What a friggin lowlife

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

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.”

http://factcheck.org/2011/07/obamas-untrue-anecdote/

[Cire]

Did not read

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

Did not read

why not?

[bubbles4ksu]

muslims are permitted to deceive unbelievers. thus, not a friggin lowlife. dumbass.

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

muslims are permitted to deceive unbelievers. thus, not a friggin lowlife. dumbass.

Is that why so many are used car dealers?

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

Nothing like says, "sadistic sack of crap" more than a guy willing to misrepresent the financial circumstances leading up to his own mothers death for his own political gain.  Is he a sociopath, or just a really bad person?  Probably both and more.

[pike]

Nothing like says, "sadistic sack of crap" more than a guy willing to misrepresent the financial circumstances leading up to his own mothers death for his own political gain.  Is he a sociopath, or just a really bad person?  Probably both and more.

Most globalists are sociopaths, so yes.

[Dugout DickStone]

The Ron Prince of presidents.  This is his "I heard the sirens in Virginia"

[Dingo]

Nothing like says, "sadistic sack of crap" more than a guy willing to misrepresent the financial circumstances leading up to his own mothers death for his own political gain.  Is he a sociopath, or just a really bad person?  Probably both and more.

He is neither.  He is a product.  When he started gerrymandering to get his seat in Illinois State legislature by turning his back on poor black constiuents (because his Republican opponent was more in touch with their needs) and realigning districts so he represented more rich whites, someone in the Democratic party saw what needed to be done.

The reason Bush reigned supreme for two terms is as much the fault of the Dems as it is the strength of the Republicans.  After charm-monster Clinton, the Dems gave us board-up-the-crack Gore and then Lurch Kerry, two very uninteresting dudes who couldn't have won the election if they promised to pay everyone's taxes for a year.  Obama had no message, no ideas, no real plan that he outlined, but every step of the way of his short, happy political career is marked by brilliant marketing.  Obama is a product, and his history is manipulated, both in his books and by his campaign staff, to sell us the smile, the cheese, the quotes, and the "show your progressive side by voting for a (half) black man" conceit.

This does not suprise me.

[bubbles4ksu]

Nothing like says, "sadistic sack of crap" more than a guy willing to misrepresent the financial circumstances leading up to his own mothers death for his own political gain.  Is he a sociopath, or just a really bad person?  Probably both and more.

He is neither.  He is a product.  When he started gerrymandering to get his seat in Illinois State legislature by turning his back on poor black constiuents (because his Republican opponent was more in touch with their needs) and realigning districts so he represented more rich whites, someone in the Democratic party saw what needed to be done.

The reason Bush reigned supreme for two terms is as much the fault of the Dems as it is the strength of the Republicans.  After charm-monster Clinton, the Dems gave us board-up-the-crack Gore and then Lurch Kerry, two very uninteresting dudes who couldn't have won the election if they promised to pay everyone's taxes for a year.  Obama had no message, no ideas, no real plan that he outlined, but every step of the way of his short, happy political career is marked by brilliant marketing.  Obama is a product, and his history is manipulated, both in his books and by his campaign staff, to sell us the smile, the cheese, the quotes, and the "show your progressive side by voting for a (half) black man" conceit.

This does not suprise me.

I'm not sure I like or accept what is being said here but it is, imo, as high quality a post as this board has seen. Post more.

and take notes FSD.

ta

[slackcat]

 


    Stanley...

[Kat Kid]

Nothing like says, "sadistic sack of crap" more than a guy willing to misrepresent the financial circumstances leading up to his own mothers death for his own political gain.  Is he a sociopath, or just a really bad person?  Probably both and more.

He is neither.  He is a product.  When he started gerrymandering to get his seat in Illinois State legislature by turning his back on poor black constiuents (because his Republican opponent was more in touch with their needs) and realigning districts so he represented more rich whites, someone in the Democratic party saw what needed to be done.

The reason Bush reigned supreme for two terms is as much the fault of the Dems as it is the strength of the Republicans.  After charm-monster Clinton, the Dems gave us board-up-the-crack Gore and then Lurch Kerry, two very uninteresting dudes who couldn't have won the election if they promised to pay everyone's taxes for a year.  Obama had no message, no ideas, no real plan that he outlined, but every step of the way of his short, happy political career is marked by brilliant marketing.  Obama is a product, and his history is manipulated, both in his books and by his campaign staff, to sell us the smile, the cheese, the quotes, and the "show your progressive side by voting for a (half) black man" conceit.

This does not suprise me.

He didn't campaign on Health Care reform?  I seem to remember that he did.  Your critique is ignorant of Obama's rhetoric, let alone his policies.  There is certainly a gulf between some of his campaign promises and his actions, but there are myriad policies that he enunciated while running that can be criticized empirically.  Creating a narrative largely devoid of substance and then attributing that to Obama is easier than actually being informed.

Relentlessly questioning people's intent becomes very circular because it begins a rhetorical chase after your own perceptions and bad faith representations of your opponent, not reality.

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

Nothing like says, "sadistic sack of crap" more than a guy willing to misrepresent the financial circumstances leading up to his own mothers death for his own political gain.  Is he a sociopath, or just a really bad person?  Probably both and more.

He is neither.  He is a product.  When he started gerrymandering to get his seat in Illinois State legislature by turning his back on poor black constiuents (because his Republican opponent was more in touch with their needs) and realigning districts so he represented more rich whites, someone in the Democratic party saw what needed to be done.

The reason Bush reigned supreme for two terms is as much the fault of the Dems as it is the strength of the Republicans.  After charm-monster Clinton, the Dems gave us board-up-the-crack Gore and then Lurch Kerry, two very uninteresting dudes who couldn't have won the election if they promised to pay everyone's taxes for a year.  Obama had no message, no ideas, no real plan that he outlined, but every step of the way of his short, happy political career is marked by brilliant marketing.  Obama is a product, and his history is manipulated, both in his books and by his campaign staff, to sell us the smile, the cheese, the quotes, and the "show your progressive side by voting for a (half) black man" conceit.

This does not suprise me.

He didn't campaign on Health Care reform?  I seem to remember that he did.  Your critique is ignorant of Obama's rhetoric, let alone his policies.  There is certainly a gulf between some of his campaign promises and his actions, but there are myriad policies that he enunciated while running that can be criticized empirically.  Creating a narrative largely devoid of substance and then attributing that to Obama is easier than actually being informed.

Relentlessly questioning people's intent becomes very circular because it begins a rhetorical chase after your own perceptions and bad faith representations of your opponent, not reality.

Are you trying to say rhetoric and campaign promises are distinguishable?  The policies B.O. enumerated were devoid of substance, hence the statement in the so-called "critique".  If there was substance to those policies, feel free to share because B.O. didn't bother, otherwise stfu.  The "narrative" (I believed this was called a "critique" two sentence earlier) is the opposite of your post, substantive, rather than the flowery ravings of some wannabe wordsmith who has no point.  The last sentence of your post is a complete abortion, total nonsense, a waste of metadata.  

Thanks for nothing you ignoramus. Your inability to articulate a rational thought is characteristic of all liberals.
 

[Kat Kid]

Nothing like says, "sadistic sack of crap" more than a guy willing to misrepresent the financial circumstances leading up to his own mothers death for his own political gain.  Is he a sociopath, or just a really bad person?  Probably both and more.

He is neither.  He is a product.  When he started gerrymandering to get his seat in Illinois State legislature by turning his back on poor black constiuents (because his Republican opponent was more in touch with their needs) and realigning districts so he represented more rich whites, someone in the Democratic party saw what needed to be done.

The reason Bush reigned supreme for two terms is as much the fault of the Dems as it is the strength of the Republicans.  After charm-monster Clinton, the Dems gave us board-up-the-crack Gore and then Lurch Kerry, two very uninteresting dudes who couldn't have won the election if they promised to pay everyone's taxes for a year.  Obama had no message, no ideas, no real plan that he outlined, but every step of the way of his short, happy political career is marked by brilliant marketing.  Obama is a product, and his history is manipulated, both in his books and by his campaign staff, to sell us the smile, the cheese, the quotes, and the "show your progressive side by voting for a (half) black man" conceit.

This does not suprise me.

He didn't campaign on Health Care reform?  I seem to remember that he did.  Your critique is ignorant of Obama's rhetoric, let alone his policies.  There is certainly a gulf between some of his campaign promises and his actions, but there are myriad policies that he enunciated while running that can be criticized empirically.  Creating a narrative largely devoid of substance and then attributing that to Obama is easier than actually being informed.

Relentlessly questioning people's intent becomes very circular because it begins a rhetorical chase after your own perceptions and bad faith representations of your opponent, not reality.

Are you trying to say rhetoric and campaign promises are distinguishable?  The policies B.O. enumerated were devoid of substance, hence the statement in the so-called "critique".  If there was substance to those policies, feel free to share because B.O. didn't bother, otherwise stfu.  The "narrative" (I believed this was called a "critique" two sentence earlier) is the opposite of your post, substantive, rather than the flowery ravings of some wannabe wordsmith who has no point.  The last sentence of your post is a complete abortion, total nonsense, a waste of metadata.  

Thanks for nothing you ignoramus. Your inability to articulate a rational thought is characteristic of all liberals.
 

1.  Yes in terms of specificity.
2.  Teh Google is your friend.
3.  The critique is also part of a narrative that paints Obama as lacking substance (see also teleprompter meme).
4.  Agreed.  Shorter: straw men bad.

[Dingo]

Wasn't it Obama who said he wanted to created a fast, hard-working nation that consistently competed for championships?

[Bookcat]

Wasn't it Obama who said he wanted to created a fast, hard-working nation that consistently competed for championships?

this made me chuckle

[husserl]

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/