A community of 30,000 US Transcriptionist serving Medical Transcription Industry

To all those who hate Obama's policies

Posted: Jan 14, 2012

There, is that better?

I read somewhere on this board that a poster thought there was one person posting all those hateful messages. I have now been called a punk, a psychotic and pretty much a hate-filled maniac. I am just a liberal, 71-year-old, college educated American who was trying to find out what Obama has done that makes people so angry and I have not insulted anyone. However, there is no way to have a conversation with someone who accepts Fox News as gospel and rejects every credible source of information as liberal bias. There are organizations out there that are independent and nonpartisan and check the facts put forward by all news organizations. Of course there is bias in all of them but Fox is way over the top. Don't believe that? Can't do anything about it.

I agree with the poster who said this all sounds like one person and I agree. This person has said she has read my posts before and I am constantly trying to start trouble. Well, I posted on this board for the first time 2 days ago. I have posted on the MQ board but all that was nonpolitical.

If anyone wants to discuss any of Obama's policies, preferably one at a time, in specific terms, I may post again. Otherwise, good night and good luck! My apologies to Edward R. Murrow.

;

I'd love to discuss Obama's policies with you! - Zville MT

[ In Reply To ..]
I thought I left a pretty good post, but I think it may have been lost in the arguements, so I'll start with the health care mandate, which as I pointed out in my previous post, Obama said he didn't think it was a good idea in a debate with Hilary, but then went ahead and did it anyway.

I'm just curious what your stand is on this and how the government can justify forcing Americans to enter into a contract and buy a product or face fines and possibly jail.

Hope you continue to post - I think you'll find some of us on here can be very civil :)

Obama policies - Zville - Conservative

[ In Reply To ..]
I think your posts are pretty much to the point and civil. Unfortunately, there are very few that fall in that category. Obama's policies, with health care right up there, are extremely flawed and border on dictatorship. As stated earlier, Obamacare has nothing to do with health care and everything to do with total control. Over $500,000,000 worth of services have been cut to elderly alone; and that helps them how? When a poster was questioned about their support of Obamacare - they completely ignored the services discontinued and all health care services now totally controlled by govt. Their only comment was "you need car insurance". Well, if you don't want car insurance, you have the OPTION not to drive, but you still have methods of transportation available to you. Not so with Obamacare. Incidentally, I am not OABO; actually think poster just wanted to incite since OABO never cited facts in any post, just flamed.

The car insurance thing is something that - irks me when people compare

[ In Reply To ..]
this to mandated health insurance. The only way we could compare the two would be if the government decided that everyone needed insurance that even had a license. Not just that, we are going to 1 insurance policy. We are adding substandard policies and standard together. Everyone has to have full coverage.

Car insurance is measured by the risk, which is also how health insurance is as of now. People with teenage drivers have to pay very large premiums as the risk is higher. This can be a huge financial burdon on parents. Also, people who have had accidents, tickets, etc. pay more. They even get their insurance cancelled. Can you imagine if health insurance companies did this?

So, to me, it would be like the government saying we all need to basically split the costs here so everyone can be covered.

car insurance - Conservative

[ In Reply To ..]
That was my point, as well, before I was so brutally attacked on here. No one is required by law to drive; therefore, they are not forced into buying car insurance, which is very different than what Obamacare states.
As to your point about parents, high risk drivers, they are personally assessed for theor own personal situations, which again, is not the case of Obamacare. Each of us are forced into being assessed for people that continually make poor choices in their own lives.

Just which part of "I CAN'T AFFORD HEALTH - sm

[ In Reply To ..]
INSURANCE don't you understand? The premiums are outrageous, and many people simply can't have their major bill be health insurance instead of rent or mortgage payments.

This, to me, does not represent "poor choices in their own lives."

I had to give mine up when it reached over $700 a month, much more than my rent or car payment. Before that increase, I was getting along just fine.

It seems that the insurance companies only want the higher earners in society as customers. Another issue for the 99%-ers.

I can't afford health - sm

[ In Reply To ..]
I can't afford it either, but don't put my personal responsbility on others. I put so much money aside each month. If I need medical care, I PAY CASH FROM THAT TO DOCTORS THAT GIVE ME A CASH DISCOUNT. What a novel idea, pay cash. There are other ways, but it is easier for many not to research those other ways or to let someone else take care of their responsbilities.

cant afford health insurance? - polenta

[ In Reply To ..]
stay out of the doctors offices and emergency rooms, please. I dont want to pay your bill while you have cable TV,the internet, a crockpot and microwave popcorn in your pantry.

Can't afford health insurance - to polenta - Conservative

[ In Reply To ..]
Obviously, you misread my post. YOU do not have to pay any of my medical bills, I pay my own. Since I pay all of my medical bills myself, without any government assistance, your comment about you having to pay them for me is ludicrous. Incidentally, I don't have popcorn in my pantry. All the other items you mentioned in trying to discredit me, I paid cash for without any assistance from anyone including you.

Paying the bills - OABO

[ In Reply To ..]
That's very commendable but what will you do if you have a serious accident or catastrophic illness?

you raise an important question that deserves attention - no moniker

[ In Reply To ..]
In spite of the fact that the poster in question is completely responsible and engages in no high-risk behaviors such as eating meat or driving in a motor vehicle, it is possible to incur huge medical bills -- insurmountable medical bills, even.

Sometimes, even people who do not smoke wind up with really, really big medical bills due to illness, accident, genetics, toxic exposure - just to name a few culprits.

I sincerely hope that none of us ever has to undergo the kind of economic devastation that so frequently accompanies devastating illness.

I am not kidding - mbmt

[ In Reply To ..]
My mother was hospitalized for three months prior to her death due to a ruptured aneurysm, surgery, and subsequent stroke and sepsis. The total hospital bill was around a million dollars. Can anyone on this board come up with a million should they have a serious illness or accident? I know I couldn't.

you are so right - cristalblinkers

[ In Reply To ..]
I am very sorry about your Mom. You provide a very accurate rebuttal to the "I pay my own bills" crowd. That is just what irresponsible (uninsured) drivers say - "I'm a good driver it won't happen to me and if it does I will pay for it." They know in their hearts that if a catastrophe would happen, they would NOT pay and instead cry VICTIM, VICTIM, nothing I could have done about it. Meanwhile, somebody responsible pays their bills.

Who exactly are the "responsible" ones - who pays the uninsured's

[ In Reply To ..]
healthcare bills?

Paying the bills - the OABO - Conservative

[ In Reply To ..]
I am currently putting in a place a catastrophic policy for what you described. It is an affordable amount and supplements what I pay cash for.

To OABO - Conservative

[ In Reply To ..]
OABO - I would also like to add to my answer to you that I posted below the reason why I was without insurance. The company I worked for was one of the first to go through review after Obamacare passed. My original insurance (through Blue Shield, Blue Cross) that I and several hundred others in the company had and was very, very happy with, was deemed "illegal" and was no longer allowed to be offered to us. By the new guidelines, our premiums increased so drastically, our out of pocket expenses shot through the roof that we could not afford what was deemed "affordable" under the new law. Therefore, literally hundreds that had insurance they had paid for for years, were now without insurance of any kind. So much for "if you like what you have, you get to keep what you have." As a result, after several years of paying for insurance that more than adequately took care of what I needed (which also covered extensive outpatient services, as well as the catastrophic portion), due to the new law, I was completely without insurance of any kind. Under Obamacare, the "legal replacement" was more than my mortgage and covered far, far less, removed coverage for medications that were no longer "acceptable". I kept all the paperwork as proof you do not get to keep what you have if you like it, and also to show others just how drastic the increase for all us actually was (there was over 500+ affected by this). It is different when you see it in black and white for yourself the impact this law had on our company. As a result, I had to drastically rearrange things and am ending up with far, far less coverage than I ever had prior to the passage of Obamacare, and it is costing me much, more more than what I had before. I have paid my bills and I am not using any government assistance, and doing the best with what resources I have.

I'm having a problem with this - old and burned out

[ In Reply To ..]
This is very difficult to research but I don't believe it. I believe you lost your insurance but I think it is more likely that your employer wanted to make changes in the plan because it was becoming too expensive for them and thus lost their "grandfathered" status. They then blamed this on the Affordable Care Act. I can't find any provision (and admittedly I have not read the entire bill) that would support what you say.

agree with you - no moniker

[ In Reply To ..]
I think your assessment is spot on. It's hard to believe, without a proper explanation, how an insurance plan could be "deemed illegal". I just don't buy it.

in agreement #3 - flossy

[ In Reply To ..]
vague mumbo jumbo of a statement. In any case it was BCBS who decided to withdraw the plan (if that actually even happened). The final sentence attempts to cast poster as a victim valiantly struggling along. neh. does not ring true.

The world of insurance can be very devious - old and burned out

[ In Reply To ..]
What I've been able to find out about the Affordable Care Act is that all plans in existence before (forget the exact date) but year 2010 are grandfathered in unless there is a large jump in premiums for the insured, a large jump in the copays or a huge decrease in the employer contribution, any of which could have happened as well as BCBS withdrawing the plan as you say. Very hard to research this without specifics.

this story is on rewind - it was invalidated before

[ In Reply To ..]
They are bringing out the same old tired, worn out misrepresentations to try and create an issue. this is why I rarely frequent this board anymore.

And just how do YOU purport to know what is in a - total stranger's home? nm

[ In Reply To ..]

Did you research who voted and passed the bill - Bipartisan Support

[ In Reply To ..]
Do you not remember it took a supermajority of the Senate to pass the bill? By the way, it is the Affordable Health Care Act, not Obamacare, and it was modeled after Romney's health care in Massachusetts and Gingrich promoted it back when he was still relevant.

Bipartisan support not on Obamacare - Dems were the super majority

[ In Reply To ..]
Dems controlled both House and Senate when Obamacare was passed.

Actual House vote on Obamacare - Dems 219, Repub 210

[ In Reply To ..]
Only Dems voted for Obamacare; no Repubs. Clearly not bipartisan.

Actual Senate Vote on Obamacare - Dems + Inds 60, Repubs 39

[ In Reply To ..]
All Yeahs cast Dems and Inds.

Yay for the Independents! - OWS2

[ In Reply To ..]
Luckily, there are still some Independents who truly are independent, and don't just pretend to be!

They all vote with dems - No independents there

[ In Reply To ..]
x

Actual House vote - Repubs 212 (type) nm

[ In Reply To ..]
x

Oh that's right! A majority elected by the People of the United States - Proud

[ In Reply To ..]
Yes, we wanted affordable health care and our representatives passed the bill! Back in the days when Congress still did something before Boehner and his cronies took over.

Proud - Just another flamer/troll/whatever -YAWN

[ In Reply To ..]
x

Oh, please tell me why that is a flame! - Grasshopper

[ In Reply To ..]
Did you find someone else's opinion disagreeable? Eager to learn. Is it hard to like your own post? I learned you should not laugh at your own joke and be humble. This is difficult for me.

Who was laughing - grasshopper? - There was no opinion -just snarky

[ In Reply To ..]
x

So you were just being snarky? - time waster and not nice

[ In Reply To ..]
I feel like a victim! OMG!

Yes, back in the good old days when things actually - got done in DC. nm

[ In Reply To ..]

Dems in DC - sm

[ In Reply To ..]
yeah right - Dem never saw a wallet belonging to someone else they did not want to get their hands on.

Yes, I know there was bipartisan support... - Zville MT

[ In Reply To ..]
However, the conversation was regarding Obama, not Congress, Romney, or Gingrich; therefore, they weren't mentioned.

Alert! Topic Police - Thats the way a "discussion" goes.

[ In Reply To ..]
Sorry, but not only YOUR thoughts, are the thoughts that are considered.

Alert! - Snark police

[ In Reply To ..]
x

Going to try - old and burned out

[ In Reply To ..]
You did leave a good post but it is going to be very difficult to carry on a conversation because the poster I mentioned above keeps adding her 2 cents using everyone else's nickname. I am reasonably certain it is the same person because of her style, content and faulty logic. So if you ever want to email me, feel free.

Back to the topic: Would you answer 2 questions? Could you give me more information about the discussion with Hillary Clinton regarding healthcare because I remember Obama supporting single-payer healthcare when he was campaigning and, in fact, many liberals were angry with him because he did nothing to fight for it. Secondly, do you object to the government mandating auto insurance if you drive a car?

As to how I feel about the Affordable Care Act: 50 million Americans are without health insurance. When they become ill, they tend to go to ERs for care. This is often ineffective and extremely expensive and the costs are borne by those of us who have insurance; this raises our premiums and results in more people unable to afford the costs. I do not see any answer other than the mandate, especially since we are the only industrialized nation in the world that does not provide healthcare for all its citizens.

I also believe in single-payer. This is not socialized medicine. It is really Medicare for all. I am open to any discussions about this. Do not want the posts to get too long.

I remember the single-payer thing, too... - Zville MT

[ In Reply To ..]
but I remember him saying that it had to be in gradual steps. I don't remember which debate the mandate came up in, but I'll do some research and see if I can find it for you. I just remember Hilary saying she was for it and Obama saying he didn't think it was necessary (maybe he was just trying to set himself apart from her during the election - I don't know).

As to the second question, I would object if the govt mandated auto insurance only because not everyone drives. My SIL is legally blind and can't drive - why would she need auto insurance? If you do drive a car, yes, you should have auto insurance, but I think this is for the states to decide and control - I know there are some states where it already is the law to have driver's insurance (Ohio, where I live, is one of them).

I understand the expense of health care and desire for many to provide health care to everyone, but my question to you is where does the government get the power to mandate the purchase of a product by its citizens?

Mandates - old and burned out

[ In Reply To ..]
Thanks for the article. I did not remember that though I do remember him being in favor of single payer. So he has flip-flopped quite a bit.

As for auto insurance versus health insurance: What I am getting from you is that you are not against mandates, per se, but rather against a federal versus a state mandate. You must also have insurance to drive in Colorado and I certainly would not expect someone who does not drive to buy it; still it is a mandate.

Not being a constitutional lawyer, I cannot say whether the constitution either allows or prohibits such a federal mandate. It will undoubtedly end up in the Supreme Court which, unfortunately, has also became extremely political. All I can say to you is that I would be in favor of it because I see no other way out of the healthcare problem. What we have now is unsustainable.

I don't know if you heard the Republican debate in which some audience members felt it was okay to let people die if they had not purchased insurance. I can't see that as an option in the USA. If you have any ideas, I would be happy to hear them.

I'm not a constitutional lawyer either,... - Zville MT

[ In Reply To ..]
but I am pretty good with history. The argument Congress has used to defend the health care bill is the commerce clause.

The Constitution's Article I, Section 8, paragraph 3 gives Congress authority "To regulate Commerce with Foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes." During the war, the thirteen colonies formed a union under the Articles of Confederation (1778) whereby, "Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled." The Treaty of Paris (1783) that ended the war between the colonies and Great Britain recognized thirteen sovereign nations.

A key failing of the Articles of Confederation was the propensity of states to erect protectionist trade barriers. For example, if Maryland was mad at Pennsylvania for whatever reason, they could tell Pennsylvania they couldn't use thier roads to take goods to Virginia.

When the Framers met in Philadelphia in 1787 and wrote the constitution that governs us today, they addressed this problem through the commerce and the privileges and immunities clauses that created a national free-trade zone. Thus, the original purpose of the commerce clause was primarily a means to eliminate trade barriers among the states. They didn't intend for the commerce clause to govern so much of our lives. Indeed, as James Madison, the father of our Constitution, explained, "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite."

This is what gives the state the power to mandate auto insurance, as well as the power for Romney to mandate health care in Massachusetts, but not the federal govt the power to mandate either.

I did see that debate you mentioned and I can say that I'm not as heartless as some of those people, but if you think the system we have now is unsustainable, wait until we have a single-payer system. For proof of this, all you need to do is look at Europe.

As far as ideas, price control of medical services is where they should start. Tort reform would be an excellent place. Frivolous lawsuits are a big part of the reason doctors order so many expensive tests. Then, the price of some of these tests needs to come down - is there any reason a mammogram costs $500? I have to say no since there are many clinics that offer this service at a reduced price or for free. Also, if we were all able to buy insurance from any state, there would be much more competition between companies, hence lower prices for us.

I don't pretend to have all the answers, but I do know that the govt is not the answer to every problem and we have to stop looking at it like it is.

Healthcare - old and burned out

[ In Reply To ..]
It's late and I'm tired so forgive me if I am not utterly coherent.

I appreciate your care and thoughts with the history portion of your post.

Agree with price controls for medical services but this is more easily achieved with the largest group of patients as a bargaining tool. For example, the VA gets much lower drugs prices than anyone else. With everyone insured under single-payer, the government could most assuredly negotiate lower prices for services.

Since you are obviously a well-informed person, I am going to check this out again tomorrow but I believe that frivolous lawsuits account for only 1% of medical costs.

As for Europe, I don't think that healthcare is the main reason for what is happening but rather their other benefits like 6 weeks of vacation and retirement ages as low as 50 with pensions that are equal to the salaries they've been earning.

Part of the Affordable Care Act requires insurance companies to spend at least 80% of premiums on health care. About 20 years ago, 95% of premiums went to health care, today it is 80%. If nothing is done, I believe it will keep getting lower. Also, since you mention states rights above - all states have different insurance regulations and selling insurance across state lines will open up an entirely new bag of worms and probably an entirely new subspeciality for lawyers. I have problems with this argument too, because there are many companies selling health insurance in every state and when one raises premiums so do the others; competition is not lowering rates. If you live in NYC and are able to buy insurance in Mississippi you will still pay higher rates because health care in NY costs more than it does in Miss.

Even if you did get lower premiums from the insurance companies, there would still be nothing to stop them from denying claims, refusing to cover patients with pre-existing conditions and rescinding policies for trivialities, something which is becoming more and more prevalent in the industry.

I can appreciate the feelings of those who do not think that govt is the answer to all our problems but without Medicare probably only that 1% over 65 would be able to afford any insurance.

And just to mention it one more time, one of the biggest reasons medical services cost so much is that we are all paying for the uninsured.

Will check out that frivolous lawsuit business and get back to you.

Not incoherent at all - very well thought out. - Zville MT

[ In Reply To ..]
It's late and I still have a ton of work to finish (I'm terrible about leaving it to the last minute - lol).

I'll read your post again tomorrow when I'm more alert - you bring up some good points. Thanks for the good discussion!

Affordable Health Care is a law passed by Congress - SimpleSimon

[ In Reply To ..]
I for one, do not think the Constitution (or the select interpretation of it) is "the holy grail."

It is simple--affordable health care for all is a GOOD thing.

Bravo! Thank you. - nm

[ In Reply To ..]

SimpleSimon - sm

[ In Reply To ..]
Simple affordable health care - NOT Obamacare

What is the "holy grail" then? - Zville MT

[ In Reply To ..]
If Congress goes doesn't follow the Constitution, what rules should they follow?

"holy grail" - Conservative

[ In Reply To ..]
Agree. The Constitution was not written to be employed only when it suited someone's personal agenda. Have actually heard during the Obamacare fight that Constitution did not mean anything; they "ignore it" all the time....Maybe means nothing to them, but certainly to us for the only protection against government that we have. Otherwise, Weimar Republic here we come; and we all know how well that turned out.

Whichever hurts the 99% the most. - nm

[ In Reply To ..]

One of the most intelligent posts on this board. - Thank you, nm

[ In Reply To ..]

Re: post from yesterday - Zville MT

[ In Reply To ..]
Got most of my work done and some sleep - I'm all set :)

Yes, the VA does get lower drug prices than anyone else, but they should - they serve our country. They are, however, one group. I think if you put all of health care into the hands of the govt, they would then have the power to demand lower prices, perhaps even threaten to withhold research grants, etc. if they don't comply.

It may only be 1% due to actual lawsuits, but doctors prescribe many tests that may not be necessary in order to avoid getting sued, plus the fact that malpractice insurance is so high, such as for obstetricians, because of the threats of lawsuits. These need to be reined in before doctors can lower the charges for thier services.

I don't understand what you mean by a new subspecialty of lawyers when people buy insurance across state lines.

The part about the health care bill that I do like is that insurance companies can't refuse to cover patients with pre-existing conditions and can't cancel policies, especially in the middle of treatment. I'm not against everything in the bill, just the mandate, and this again goes back to the Constitution - Congress has no authority to do demand I buy a product.

Lastly, the fact that we are all paying for the uninsured wouldn't change if the govt had control over insurance. In the health care bill, there are exceptions for people who cannot afford even what the govt deems minimal coverage. I doubt, though, that they would be turned away at an ER, just like now, and those paying for insurance would still have to pick up the tab.

There just has to be a better way than having the govt take over such a large portion of our lives. There have to be better alternatives. I don't know what they are, but we just shouldn't have to jump from everything being voluntary to everything being mandatory, especially when (back to my original issue with the health care bill) Congress doesn't have the authority to do this.

Using your logic - People who drive

[ In Reply To ..]
should have auto insurance. People who use health care should have health insurance. Correct?

sure if they pay for it - Not on my dime

[ In Reply To ..]
x

So would you kick the poor off the curb then? - Pray tell, zville

[ In Reply To ..]
Just wondering what your solution is. You have so many answers.

Ever hear of Medicaid? - Poor get it FREE in my state

[ In Reply To ..]
x

Medicaid--what you get after you have lost everything - Yes, I have heard of it.

[ In Reply To ..]
Yup. Medicaid covers you after you have run up thousands of dollars of bills treating diseases instead of preventing them, after you have gone bankrupt trying to pay insurance premiums that are more than your house payment. Yup. I have heard of it.

Medicaid is medical assistance for the poor - in ANY state, dear

[ In Reply To ..]
and I agree with the poster below - you have to have lost everything before you can obtain Medicaid assistance.

Well dear - in my state you do not have to lose everything - and we ALL know what Medicaid

[ In Reply To ..]
That was for the benefit of those that think the poor have no coverage at all. What do think poor means. In my state, you do not have to lose everything either. You are able to keep you own home, car and other assets that require verification. They also direct you to any and all other agencies that may be able help someone through a difficult period. Review is done for the simple fact that that is the whole point of helping someone in need, and realizing that their circumstances can change at any time. Every so often, their cases are reviewed to determine if there is still a need, how extensive it is and if any circumstances did change. Unfortunately, there are many that falsify the records, obtaining medical insurance they are not entitled to. and there has to be a way to weed them out. So, dear, perhaps Obamacare would have been more prudent to review the insurance in my state before cramming Obamacare, the outrageous expense and lack of coverage on us all.

cramming - there's that word again...

[ In Reply To ..]
Ramming, cramming. These are interesting words. We frequently hear these words in discussions of the president. What do they mean? What do they refer to?

People will use these words about Pres. Obama, but I have yet to hear a rational explanation as to why.

I want to hear why.

Cramming - because they fit his style

[ In Reply To ..]
The meaning of each of these words can be found in Webster's. They are verbs that describe the way Obama handles anyone that does not fall in line with whatever he wants. Obama is constantly stating in his speeches how he is going to go around anyone not doing what he wants, the way he wants. Obama is going to force unconstitutional mandates in health care (forget that 60% on the last poll do not want what he came up with). We are forced to pay for things we do not want, services are eliminated that we want with complete disregard. They way Obama forced the recess appt through when there was no recess, Congress was in a pro forma session. He has forced regulations through the EPA that are far too numerous to list herer, that are very detrimental to several types of businesses without any understand of what those companies need or do without any hearings held. He specifically stated in 2008, "he" was going to "necessarily bankrupt" the coal industry because he did not want coal mined any longer. Forget that over 35% of our electricty comes from coal, not to mention the millions of people are employed in that industry. Obama also has forced several power plants throughout the country to close based on regulations Obama decided to have mandated through the EPA (5 have already closed; again, without hearings). One of these power plants services a huge section of the state of CA...there was no alternative put in place to service this area. There are massive black-outs and brown-outs expected throughout 1/3 of CA when finalized. There are many, many rational explanations for people using those words. Going through any one of his speeches, he continually talks about I,I,I...not what the American people want.

I don't think that really addresses what I'm asking - gutless gal, no moniker

[ In Reply To ..]
I think you understand that I know the literal meanings of these words.

I think you also understand that I am carious as to why this rhetoric is being used.

Telling us about "regulations Obama decided to have mandated" really doesn't answer the question.

Certainly, you understand that we have a system of checks and balances in place, and thus it isn't for the executive branch to "decide" to have something mandated.

So, this is the problem I'm having. I am trying to understand why you believe that Obama is mandating, forcing, and cramming with respect to his leadership principles.

Help me to understand.

gutless gal - sm

[ In Reply To ..]
If you actually undertand the words, then you would hv the answer to your own questions. Obama has NOT employed the use of all 3 branches of govt. for anything. Rather, he does what he wants, when he wants (ram - to force). Again, look at Obamacare, not to mention all the "bought" votes with the meaningless executive order. Poster gave you several examples...you chose to ignore each and every one.

magical thinking - no moniker

[ In Reply To ..]
Once again, we are treated to the magical thinking that Obama "does what he wants" and has somehow circumvented the three branches of government.

It's ridiculous for you to say "Obama has NOT employed the use of all 3 branches of govt" - as if it is an OPTION!

Our government works in specific ways. The president doesn't get to "choose" to "employ" the other branches of government. How silly.

Once again, short on comprehension, long on numinous thinking.

indeed! - nm

[ In Reply To ..]

"numinous" - Obama's description of himself

[ In Reply To ..]
You better pick up a paper and read. He has "employed" and "chosen" to do many things not constiutional. With your magical thinking, you probably don't think you need to read it. You're BORING.

Its the first word in the T-pub Talking Point Glossary - sm

[ In Reply To ..]
They actually have a bunch of words that they are told to use so they can manipulate the uneducated masses into hate, fear, reactions. It is called "framing the conversation."

Dem talking points - sm

[ In Reply To ..]
Oh yeah...the way Dems use the term racist.

Depends on the state - mbmt

[ In Reply To ..]
It is my understanding that only a few states are like yours where Medicaid covers all low-income people. In the state I live in and many other states, adults who are not parents of dependent children or disabled or elderly (65 or older) are not able to get Medicaid no matter how poor they are.

Thank you very much. - sm

[ In Reply To ..]
This is exactly the point I was trying to make in my post above. I wish most people knew that it is a state-by-state thing.

When I read posts like yours on this board, I feel less frustrated and more hopeful.

Thank you very much,

We all know Medicaid - sm

[ In Reply To ..]
Your state would have the option to lawfully change Medicaid and its policies if the constituents decided they wanted change. That is what my state did. With Obamacare you have no choice at all.

I couldn't get it in my state. - sm

[ In Reply To ..]
I was waiting for two years for my Social Security Disability hearing, and during that wait, I received $200.00 worth of food stamps and $200.00 in cash. I was NOT eligible for Medicaid because I didn't have any dependent children. I had 12 hospitalizations with no kind of insurance.

When I won my case, every penny was paid back into the system.

So all these gloriously large checks that some people maintain others receive certainly doesn't register with me when, in fact, the opposite happened.

I believe it's state-by-state rules that decide who can have Medicaid, but in my state, I wasn't allowed, and I had many, many hospitalizations and a terminal illness.

Could not get in you state - sm

[ In Reply To ..]
Nowhere in any post did anyone claim "gloriously large" checks as you state. In my state, Medicaid and its other components are to help you through a difficult time. These programs, again in my state, were not designed to support anyone indefinitely or for life. As indicated in a previous post, voters wanted things changed with Medicaid in my state and petitioned/voted to do so. When only about 1/3 of all voters actually get out and vote, makes it hard for those that do vote, to get the changes required.

No, I don't have all the answers and I don't pretend to. - Zville MT

[ In Reply To ..]
All I'm saying is that the govt is not the answer. If you start mandating health care because everyone should have it, what's next? Everyone should have a house - I mean, homelessness is a huge problem, right? Everyone should have a car because transportation is important, right? Oh, and a college education - everyone has the right to that because how can they get a good job without a college education? Now you have the govt paying for health care, houses, cars, and education. Who's going to pay for all that? You and me on MT wages?

Medicaid is also free in my state and you don't have to lose everything to get it. My husband and I made just under the limit last year in order to qualify for food stamps and Medicaid. We're not poor and haven't lost everything - we still have a house and a car. I wouldn't dream of "kicking the poor off the curb." There are way too many organizations, clinics, and free services (such as Medicaid) that this would never happen.

Good ZVille - Conservative

[ In Reply To ..]
Just signed on after the Twinkie bake off. :) Glad to see the voice of reason is still here and standing strong. Your posts make a lot of sense.

Yes, if they pay for it. - Zville MT

[ In Reply To ..]
Obama was right when he said health care has become too expensive - that's where they need to work. Tort reform would be a good place to start. The main problem is that people think that because they have health insurance, it will pay for whatever they need.

If you want to use the car insurance example, Ohio only requires you to have minimum coverage. If you're in an accident with someone that only has minimum coverage on thier car, thier insurance will pay for repairs, but nothing else, so if you end up in the hospital and having to buy a new car, you're on your own.

It's the same with health insurance. The govt mandates you only have to have a minimum coverage, so if you have a heart attack and are in the hospital for a week, it'll help pay for it. But if you have pneumonia, it's back to the ER because minimum coverage doesn't cover doctor visits. And if you want better insurance, you have to pay for it.

I'll ask you what I asked the OP and that's where in the constitution does the govt have the power to mandate Americans to buy a product?

I think the laws in each state should be the same. - sm

[ In Reply To ..]
If someone travels outside of their state of residency and through several other states on the way to their destination, the laws should be uniform in each state. How can someone be expected to know 50 sets of motor vehicle laws?

Go ahead. Let the flaming begin.

Okay, that didn't take long... - Zville MT

[ In Reply To ..]
I wish all the research I had to do went this easy :)

I tried to find something on youtube, but all they had on there was the entire debate from South Carolina - all 2 hours or so. But I think this article from PolitiFact gives all the relevant information.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/jul/20/barack-obama/obama-flip-flops-requiring-people-buy-health-care/

Apparently Newt and Mitt have changed their minds a few times - sm

[ In Reply To ..]
Good thing we have a research librarian here to present all the facts.

Why would you dislike that? - Don't like your history?

[ In Reply To ..]
This like/dislike confuses me. You can post a fact, and people dislike it.

Don't like you history - I'm sure you've changed your mind on iss

[ In Reply To ..]
Has to do with someone learning and growing. I am sure you and others have changed their opinion about something at sometime in your life...part of being human. Would not expect more for a politician in that regard, than I would of you. They are as human as anyone else, not perfect.

I'm glad you appreciated my research abilities :) - Zville MT

[ In Reply To ..]
I know Newt and Mitt have flip-flopped numerous times - show me a politician who hasn't!

However, this post was about Obama and the debate with Hillary, so I decided to stick with that topic.

Going to try- - You are on a public board...DUHHHH

[ In Reply To ..]
x

The Republicans killed the single-payer option. - sm

[ In Reply To ..]
They also killed a few other ideas that the middle class wanted to be included.

If the Republicans weren't so obsessed on making Obama a one-term President, we'd probably have a much better healthcare system in place.

sm - sm

[ In Reply To ..]
Hope Oama is 1 term; otherwise change USA to United States of Communism.

To OABO - Obama policies - Conservative

[ In Reply To ..]
Would probably help you get your point across if you did so with a little class and restraint on the insults. I read every single post to you and written by you. Unfortunately, contrary to your assessment, you have been insulting to many. Just look at the title of your post and what you wrote...very biased and insulting from the start. You were demanding documentation in your post, but you provided none. CNN, MSNBC, HSNBC and all major networks go overboard in the "positives" on Obama and anything that is not Obama, they are gorssly negative. Each station keeps the stats on what they report - if you are interested, look it up. I do not hate the man, I HATE his policies. Incidentally, what you deem "credible" appears on its face to be very biased. As you stated, "don't believe that, can't do anthing about it". There are a few on this board that have written well thought out and polite posts, citing all sorts of statistics and were met with complete disrespect and name calling...it goes BOTH WAYS.

Unbelievable - read this

[ In Reply To ..]
You have got to be kidding me. First of all, no one has to pass your sniff test of what is appropriate and what is not. As long as they are following the posting guidelines, they're good to go. NOTHING, I repeat, NOTHING that OABO has posted has been in any way done with a lack of class or restraint (and if you're referring to tea party "loonies," in a post below, give me a break), contrary to some of what YOU have posted here under whichever moniker you decided to use. Each and every one of your MULTIPLE posts has been pretty much devoid of any fact and ultimately results in generalized insults trying to bait someone liberal or democrat or not conservative enough in your eyes in an argument... if not, there is no point except to buddy up to another poster to the point where I'm thinking "get a room already!" There aren't any cliques on this board, nor should there be, and this isn't high school.

The overdramatics need to stop, and if OABO using the term "Obama haters," offends you, stop being so ubersensitive when it's convenient (play victim much?). There have been PLENTY of posts on here calling folks "Obama lovers," so the opposite of that would be?... (use common sense here).

I suggest you read the posting guidelines on this site. If you have been wondering why certain people haven't been posting, they're waiting for the nonsense to stop. It makes sense that it will not continue if no one responds to it. Unfortunately, it looks like we have someone here to thoroughly enjoys talking to themselves anyway, so the wait may be a little longer. As for OABO, I appreciate her input which she has a RIGHT to add, and if she decides to participate now, then more power to her.

And, yes, I realize that this post also goes against the guidlines and falls under the category policing; however, I (and I'm sure many others) have been sitting back rather eager to engage but have not because of the lunacy on here as of late, so I've decided to say something because I'm tired of it.

like! - well said

[ In Reply To ..]
I hardly ever post on this board for the very reasons you describe.

Look how fast this thread went south. It just gets so tiresome, doesn't it?

They go south so fast because nobody wants to discuss anything. - Zville MT

[ In Reply To ..]
I honestly want others' opinions, especially those opposite of mine, but it seems very few want to actually engage in anything but name-calling.

It does get tiresome. I have a feeling with it being an election year, it's just going to get worse.

Going south- ZVille - Conservative

[ In Reply To ..]
Not to mention those that think only a few have the right to respond to what they say. Then there are the "detectives" that think they have everyone/everything figured out. Then there are those that keep threatening to leave the board, as if it matters to those that stay...good riddance. If they want private conversations and no response/input from anyone, this is not the venue. It is tiresome, and with you, I agree with the election it is only gonna get worse.

a word about discussion, Ms. C - ...

[ In Reply To ..]
I have yet to see you post here in a manner that supports discussion rather than bombast and hyperbole.

For example, I would be interested in hearing why you think Obama's policies "border on dictatorship".

You can make these pronouncements if you like, but as you yourself mention lower down in this post, you present "no facts to support your rants".

a word about - Conservative

[ In Reply To ..]
Your pronouncements are way off, and if you actually bothered to read what I have posted in regards to Obamacare, there were many facts listed throughout this board. Another 1 for your benefit I will cite here. I am forced to pay for abortions under Obamacare (yes, it is in the bill), yet I am opposed to abortion and it is against what I believe from a faith standpoint. It also covers illegal aliens, which I have to pay for (yes, it is in the bill), which I do not agree with. I get no choice at all in regards to my faith, believes or choices as to what I want to cover for myself. As I stated in an earlier post, you can pull the bill up and read whatever portions you want to. However, there are more on this site interested in attacking me, then supporting their position. Just read your opening statment to me; certainly done to try and insult. Even to the degree that if I pay someone a complement, I am told to "get a room". Pretty childish. If you see only bombast and hyperbole, it is because you have not read all and that is only what YOU choose to see. Your insults reveal your lack of character, not mine.

discussion - ...

[ In Reply To ..]
Science and medicine are based on fact, not on opinion or religion. That's just the way it is in the USA.

Now: I was not trying to insult you with my post. I was only responding to the current thread we are participating in.

You have now gone on to insult me, judge me, and cite me for lack of character.

I hope you feel better now.

discussion - Conservative

[ In Reply To ..]
I feel great. Contrary to what many believe, I am entitled to my opinion. You can disguise it however you want, but your comments were specifically stated to try and insult. So, I guess we have a draw here. Again, I have had the guts to sign my name and this is now at least 2 different "monikers" you've used. Also, contrary to your comments, Science and Medicine have nothing to do with what Obamacare dictates. I am entitled to pay for the things I believe and need for myself, and not make others responsible for those choices. Unfortunately, I do not get the same courtesy. Incidentally, I am sure the "moniker police" will be all over this, as this is your second posting to me without name. Not to mention the "detectives" that will compare your writings to someone on "MQ" (whatever that is) to see if they match. Good luck to you.

a word about, P.S. - Conservative

[ In Reply To ..]
Where is your "moniker"? At least I have the guts to sign what I post as opposed to others on here...just saying.

oh... I have no guts now, too. thanks again - no moniker for you

[ In Reply To ..]

LOL!! I know you're in the middle of an ugly arguement... - Zville MT

[ In Reply To ..]
but I had to post that I like your "no moniker for you" comment - always makes me think of Seinfeld with the soup Nazi. That always makes me laugh, so thanks for the smile :)

: ) - thanks right back atcha

[ In Reply To ..]

Ugly argument - to ZVille - Conservative

[ In Reply To ..]
Pretty sad actually. I guess there are only a few that can say what they want use no name and insult others and that is okay. When turned back to them....OMG, what a different tune they sing!

I can see where it might upset some... - Zville MT

[ In Reply To ..]
because you don't know who you're responding to, but maybe just try to stay away from the argumentative posts - just don't engage - I've found they eventually go away if they don't have anyone to pick on.

You have some really good posts and good insight - keep to that and stay away from the rest. It'll reduce the need for stress-eating - like Twinkies :)

To ZVille - Agree - Conservative

[ In Reply To ..]
Actually, they are pretty easy to spot. Since they don't know me at all, I find their comments pretty funny and quite entertaining. Responding to them is like pulling a string in front of the cat :) As I said earlier, their attacks show far more about their character. Gives me something to kill time until the Twinkie batter is ready...LOL. Just enjoy pointing out their hypocrisy; when their arguing, flaming, baiting gets old and tired, I move on.

No moniker - Yeah - got it right - no guts

[ In Reply To ..]
x

would a moniker make us meaningful like you? - nm

[ In Reply To ..]

Moniker meaningful - Only to you police that scream about it

[ In Reply To ..]
X

hon, I am the one who just got told I have no guts if I have no moniker - I'm not the police, and I'm not screamin

[ In Reply To ..]

Hon - grow up - No one cares about your childish fight

[ In Reply To ..]
x

apparently, you do! - I was trying to clarify

[ In Reply To ..]
gee wiz.

Please see message. - sm

[ In Reply To ..]
I've been on this board for quite a few years now. I've seen intelligent people with monikers come and go.

It usually happens when a democrat or liberal posts something that the over-sensitive ultra-right finds offensive to them.

Then each time the person with the moniker comes back and posts, the poster is already hated because of his/her name, and it really doesn't matter what he/she has to say because nobody can get past the moniker and automatically attack the poster.

There's a lot to say for NOT having a moniker. At least people actually READ your posts instead of that hateful knee-jerk reaction.

I've seen this happen to numerous people, and they finally quit coming here because the atmosphere was so hateful.

Please see message - sm

[ In Reply To ..]
There are FAR MORE insulting posts from dms and liberals than anything else on this board. Funny how you are so one-sided in your description of what occurs. Pretty easy to see you are one of "ultra" left that is sensitive to everything; thus, never using a moniker. You're right, there are a lot of very hateful, mean-spirited, uninformed, poorly read "ulta" lefties on this board. Pretty sure no one cares if they leave.

judgmental, ignorant - nonsense

[ In Reply To ..]

Judgemental, ignorant, nonsense - Yeah - you ALL ARE

[ In Reply To ..]
You think your ridiculous nonending, biased threads make sense?? Sorry to see you ALL stoop so low. But heh, giving me a good chuckle; so, I guess it's worth it. THANKS

thank you kindly - no moniker

[ In Reply To ..]
thanks for understanding.

Unbelievable - Conservative

[ In Reply To ..]
This poster proved the point of complete intolerance. When you deal with this mindset, nothing is ever accomplished. Seems more interested in writing a novel than having any meaninful exchange. When someone titles their post with "hate" involved, does not start from a good place and shows you where their thoughts originate from. Flame away "unbelievable", you certainly are.

Unbelievable -read this - Conservative

[ In Reply To ..]
What a bitter, nasty poster you are. Just proves everyone's point about the intolerance on this board, especially yours, with whatever "moniker" you choose, as I have seen your text/venom written under many. Keep it up, just reveals you for what you truly are...completely intolerant, no facts to support your rants.

The post here - OABO

[ In Reply To ..]
Thanks for that. Will continue to post only if sanity prevails. I believe this person has been posting on the MQ board as well defending all the company's despicable policies in the name of profit. Same style, same type of content, many different names, same lack of coherence. Will never answer her again.

Why is it - what if

[ In Reply To ..]
You are doing the exact same thing as you are accusing others of doing. I was going to respond to your original post last night, but was too tired. Today I come back and read all the replies and now it makes me wonder if your original question was even a valid one. Do you really want to know why people don't agree with his policies, or was it to start an argument? I don't understand.

Your post below starting off calling people "Obama haters" was so offensive. Then I thought this one was okay (minus the word "hate" again). Seems like you have to get that jab in again. I posted below that your posts would be better responded to if you asked why we disagree with his policies, but you had to post "hate" again (jab, jab). Of course you have the right to post anything you want, but you'll find it hard to have a decent conversation if you continue to insult.

I'd love to have a conversation about policies, but only if its posed as a serious question instead of a bait question to get an argument going.

Most of us here are college educated and we all come from different walks of life. No two people agree on everything. But if insults are thrown then insults will be returned. You didn't like when someone accused you (might have been me or was someone else, I can't remember now and I have no interest in going back and reading all the posts), but you didn't like it when someone accused you of posting multiple times and now you are doing the same thing. Nobody knows who anyone is on this board. You are insinuating there is one person posting under multiple names because they have the same style same type of content??? I don't know if you are talking about me or someone else. I did post another post, but I also said in my message block that "I am what if". But same "lack of coherence". All I say is if you don't want insults, sweetie, then you shouldn't throw them out directed at others.

I come to this board because I like to hear others opinions on issues whether or not they agree with me. Sometimes when I listen to what other people say it gets me thinking to look things up and sometimes I even change my mind on issues from what I find. Lately though seems like this board is filled with people who just come on to insult for the fun of it then sit back and play the innocent victim role. Then they get others to gang up on them.

So...if you really were interested in knowing what policies people "disagree" with it kind of got lost in the jab, but I agree with Zville MT. Then there is the patriot act, the spendulus, the asking for more money when the country is bankrupt, secret appointments, closed door meetings not allowing other congressmen in other parties to be there when they should be, then there are the 4M vacations we pay for, the mad hatter secret parties, dividing and not uniting people of both parties, date nights that we pay for, hearing the first lady say she likes being called "your excellency", showing off the bling (in such bad taste to flaunt your wealth and jewels and boast about it when so many people have lost their jobs and homes and cannot provide for their children, not caring about the people, calling anyone not in the crat party enemies, etc, etc. Not all policies, but dealing more with "human decency". Still with everything he is doing I think he is a nice guy. He's handsome and he has a great speaking voice. I always thought if I was in a emergency situation his voice would be very calming. Personally I like the guy. Bet he'd be a blast to hang out with and have a beer and watch a game with. It's just the policies set forth. But I also know too that he is not the one who sets the policies. He has bosses and he does what they tell him to do. I guess you could call it the bearer of bad news. It's an unfortunate job and the poor guy went gray so fast. One day I was watching the TV and his hair was its regular color then a couple days later I saw him and he was so gray.

So I love discussing politics and policies, but not when someone calls me a hater/racist. Then I think what am I a racist against, people of my color? I think the racist card isn't working anymore and that's why the liberal media is instructing their minions to now use the word hater. Unfortunately when you call people that you need to have some facts to back up those unsubstantiated claims.

But again, if you want to have a decent conversation I wouldn't start it with a hateful post calling people names, then sit back and play the victim role. Just sayin.

wy is it -what if - Conservative

[ In Reply To ..]
Got slammed on here by one/ones you mentioned throughout because I had a differing opinion. They are like drive bys. Actually, they become so bizarre in their lack of thought and ranting, it is funny, but sadly so. I disagree with pretty much all of Obama's policies. People that support Obama always claim they want to know why you don't like him. When you spell what you don't like about Obama, out comes the race card and a multitude of insults. Obama camp accused Clinton camp of being racists in 2008. I could not care less how many of my posts they hate, "compare" to others for similarities, or their incongruity of thought. I also like to see what others post because, if you actually read it without blinders on, you walk away with information or a viewpoint better explained by a poster with substace. Unfortunately, there are too many hear that hit the ground running with baiting comments, trying to insult in their headings and when turned back to them, get maniacal. No wonder they cannot rally support for Obama's POV carrying on like a 2-year-old or a bully..that is a lot of what Obama does. Just watch the broadcast of Obama's health care summit and how disrespectful he was there. Okay, now sit back and watch the flamers strike.....LOL

Similar Messages:

Mar 05, 2010
"WASHINGTON â�� A new congressional report released Friday says the United States' long-term fiscal woes are even worse than predicted by President Barack Obama's grim budget submission last month. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office predicts that Obama's budget plans would generate deficits over the upcoming decade that would total $9.8 trillion. That's $1.2 trillion more than predicted by the administration...Economists say that deficits of that size are unsusta ...

Mar 21, 2010
Interesting, informative. Voting when fully understanding President Obama's policies. http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2008/10/13/howard-stern-exposes-why-so-many-people-support-obama ...

May 05, 2017
Hilarious... Check out the guy in the hammer and sickle shirt. ...

Aug 27, 2012
I got to wondering once again what is behind some of the behaviors we see on a lot of forums, so I went looking. This link discusses one model, explained by a former FBI behavioral analyst, that is easy to apply to on-line forum discussions, where behaviors would, of course, play out in the first four stages. (The discussion on skinhead groups can be skipped over, if desired, with the actual 7 stages explained below.) It was the last section, though, on how indulging in hate tends to play out ...

Nov 20, 2010
...

Oct 06, 2012
Here is a You tube from the Simpsons/Family Guy animator. Worth the 3 minutes and 44 seconds to watch it. ...

Feb 26, 2013
Today’s “Meet The Press” had a very short segment that was more impactful than most would immediately imagine. Having David Gregory make factual assertions to both Gov. Bobby Jindal (R-LA) and Gov. Deval Patrick (D-MA) about GOP policies was all the more poignant, particularly given that, over the past several years, he has appeared to be either an apologist for GOP middle class destructive policies by giving them airtime and plausibility, or someone who continuously misreprese ...

Nov 03, 2013
EDITORIAL Insurance Policies Not Worth Keeping By THE EDITORIAL BOARD Published: November 2, 2013 FACEBOOK TWITTER GOOGLE+ SAVE E-MAIL SHARE PRINT REPRINTS Congressional Republicans have stoked consumer fears and confusion with charges that the health care reform law is causing insurers to cancel existing policies and will force many people to pay substantially higher premiums next year for coverage they don’t want. That, ...

Sep 16, 2015
America big bucks! ...

Nov 06, 2013
Here's their latest. The link below is to another Consumer Reports 2012 article on junk insurance period, "Junk Insurance: Cheap Plans May Be Worse Than None at All." Thanks to the reds for focusing attention on this terrible practice. If only they'd done it earlier. Like 20 years ago, or even 10. That Florida woman's canceled Blue Cross policy? It's junk insurance. She can get a real plan for only $165 a month Published: October 29, 2013 06:33 PM Photo: ...

Nov 20, 2013
A few years ago, when talking to the insurance coordinator person at my MTSO, I remember a comment she made about the new (yearly the insurance changed to either a new company or new, worse coverage that cost more) high deductible plan. She said, "It is so employees will be more invested in their care." At that point the high deductible policy was a new choice which luckily was not costing too much less than the other more comprehensive one. Now there would be few who could pay the premiums fo ...

May 11, 2017
in Nebraska and Delaware in 2018. Another one bites the dust.Will there be any health insurance left before they get the new insurance rules? The Senate is making up their own policy. Wonder how long that will take. Then they want to send it to committee. That could take a couple years.Some states don't have any Obamacare anymore, yet Obama is still proud of his "legacy" of health care? Don't think so. ...

Dec 16, 2011
Again, just my opinion.... ...

Jul 06, 2015
Didn't Gavin Newsom once say, "As California goes, so goes the rest of the nation." Indeed! If the liberal policies continue, America will be full of a lawless, amoral lot. Disgusting!! ...

Nov 01, 2014
This is an issue that affects EVERYONE!!! We should all be outraged and hold accountable those at fault. ...

May 16, 2013
It is 4 a.m. and I have not yet fallen asleep. My nose is stuffy and my throat hurts. I can't turn off the stream of "things I need to deal with" inside my brain. I bet I fall asleep 5 minutes before the alarm goes off. blah.... ...

Jun 15, 2016
I saw the video accompaniment to this article on CNN over this past weekend, actually on Saturday evening, before Orlando. I would suggest everyone read and/or watch this. It's very enlightening. ...

Dec 30, 2010
But New Year's is probably my least fave holiday. There's no particular reason for it. I've never had anything traumatic happen on that night. I just don't get excited for it. DH and I went out once or twice when we could get a sitter, but I still didn't get excited for it. I think it's because of the letdown from Christmas. From now until spring, there isn't anything going on and we live in the Northeast, so the weather will ...

Mar 22, 2010
Blogger Urges 'Bullet for Obama' on Twitter Secret Service investigating (Newser) – Secret Service authorities are investigating tweets by a conservative blogger apparently urging "a bullet" to President Obama's "head." Solomon Forell, upset by the impending passage of the health reform bill, noted yesterday that because the nation survived the killings of Lincoln and Kennedy, "we'll surely get over a bullet 2 Barack Obama's head!" reports Jezebel. He later a ...

Jul 16, 2013
http://www.redflagnews.com/headlines/6-black-teens-beat-white-man-to-death-no-hate-crime ...

Mar 01, 2017
Because of the posts below, I decided to rely on my own research. What in the hell is wrong with the Democrats? There are numerous, hateful, disgusting comments the Liberals seem proud to own. This guy below deleted his Twitter account. There is also a video available that CLEARLY shows some of the Democrats sitting like bumps on a log, refusing to acknowledge Carryn Owens. These are the same Democrats that gave a standing ovation to Fluke because she wanted taxpayer money to pay for her $ ...

Apr 07, 2014
Production only pay – not steady income. Not paid hourly. Working holidays/weekends. Mandatory OT (not asked) and emailed if you do not work OT and not paid any extra for OT, just for lines produced. No incentives/bonuses (except produce more lines, which affects QA). No pay raises over top tier CPL ever! More accounts added to my mask after I asked not to have more work added because I knew I would not be able to meet QA. More responsibility with less pay. Pay decreased twice within 1 ...

Sep 10, 2015
I hate, hate, hate Comcast. They are so incompetent. I've had nothing but issues for the last week, constantly being disconnected and modem locking up, lagging when I type and I have to wait to catch up. Call Comcast and get a frickin foreigner who can hardly speak English but just constantly says Sorry, Sorry. Yes I see you have a very poor and slow connection. We will set up appointment to fix the problem we promise. Tech comes out says everything is working fine and then wants to charge ...

Apr 26, 2017
Like the author or not, the magazine or not - this article hits the nail on the head. Read it with an open mind and see if it isn't complete truth! ...

Oct 14, 2009
Obama's High BarBy Eugene RobinsonTuesday, October 13, 2009 WaPoSomebody explain this to me: The president of the United States wins the Nobel Peace Prize and Rush Limbaugh joins with the Taliban in bitterly denouncing the award? Glenn Beck has a conniption fit and demands that the president not accept what may be the world's most prestigious honor? The Republican National Committee issues a statement sarcastically mocking our nation's leader -- elected, you will recall, by a heal ...

Feb 28, 2011
I hate when I am sitting here typing at 2:30 in the morning and a spider is crawling up the wall! I am absolutely terrified of spiders to the point that it is hard for me to kill them. I did it though, used the fly swatter, hopefully it died as it is behind furniture so it is hard to see but now I really do not want to put my feet on the floor to continue typing. Having real panic feeling like it is coming out from there, big and ******. One time, I was cleaning my house ...

Dec 24, 2009
I wish everyone Happy Holidays/Merry Christmas for you and your family and friends. I hope you all stay safe, warm and cozy and enjoy your family and friends. "Peace on earth and good will towards men." Nikki ...

Jan 16, 2011
and perhaps was influenced by the hateful left rhetoric after the shootings? Holding up a picture and saying "you're dead?" Didn't we see a blog posted about "dead to me?" "Can't someone shoot her in the head?" "He should be shot in the head..." THIS is why it needs to be dialed down, and THIS is why people need to act more responsibly. And NOW would be the time for those on the left who do not want to see the violence escalated, including that sheri ...

Jan 09, 2011
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/edcetera/2013889257_turn_down_the_hate_speech.html ...

Jan 28, 2010
What is the senate for? What does congress do? Some of the opinions stated here clearly show nothing but personality conflicts - Bush or O, doesn't matter. Bottom line - O walked into a disaster when he took office. The lies about the state of the economy - Bush did not do that by himself either (congress). What we heard up until his last 6 months in office was, "The economy is strong." Perhaps so far in this administration some things should have been ...