely nothing."
Emails that surfaced last week, however, through a public records request by the conservative watchdog group Judicial Watch, suggest otherwise.
"We'd prefer if you skip Fox please," a White House broadcast media staffer advised a Treasury Department public affairs secretary ahead of the interview. In other emails during the same time frame, deputy White House communications director Jennifer Psaki called Fox News anchor Bret Baier "a lunatic" and boasted that "I am putting some dead fish in the fox cubby--just cause." In yet another email, another White House press officer wrote: "We've demonstrated our willingness and ability to exclude Fox News from significant interviews …"
Proof of an anti-Fox agenda in the Oval Office? Judicial Watch thinks so.
"These documents show there is a pervasive anti-Fox bias in the Obama White House," said Judicial Watch president Tom Fitton in a statement. "The juvenile Mafioso-talk in these emails has no place in any White House. For the Obama administration to purposely exclude a major news organization from access to information has troubling First Amendment implications."
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/cutline/looks-white-house-went-fox-news-2009-124710609.html
it like took forever to start and then the info went by too fast to read so I stopped watching after a minute. Should just be a list IMO.
"The Obama ..."
This video is no longer available due to a copyright claim by Just Isn't Music / Counter Records.
Sorry about that.
If it was a problem when George Bush did it, why isn't it a problem now?
B.O. has added to the deficit in 2 1/2 years what Bush added to it in 8. Regardless, that's history, the problem has been identified (spending) now its time to solve it you dumb mother effers. Keep belching you nonsensical talking points, if that's what makes you feel good about supporting this fool.
Not sure if you heard, but Obama wants to cut the budget by $4 trillion and reform the entire Social Security/Medicare systems. Republicans are the ones holding up the process based on their inability to compromise. The simple fact of the matter is that government generates about 99% of its revenue from taxes.
You do, however, seem to have an uncanny ability to lap up and regurgitate the mindless babble that dribbles out of the mouth of the psychopathic, sycophant we call "president"; an indictment on your ability to form any semblance of independent thought and further evidence of your own insanity. 'grats Beems, you rough ridin' lunatics.
so naive
Why the eff is the government legislating what kind of light bulb you use anyways?
Those CFL bulbs are awesome if you hate light. I spent $12 on a 3-pack of those rough ridin' things for my living room and can't see crap anymore. All because some dumbass told me they'd pay for themselves by the end of the year in "energy savings". That person forget to mention I was getting 1/4 the light.
WTF are you talking about. You get quite a bit more light for the same wattage. Did you read the package?
If you are a real light fan, you can buy the bulbs that are supposed to be equivalent to 100W incandescent and they will work in your 60W incandescent fixtures since they will use less than the 60W. boom, more light for less money.
If it was a problem when George Bush did it, why isn't it a problem now?
B.O. has added to the deficit in 2 1/2 years what Bush added to it in 8. Regardless, that's history, the problem has been identified (spending) now its time to solve it you dumb mother effers. Keep belching you nonsensical talking points, if that's what makes you feel good about supporting this fool.
the problem is spending and revenue.
