Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Saggy butt, A few Old RW conservative males and their groupies don't represent the general consensus otherwise Obama would not haveYou know what? I don't give a damn what Scott says or the motive Obama had behind it. I am glad he got rid of that" pre existing conditions' bull shit and I am not alone by far. Trump sealed HIS fate when he announced he would appeal Obamacare.... that probably lost him the national election.Obama's mother was denied SOMETHING and died under the old system, thus was born his determination to reform it; which he did.I don't think you can quantify that! The private sector has done quite well under Obama. His PPACA has given millions of White people health care who could not afford it before. Look around at who dislikes Obama. It is mostly RW WHITE MALES and the women who love them. Rebel flag wavers, White CC members, and other supremacists are right at home in your party.
Not one person in the USA was denied medical care before ACA. NOT ONE, even those here illegally. There was no healthcare crisis. ACA was nothing but a way for the govt to take over 1/6 of the economy.
That's Obama bullshit.
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.
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:
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, 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.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.
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.
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.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.
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.
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.”
— D'Angelo Gore
Wrong, turd, that will win him the election. Left wing turds like you are suffering from the delusion that America likes Obamacare. It doesn't. It despises Obamacare.
Don't overthink it, Twinkie... you'll do yourself an injury...Ya'll let me know if we need to dump a truckload of elephant shit into this cesspool...
I kind of suspected that you were in charge of shoveling shit...You're well qualified, no doubt.
A gift for you few remaining ObamaBots, as you worship your Failed Messiah...Are you saying you are full of shit?Ya'll let me know if we need to dump a truckload of elephant shit into this cesspool...
Obama won the first time, because, as the Magic Negro, he ran against McSame, and nobody wanted a third Bush term....otherwise Obama would not have won twice...
You overstate our founders views that God was the source of rights.They knew that if you wanted rights you had to seize themThere was no government capable of interfering. The market for our goods was extremely limited and anything but freeWe had an agrarian economy and survived off of tobacco and firsWe had an INTERNAL Free Market to ensure competition between Americans, and tariffs against foreign competitors.
And we grew to be the world's largest economy.
The marketplace was very limited
"Free market" means the government didn't interfere. The fact that our economy wasn't industrial yet is a result of the fact that it takes time for industry to develop. It doesn't spring up miraculous from the ground the instant you get government out of the way.
All you ever prove with your posts is what a colossal dumbass you are.
I love when conservatives try to attribute their agenda to the founders. Makes them look like desperate fools
Modern Conservatives does incorporate the Age of Enlightenment philosophy of the FOunders, while modern "liberals" do not.
ONe of the easiest ways to see this is to ask a conservative and a "liberal" if they believe the Rights are God Given/Inherent, or granted by the State.
LIberals generally get side tracked by their knee jerk opposition to anything Christian, but if you can spend a few days getting them back on topic, believe Rights are granted by the Government, not Inherent.
Conservatives agree with the founders, that they are God Given, or Inherent.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,
What Libs? I consider myself a REAL conservative who stands up for the president of the USA no matter what race he/she is? You haters have frequently shown more favoritism for the Russian leader, Putin! Why is that?I love when conservatives try to attribute their agenda to the founders. Makes them look like desperate fools
There is one aspect of right wingers' proclivities (were they allowed to do so) that match the Founders':
while the fathers of our nation were writing our Constitution and fighting for our liberty, they did, in fact, have hundreds of human beings that were listed in their account books as personal property and worked for them as slaves. George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and Patrick Henry were all slave-owners.
Obviously that sign does NOT apply here on an anonymous board!
And yet you libs keep trying.
Libs or real conservatives don't do that!
Republicans give lip service to individual rights as they support voter restrictions, oppose the rights of gays, oppose worker protectionsHere's how it opens..
"Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,"
Ergo, based on the above.....you have conservative candidates advocating the expulsion of millions, building a "beautiful wall", and carpet bomb indiscriminately.......
Well, so much for "the inalienable rights of all members of the human family", don't you think?
My point that you specifically and liberals in general have moved away from the belief in Inherent RIghts stands.
While Conservatives have NOT.
Thus our "claim" to the Founders is valid, while yours is not.
Your attempt to derail the discussion is not a defense but an attempted distraction.
If you want to start another thread on that I will be happy to give you information you can ignore on the above specific examples.
Because Putin seems to be a leader who is pursuing the interests of his nation while Obama is more interested some pie in the sky Universalist nonsense.
One is worthy of some respect, the other is worthy of ridicule.
Cons believe in them, libs do not.
The Founders believed in them, Kings and Communists do not.
My point that you specifically and liberals in general have moved away from the belief in Inherent RIghts stands.
While Conservatives have NOT.
Thus our "claim" to the Founders is valid, while yours is not.
So, having a good majority of the Founders being slave owners "supports" your contention that these founders were ALL for "inherent [human] rights"????........Lets look at the example of how conservatives view the Voting Rights Act.
the protections of the constitution only apply to American citizens, why is that so hard for you to grasp?
The USA constitution does not apply to every person on planet earth.
Take it up with the poster that cited the U.N. Charter.
The UN has no authority, Not one country is bound by anything the UN does. Who gives a shit what the UN charter says, its not binding on anyone. The US constitution is binding on the US government and US citizens as well as any non-citizen who is here legally. Those here illegally are criminals.
Putin is a man and a leader who puts his country first. Obama is a pussy who is determined to destroy the USA. That is the difference.
Putin is a KGB thug, but we are talking about which of them is a real leader, Putin wins hands down.
But don't get excited, this is not saying that putin is a good person, a humanitarian, or anything else, but he is a leader.
Given THAT "rationale" we had NO right to take out Saddam Hussein from Iraq. Thank you for clarifying that point.
You think that white Mrs. Hillary will get a nicer reception if she wins?
Probably not.Those waters have yet to be tested since no woman has ever been elected president. Now , however, Obama is president and we know how the RW white male Taliban has expressed their seething hatred of him.
Because Putin seems to be a leader who is pursuing the interests of his nation while Obama is more interested some pie in the sky Universalist nonsense.
One is worthy of some respect, the other is worthy of ridicule.
Moronic.....Comparing the government system of Russia and how Putin despotically makes decisions, to how Obama has to function in a democratic system, is simply stupid. Anyone who praises or "respects" Putin's style is just showing his/her hatred of Obama and a yet another chance to "ridicule" him.
Cons believe in them, libs do not.
The Founders believed in them, Kings and Communists do not.
Even an idiot would have to conclude that the Bill of Rights are mostly a LIBERAL manifesto......but, do carry on with your stupidity to find some traction in your faulty premise. Its rather fun.
Obama's mother was denied SOMETHING and died under the old system, thus was born his determination to reform it; which he did
what exactly was this "something"?? AND.., he had his Hawaiian grandmother silenced, she knew too much truth, his Kenyan Grandmother said he was born in Kenya.
Wow. YOu are such a dishonest jerk.
I know, I know, a bit of logic and honesty hurts you.....But do carry one in bumping the thread and digging your own hole.
Because Putin seems to be a leader who is pursuing the interests of his nation while Obama is more interested some pie in the sky Universalist nonsense.
One is worthy of some respect, the other is worthy of ridicule.
FYI, I don't hate Obama. I only detest his very existence. Anyone who can't see through the slimy snake oil salesman deserves to be be fooled, cheated and swindled. A course in Psychology 101 could help leftards a little bit. Not very much but a little bit.
Wouldn't you be happier burning a cross on someone's (someone dark skinned preferably) lawn than to demonstrate your stupidity on this forum?
