Consider...


Admit it. You want a white Republican president again.
Now before you start feeling like you’re a racist, understand you are not.

Wanting a white Republican president doesn’t make you racist, it just makes you American.

In the pre-black president era, criticizing the president was simply the American thing to do. An exercise of one’s First Amendment right. Criticism had nothing to do with color, because there had never been a black president, or at least one whom people recognized as black.

So to criticize the president meant that you didn’t like his policies.

The election of a recognized black president was not supposed to change anything. In fact, it was supposed to (1) ease any perceived racial tensions, and (2) allow the government to focus on legislating without race. So America would be more free than ever to discuss the issues.

Not the case. And that is why having a white Republican president is best for the country.

..................

African-American columnist Joseph Perkins has studied the effects of Reaganomics on black America. He found that, after the Reagan tax cuts gained traction, African-American unemployment fell from 19.5 percent in 1983 to 11.4 percent in 1989. Black-owned businesses saw income rise from .4 billion in 1982 to .1 billion in 1987—an annual average growth rate of 7.9 percent. The black middle class expanded by one-third during the Reagan years, from 3.6 million to 4.8 million.

Real Politics reports Obama’s statistics as follows:


Median family income for black Americans has declined a whopping 10.9 percent during the Obama administration…This decline does not include losses suffered during the financial crisis and the recession that followed, but it instead measures declines since June 2009, when the recession officially ended.

That’s not the only bad news for African-Americans. The poverty rate for blacks is now 25.8 percent. The black labor force participation rate, which rose throughout the 1980s and 1990s, has declined for the past decade and quite sharply under Obama to 61.4 percent. The black unemployment rate, according to Pew Research, stands at 13.4 percent. Among black, male, high school dropouts, PBS’ Paul Salmon reports, the unemployment rate is a staggering 95 percent.

That report was from 2011, and it’s gotten worse since then. Facts don’t lie. Yet blacks want to put Obama on Mt. Rushmore and hang Reagan in effigy.

The only way you can argue with those stats is if you are a racist. Truth be told, most Liberal blacks are racists.

Nobody wants to discuss it, because racism by black Liberals has been sanctioned by the Left, even encouraged. Black racists get a pass, as black race-baiters are unchallenged on the most idiotic ideas and statements.

MSNBC’s Touré said that using the word “angry” to describe Obama is racist. Juan Williams of Fox News said that mentioning the Constitution is racist, and the list goes on.

But it gets worse. These Lefty racists do a far bigger disservice to blacks and America in general, as they rationalize Obama’s (and the Left’s) inability to create opportunity. When their policies wreak havoc, they pose insane arguments. They say that Republicans are trying to starve people by reducing the welfare rolls that Liberals have happily increased by 16M Americans.

Race-baiting, poverty-pimp Al Sharpton argued recently to keep 3M known deadbeats on welfare.

Black racists don’t complain when black people are marginalized and insulted with policies that dumb down black America, like the lessening of academic standards. They are fine telling black youths that those youths are less smart than all other ethnic groups. Certainly no future ramifications from that policy, said nobody ever.

These same racists allow for black children to be cheated in education and ultimately, opportunity, as their enablers—guilty white Liberal racists—turn a blind eye.

I long for the days of a white president, because under white presidents, at least black people had pride. Liberals have stolen pride from blacks, and they have no intention of giving it back.

At least if we had a white president, black people might have a shot of regaining a modicum of respect.

Read more at America Needs a White Republican President :: The Black Sphere (http://theblacksphere.net/2013/10/america-needs-white-republican-president/#jfmiXWpDqRMPpPMV.99)

OK, let me have it.

Nah, obvious trolling is obvious.

Nah, obvious trolling is obvious.

Thank you for your always astute and thoughtful commentary.

I think america needs a white republican president like a hole in head. It is obvious your electors, given the choice, are of the same opinion. If you knew how to use the politics of consensus, you wouldn't think like this. What you need is a president with vision backed by a political system that can articulate that vision. You don't have this, so any president will do, since he is faced with watching an empass in the legislature

I think america needs a white republican president like a hole in head. It is obvious your electors, given the choice, are of the same opinion. If you knew how to use the politics of consensus, you wouldn't think like this. What you need is a president with vision backed by a political system that can articulate that vision. You don't have this, so any president will do, since he is faced with watching an empass in the legislature

I think you missed the point.

No more red necks from Texas

Obama INHERITED a mess.

The housing bubble peaked in 2006!
The recession is considered to have 'begun' in mid 2007!
Were all those bundled mortgage securities and derivatives and crap done by liberals, or blacks, or anyone but white conservatives?
The wheels were grinding long before he took office!

'I long for the days of a white president, because under white presidents, at least black people had pride. Liberals have stolen pride from blacks, and they have no intention of giving it back.' Say WHAT? Not even worth addressing.

As for as black and white, I always saw Obama as black and white. If we put him on a black white scale, he would balance. Oh wait! He IS black and white.

You sir are a terrible instigator. Lousy. Not worth foaming and flaming about. Do better. Or go buy some real estate in Midland and frack a duck. It's the new Greenwich, second to that city as richest zip.

Or go buy some real estate in Midland and frack a duck. It's the new Greenwich, second to that city as richest zip. Isn't that great ? The US is the energy center of the world if we just had leaders that recognized the potential .


The housing bubble peaked in 2006!
The recession is considered to have 'begun' in mid 2007!
Were all those bundled mortgage securities and derivatives and crap done by liberals, or blacks, or anyone but white conservatives?
IThe wheels were grinding long before he took office!
Indeed it did . It began in the 1990s when he was a community agitator demanding that banks ease their lending requirements to customers with poor credit. He filed a lawsuit on behalf of 186 clients claiming discrimination in home mortgages. 19 of the 186 still own a home and have a good credit rating .

'Potential' is 'realized.' It's not that easy to slobber over fracking, much as I look forward to lower prices. Hopefully I'll be in the great beyond soon and won't have to agonize over fracking. One entire town in Texas lost it's water table completely thanks to fracking. Wait until the earthquakes start getting bigger. For now, they are small but vastly more frequent. And that doesn't even get into the proprietary chemicals, the contaminated water spewed out with nowhere to go... but hey, if they want to give me money for my land and then pay me off when I get sick (has happened to some) I'll be the first in my neighborhood. Too bad I'm just over the edge of the Marcellus.
Oh and the GREED. They want permission to export instead of selling it here. Figure that one out. I guess it's more profitable to take it all to a seaport than truck it all over the US.

As for Obama bringing down the banks as a community organizer? Please. That's like saying I brought them down by borrowing 30K to buy a house from my father and letting him not declare the interest I paid on his taxes because I didn't take the deduction. That's not a good comparison, but it's equally miniscule. How many bad loans were extended to whites with bad bad bad credit? More than 186, you betcha.

Isn't that great ? The US is the energy center of the world if we just had leaders that recognized the potential .

Indeed it did . It began in the 1990s when he was a community agitator demanding that banks ease their lending requirements to customers with poor credit. He filed a lawsuit on behalf of 186 clients claiming discrimination in home mortgages. 19 of the 186 still own a home and have a good credit rating .

JP Morgan was fined $13 BILLION today for fraudulently selling toxic securities that they promoted as triple AAA. The fine falls far short of the appropriate punishment.

Until these guys get serious jail time, it will be business as usual, and Jamie will bask in the Hampton sun writing his memoirs. At least the settlement did NOT prevent other CRIMINAL legal actions in process against the boys.

Blaming the financial disaster on Obama makes my head spin. I'll bet the next thing you claim will be that there WMDs in Iraq that caused GW Bush to invade.

You guys, if nothing else, manage to give new meaning to the word "bizarre".

I would rather have a moderate Democrat like Bill Clinton as president. The Republicans are no longer the sensible party of Eisenhower and Ford. The economy was booming when Clinton was president he wanted to get people off welfare, and he cared about the environment. The Republicans are not electable now that the tea party has hijacked the party. I think Hillary Clinton has a good chance in 2016.

Isn't that great ? The US is the energy center of the world if we just had leaders that recognized the potential .

Indeed it did . It began in the 1990s when he was a community agitator demanding that banks ease their lending requirements to customers with poor credit. He filed a lawsuit on behalf of 186 clients claiming discrimination in home mortgages. 19 of the 186 still own a home and have a good credit rating .

Oh Please Bo is not to blame for the excesses of your capitalist bankers. That Idea of fracking a duck is innovative. the only innovative idea I have seen here in a long time. Look fracking for gas isn't in itsself a bad idea, but like all innovative technologies it has to be regulated, particularly in regard to its environmental impacts. Fracking has its problems no matter where it is introduced
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-10-22/csg-richmond-valley/5036890?section=nsw

The Republicans are no longer the sensible party of Eisenhower and Ford. .

And that's a damn shame.

What is a shame is the system has been taken hostage

What is a shame is the system has been taken hostage

By big money, hiding in the background, and far more sophisticated than in decades past, running the Tea Party like puppets.

By big money, hiding in the background, and far more sophisticated than in decades past, running the Tea Party like puppets.

You mistake the tea party for the Democrats .

No the resemblance to a Punch and Judy show is apt

Clete,
I have quite a few friends in the US as well as family who now lives there. Not all republicans there are like the ones on this board. The ones here seem particularly venomous and bitter, others are more moderate and hold their views as personal.

You mistake the tea party for the Democrats .

I can't distinguish a TP from a Dem? Are we talking planet Earth here?

Evidently not if you think the Dems aren't heavily financed by big money, hiding in the background,. Big money financing Dem causes have been well documented on these boards . Even the left's piñata News Corp gives more to the Dems than their opponents.

That's true, both parties are well funded by big biz to do their bidding. Good luck!

Can you prove it. Somewhere I have a list that shows how much money goes where... but not today, gotta winterize or else.

Joy,
Me or tom?

Clete,
I have quite a few friends in the US as well as family who now lives there. Not all republicans there are like the ones on this board. The ones here seem particularly venomous and bitter, others are more moderate and hold their views as personal.

You crack me up. NO one spews more venom than you and the libs here. What annoys people like you is we think for ourselves and don't roll over and surrender to your BS. Regardless, all of you are missing the point.

All right, we'll agree to disagree. Have a great day with your white friends!

AT&T was the biggest donor in 2010 .It's biggest single beneficiary was Harry Reid.
Goldman Sachs was the next . It gave most of its money to Democrat candidates, including Nevada's Harry Reid and New York Representative Michael McMahon
Citigroup divided it's donations ,as did UPS .

Altria #5 mostly went to Republicans
Microsoft #6 mostly went to Dems
JP Morgan split it's donations
Time Warner's went mostly to Dems
Morgan Stanley split their's
Lockheed Martin split it's donations with Republicans Howard McKeon (Calif.) and Kay Granger (Texas) Democrats Charles Schumer (N.Y.), Ike Skelton (Mo.) and Daniel Inouye (Hawaii) being their biggest recipients .
That's the top 10 of 2010 .
The 10 Biggest Corporate Campaign Contributors in U.S. Politics - DailyFinance (http://www.dailyfinance.com/2010/10/13/the-10-biggest-corporate-campaign-contributors-in-u-s-politics/)

All right, we'll agree to disagree. Have a great day with your white friends!

Did you even read the column or see who wrote it?

Hello Steve:

America needs a white Republican president..

OK, let me have it.Because you, and your right wing friends BELIEVE the sh*t you posted, is why you'll NEVER again, win a presidential election..

excon

Hello Steve:
Because you, and your right wing friends BELIEVE the sh*t you posted, is why you'll NEVER again, win a presidential election..

excon

Do you believe the stats posted or not?


Median family income for black Americans has declined a whopping 10.9 percent during the Obama administration…This decline does not include losses suffered during the financial crisis and the recession that followed, but it instead measures declines since June 2009, when the recession officially ended.

That’s not the only bad news for African-Americans. The poverty rate for blacks is now 25.8 percent. The black labor force participation rate, which rose throughout the 1980s and 1990s, has declined for the past decade and quite sharply under Obama to 61.4 percent. The black unemployment rate, according to Pew Research, stands at 13.4 percent. Among black, male, high school dropouts, PBS’ Paul Salmon reports, the unemployment rate is a staggering 95 percent.

Hello again, Steve:
Do you believe the stats posted or not?There are lies, damned lies, and statistics. Yours are all three.

excon

Hello again, Steve:There are lies, damned lies, and statistics. Yours are all three.

excon

Then by all means, give us the correct ones.

Hello again, Steve:

Then by all means, give us the correct ones.Certainly. Racism, the Jim Crow drug war, the Bush recession, white flight, stand your ground and right wing extremism.

Just last night, O'Reilly accused Obama of being very angry, and wants to destroy his opponents - all without a scintilla of evidence. Brit Hume, no lefty himself, rightly told O'Reilly he was nuts.

There are NO stats that measure HATRED like that.

excon

How are blacks faring under Obama, better or worse? That's the question.

Hello again, Steve:

How are blacks faring under Obama, better or worse? That's the questionWhy should they be faring any better than anyone else? That's my answer.

excon

PS> Look up. See where I said recession? I wasn't lying.

The "recession" was declared over .It's the emperor's recovery that sucks... especially for blacks.

Hello again, Steve:
Why should they be faring any better than anyone else? That's my answer.

excon

So you really aren't all that concerned for the welfare of blacks after all, eh?

I worked on the 2000 US Census. First time they gave people the option of being mixed race. What happened to those stats? I'm tired of black, white, white, black, who's getting what perks and bennies or climbing the corporate ladder or the first to go to Mars. What's it like for the Obamas and the Woods and the millions of not famous people with one parent one race, the other parent another. I think I remember hearing about Obama's struggle with the nowhere land he was in after not knowing his father and being raised by his mother and her parents, sometime around high school, and more so when it came time to job hunt.
WHAT'S IT LIKE?

From the US Census website:
"The 2010 Census showed that people who reported multiple races grew by a larger percentage than those reporting a single race. According to the 2010 Census brief The Two or More Races Population: 2010, the population reporting multiple races (9.0 million) grew by 32.0 percent from 2000 to 2010, compared with those who reported a single race, which grew by 9.2 percent.

Overall, the total U.S. population increased by 9.7 percent since 2000, however, many multiple-race groups increased by 50 percent or more."

So many stats piss me off. Education stats by race instead of family income, for one. Ugh. When is it going to be about economies rather than race?

So many stats piss me off. Education stats by race instead of family income, for one. Ugh. When is it going to be about economies rather than race?

Good question, I'm tired of everything being about race and wars on women.

Good question, I'm tired of everything being about race and wars on women.

How many wars on women? Didn't even know there was one.
I see wars on gun control, Muslims, Food Stamp and welfare recipients, illegal aliens...
I'm tired of everything being 'Take back America' and various Amendments to the Constitution, mostly the 2nd. And I'm all for having guns too. I am just tired of simple minded rabble rousing.

How many wars on women? Didn't even know there was one.
I see wars on gun control, Muslims, Food Stamp and welfare recipients, illegal aliens...
I'm tired of everything being 'Take back America' and various Amendments to the Constitution, mostly the 2nd. And I'm all for having guns too. I am just tired of simple minded rabble rousing.

:)

He's proud of his thread.

Hello again, Steve:

So you really aren't all that concerned for the welfare of blacks after all, eh?Over the welfare of other poor people, no I'm not.

excon

At least the articles you post are interesting in as much as they are open to a lot of criticism. This one included. It's a ordinary piece of journalism in my view.

I know it's rhetorical but you have to go a long way back to find any thing of substance

When an article is written with such inflammatory rhetoric my experience is that it does not lead to reasoned discussion.

How many wars on women? Didn't even know there was one. check out the Va .Governor's race where evidently the big issues is the contention by the Dem candidate that the Republican candidate would deny women access to birth control.

OK, but since when does a gov get to change laws like that?

Hello again, tom:

the Va .Governor's race where evidently the big issues is the contention by the Dem candidate that the Republican candidate would deny women access to birth control.He would? I wonder where he got that... Hmmmm

In 2007, Cuccinelli sponsored a bill (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/29/ken-cuccinelli-birth-control_n_3832319.html) that would give legal rights to embryos from the moment of fertilization, which would prohibit of any form of contraception (likely including IUDs) that could block a fertilized egg from implanting into the uterus. And in 2003, he urged his colleagues to vote against a bill establishing that contraception is different from abortion.

Cuccinelli wrote in a 2003 email to colleagues that he doesn't consider emergency contraception, or the morning-after pill, to be a form of birth control:


One particularly troublesome bill escaped the Senate today on a 24-16 vote. That was Sen. Mary Margaret Whipple's redefinition of “contraception” as “not abortion” (SB 1104). Sounds simple enough, right? But her bill actually twists the definition in such a way that clears the way for “the morning after pill” or “emergency contraception.” These are abortion methods, not contraception. I am hopeful that this bill will be killed in the House of Delegates.

excon

I know it's rhetorical but you have to go a long way back to find any thing of substance

I think it is unfortunate for people to use rhetoric in conjunction with a poor understanding of history. Even if the message is unintentionally conveyed- a historical message is being wrongly reinforced, viz: That back people are incapable of managing their own affairs and they are in need of a white president to maintain their dignity for them.

Statistics presented demonstrate that Obama is also a poor manager of economic affairs. So it becomes easy for others to add that he poorly manages everyone's economic interest in general.

It contributes indirectly to reinforcing the wrong message.

I think it is unfortunate for people to use rhetoric in conjunction with a poor understanding of history. Even if the message is unintentionally conveyed- a historical message is being wrongly reinforced, viz: That back people are incapable of managing their own affairs and they are in need of a white president to maintain their dignity for them.

Statistics presented demonstrate that Obama is also a poor manager of economic affairs. So it becomes easy for others to add that he poorly manages everyone's economic interest in general.

It contributes indirectly to reinforcing the wrong message.

Tutt let's face it, it is observable that people govern themselves better when they are in a harmonous racial group. You and I can observe that in our own nation the governing of black people for black people by those of a different race has been a dismal failure with ideas being put forward that they should have automony. I suspect that in the US the same is true, they have not had a good history of governing to the benefit of minorities.

Obama is only as good as his advisers, this is true of any government, and he is been criticised for not resolving a crisis more quickly as well as implementing social reform at what could be described as an inopportune time. That he has dug himself a hole that it may be difficult to extract the nation from is observable but not inevietable or a reason of his race. Words from their civil war ring true in this instance, this was nothing more than a error which could not have been foreseen

Hello again, tom:
He would? I wonder where he got that... Hmmmm

In 2007, Cuccinelli sponsored a bill (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/29/ken-cuccinelli-birth-control_n_3832319.html) that would give legal rights to embryos from the moment of fertilization, which would prohibit of any form of contraception (likely including IUDs) that could block a fertilized egg from implanting into the uterus. And in 2003, he urged his colleagues to vote against a bill establishing that contraception is different from abortion.

Cuccinelli wrote in a 2003 email to colleagues that he doesn't consider emergency contraception, or the morning-after pill, to be a form of birth control:



excon

Still looking for proof that as Governor he would have any authority to ban birth control. An abortifacient is an abortion pill be definition . Still I'm very sure that any state action banning them would be blocked at the Federal level . Heck ,judges already ruled that you can't put age restrictions on them !

Hello again, tom:

The idea is that Cuccinelli BELIEVES the government has the authority to DO that, and the people of Virginia don't like it, EVEN if he CAN'T do it.

Terry McAuliffe is a WEAK, WEAK Democrat. That he's going to WIN, doesn't bode well for you wingers... Your hopes for a white right wing pres are fading fast.

excon

Your hopes for a white right wing pres are fading fast.
I have no such hopes. I hope one day we get the best person for the job. There is the rare moment in our history .

Hello again, tom:

The idea is that Cuccinelli BELIEVES the government has the authority to DO that, and the people of Virginia don't like it, EVEN if he CAN'T do it.


excon

He has no such belief . Here is his answer to Judy Woodruff during the Governor debate about the issue .
“I do not expect to use the political capital of the governor’s office to be moving those pieces of legislation. My focus is on job creation and job growth.” That is the ONLY relevant comment related to the issue... that as Governor ,he will not attempt to change a law he has no power to change.
It's Cuccinelli who has been "weak" by not making an aggressive counter attack against this non-issue. He should do to McAuliffe what Lonegan did to Booker during their debate .
Lonegan : “What abortion would you make illegal?”
Booker “I believe in Roe versus Wade,”
Lonegan :“Imagine aborting a baby in the eighth month of pregnancy,”.. “He supports that.”
When McAuliffe calls him out on his supposed "extremism " ,he should've turned it around and made the case that McAullife is the one with extreme positions.

When an article is written with such inflammatory rhetoric my experience is that it does not lead to reasoned discussion.

You still crack me up, apparently the only inflammatory rhetoric you ever see comes from the right. Just yesterday I posted (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/3573540-post40.html) on a fundraising email from Democrat Alan "Republicans want you to die quickly" Grayson, was this inflammatory?

https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/attachments/current-events/44548d1382474410-civil-war-right-screenshot748.jpg

You still crack me up, apparently the only inflammatory rhetoric you ever see comes from the right.Not at all. The Grayson one falls into the same bucket, it is designed to be inflammatory as well (literally! :))

Hello again, tom:

Given that Cuccinelli is going to LOSE and lose BIG, it would seem that his (your) brand of extremism is OUT of favor.

excon

OK, I'll let you in on the point of this post. Remember Joe the Plumber, the guy who committed the sin of asking Obama some tough questions? That wouldn't do so Joe became a target, even had his records searched illegally looking for dirt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversial_Ohio_database_searches_of_Joe_Wurzel bacher). It happened again, ol' Joe cross-posted this column on his site and before you know it, Crooks and Liars (http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/joe-plumber-america-needs-white-repub) picked it up and accused him of racism.

Next, Taegan Goddard at Political Wire referenced it (http://politicalwire.com/archives/2013/10/12/remember_joe_the_plumber.html) on his website, attributing the column to Joe.. After being told it wasn't Joe's column, Goddard dug in his heels (https://twitter.com/politicalwire/status/389161525484982272).


Some want me to point out (again) that Joe the Plumber's racist post on his website is a cross post. That matters?

Next thing you know it went viral that Joe the Plumber is a racist, including on Huffpo (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/12/joe-the-plumber-racism_n_4090529.html) (which later made a correction), and in a column (http://www.politico.com/story/2013/10/government-shutdown-racism-roger-simon-98272.html)by Roger Simon of Politico I mentioned earlier, telling us America would be saved if Boehner and Cruz would drown - as an example of TP racism.


There were other signs of our descent. Remember Samuel Wurzelbacher? Known as “Joe the Plumber,” he was selected by John McCain as his presidential campaign mascot in 2008 with the same care McCain used to select Sarah Palin.

Over the weekend, Wurzelbacher posted an article on his blog titled: “America Needs a White Republican President.”

Joe of course is bewildered:

http://legalinsurrection.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Joe-The-Plumber-Facebook-Oct-13-9-a.m..png


So an African-American writer pens a blog on how it used to be okay to criticize the president without fear of being called a racist. Naturally, the Huffington Post calls me a racist for posting it (https://www.facebook.com/TheRealJoethePlumber/posts/10151730155979296)..

Still waiting for others besides Huffpo to show a little remorse for the harm Joe again suffered at the hands of the tolerant left.

I have to say though I'm actually surprised I didn't get it like Joe did, thank you.

Now can we drop this racism bullsh*t? The columnist, a black guy criticizing a black guy had a point, Democrats are not doing blacks any favors. Are we ever going to be able to discuss such things honestly or are we going to keep up the mythical wars, such as the one on women this has turned out to be?

I doubt it, I already see more manufactured charges of extremism.

Taegan Goddard ? That suprises me . He's usually pretty good.

Hello again, tom:

Given that Cuccinelli is going to LOSE and lose BIG, it would seem that his (your) brand of extremism is OUT of favor.

excon

The race is tightening . It's now 7 pts according to Quinnipiac.

Hello again, Steve:
Now can we drop this racism bullsh*t? The columnist, a black guy criticizing a black guy had a point, Democrats are not doing blacks any favors.

Because the racist in your post is black, doesn't make YOU any less a racist for posting it. Like Joe the Plumber, you seem surprised at that accusation... I dunno why.

That's like me posting a picture of a Klansman in his sheets, and saying I'm NOT the racist here. HE'S the racist.

Nahhh.. You don't get off that easy. In fact, you don't get off at all.

excon

Hello again, Steve:

Because the racist in your post is black, doesn't make YOU any less a racist for posting it. And, you, like Joe the Plumber, seem surprised at that accusation... I dunno why.

That's like me posting a picture of a Klansman in his sheets, and saying I'm NOT the racist here. HE'S the racist.

Nahhh.. You don't get off that easy. In fact, you don't get off at all.

excon

Now that's exactly what I expected. So if a black guy concerned about the plight of blacks can't criticize Obama, who can? Why do you want to be at war with your friends and neighbors? And why is it ok for the media to spread a lie like that?

Now can we drop this racism bullsh*t? The columnist, a black guy criticizing a black guy had a point, Democrats are not doing blacks any favors. Are we ever going to be able to discuss such things honestly or are we going to keep up the mythical wars, such as the one on women this has turned out to be?

I doubt it, I already see more manufactured charges of extremism.

Yes, and one of the unfortunate aspects of the article is that reinforces old racist aspects of the past. That is also a point as well.

I outlined this aspect in my previous post.

Yes, and one of the unfortunate aspects of the article is that reinforces old racist aspects of the past. That is also a point as well.

I outlined this aspect in my previous post.

You'll have to be more specific about which of those aspects are "past."

Yes we would all like to know that for future reference

You'll have to be more specific about which of those aspects are "past."

The view that white people have an obligation to rule and encourage economic development of peoples from different racial and/or ethnic backgrounds so as these people can take their place economically and socially in white society. The racism manifests itself with the prevailing orthodoxy that in fact they, well never achieve this goal.

This prevailing orthodoxy manifests itself yet again with the view that African Americans need is a white president because under a white president they traditionally done better.under Obama they have slipped economically and socially.

THANK YOU tuttyd!

How is any of that past?

How is any of that past?

Well, I guess that it is historically documented as a stage of colonialism. So I am saying that it is not past, it exists to this present day. Example being the article submitted by the OP

Now can we drop this racism bullsh*t? The columnist, a black guy criticizing a black guy had a point,
Hello again, Steve

Last night, a right winger told me that every conservative he ever met was a closet homo, and wanted to smooch on Bill O'Reilley. He ALSO told me they're Nazi's, and have very little wieners..

Now, I didn't say that. Don't look at me.. I'm just reporting...

excon

hello again, steve

last night, a right winger told me that every conservative he ever met was a closet homo, and wanted to smooch on bill o'reilley. He also told me they're nazi's, and have very little wieners..

Now, i didn't say that. Don't look at me.. I'm just reporting...

Excon

lol, ok.

Well, I guess that it is historically documented as a stage of colonialism. So I am saying that it is not past, it exists to this present day. Example being the article submitted by the OP

And the point of the column is it does exist today under the banner of the Democratic Party, that Democrats are cheating them of their pride, respect and opportunities and keeping them enslaved to government. He isn't arguing for Republicans to rescue them, that's the failed, fraudulent policy of the left.

And the point of the column is it does exist today under the banner of the Democratic Party, that Democrats are cheating them of their pride, respect and opportunities and keeping them enslaved to government. He isn't arguing for Republicans to rescue them, that's the failed, fraudulent policy of the left.

He is arguing for the point I mentioned indirectly.. One does not have to argue a point directly to convey meaning. It is that columnist's solution is to once again to call on the Republicans to shoulder the white man's burden. It is implicit racism.

I'd say the extensive nanny state is a manifestation of the "white man's burden ' on steroids .The benevolent government takes over the role of the 'white man' caring for all the vassals and peons . Their assumption seems to be that the unwashes commoner is just too stupid to make choices for themselves. We need these public guardians of the common good to choose FOR us... for our own good.And how do they justify this? Why, for the common good, of course.

I'd say the extensive nanny state is a manifestation of the "white man's burden ' on steroids .The benevolent government takes over the role of the 'white man' caring for all the vassals and peons . Their assumption seems to be that the unwashes commoner is just too stupid to make choices for themselves. We need these public guardians of the common good to choose FOR us... for our own good.And how do they justify this? Why, for the common good, of course.

Tom once again I have to tell you, you haven't got it. The very fact that the commoner is unwashed is the reason for benevolence. Since we have begun washing commoners the standard of public health has improved to the point where commoners have begun washing themselves. In order to facilitate this we have provided them with water. Having seen the impact of this small gain in public education, we have provided the commoner with light so they can study at night, and schools where their children can be educated in the benefits of hygene. I see that what you are objecting to is providing commoners in need with food and medical assistance when they are unable to provide for themselves

I'd say the extensive nanny state is a manifestation of the "white man's burden ' on steroids .The benevolent government takes over the role of the 'white man' caring for all the vassals and peons .

If you were to say this then I would say you are probably correct. As you have pointed out on a number of occasions, a problem with the Republicans is that they think they can manage the nanny state better than the Democrats.

Going on the figures presented by author of the OP article I would agree especially when it comes to managing the affairs of African Americans. That is to say they are better at in than the Democrats.

If you agree with the above premises then this is by no means a rebuttal of my position, if in fact this is what you are trying to do. Conversely, it strengthens my position. Perhaps you could point this out to the OP.

Tom once again I have to tell you, you haven't got it. The very fact that the commoner is unwashed is the reason for benevolence. Since we have begun washing commoners the standard of public health has improved to the point where commoners have begun washing themselves. In order to facilitate this we have provided them with water. Having seen the impact of this small gain in public education, we have provided the commoner with light so they can study at night, and schools where their children can be educated in the benefits of hygene. I see that what you are objecting to is providing commoners in need with food and medical assistance when they are unable to provide for themselves

oh yeah ...the government did all that for them
The price they pay for that 'benevolence' is permanent residency in the underclass . You know that saying about the difference between giving someone a fish opposed to teaching that person how to fish .I'd expand it and say free that person from the jackboot holding them down and preventing them from fishing and becoming a part of the market place.
Joseph Perkins gets it anyway.

oh yeah ...the government did all that for them
The price they pay for that 'benevolence' is permanent residency in the underclass . You know that saying about the difference between giving someone a fish opposed to teaching that person how to fish .I'd expand it and say free that person from the jackboot holding them down and preventing them from fishing and becoming a part of the market place.
Joseph Perkins gets it anyway.

Tom I obviously didn't have the right font envoked however let me say that these days you need a fishing licence to go fishing, keeping the poor from feeding themselves and whose idea is that? Not only that if you caught the fish you couldn't sell them in that market place. All of that may demonstrate that jackboot you claim but it is more likely that the fish would be contaminated by those captains of industry you love so well

You're asking me who's fault is it that there are licenses that keep people from competitng in the market place? I've addressed that many times. Those 'captains of industry ' you claim I "love" may be complicit in keeping the competition restrained . But they are bit players compared to the Leviathan behemoth who decides who can ,and who can't compete in the market .

(lol I intentionally misspelled 2 words in this (later corrected ) ,and the spell checker let it slide .. but it corrected my capitalization error at the beginning of the sentence )

Perhaps you could point this out to the OP.

What, I can't read?

Hello again, Steve:

What, I can't read?Well, I think you can... But, that right wing guy I was talking to the other night, doesn't think so.. He thinks you're a right wing whacko who wants to dismantle the great society and make contraception illegal.

Now, it's NOT me saying that. I'm just INNOCENTLY reporting what one right winger said about another... Don't look at me.. I'm INNOCENT.

excon

Hello again, Steve:
Well, I think you can... But, that right wing guy I was talking to the other night, doesn't think so.. He thinks you're a right wing whacko who wants to dismantle the great society and make contraception illegal.

Now, it's NOT me saying that. I'm just INNOCENTLY reporting what one right winger said about another... Don't look at me.. I'm INNOCENT.

excon

No, that's you saying that.

Hello again, Steve:

No, that's you saying that.You got me...

But, that's YOU saying all the racist BS, too.

excon

Hello again, Steve:
You got me...

But, that's YOU saying all the racist BS, too.

excon

No sir you're wrong, I posted a column just to watch the reaction. I have consistently shown I don't give a damn about someone's race or ethnicity, we're just people. You're the one who thinks a black guy criticizing another black guy is racist.

Hello again, Steve..

Nahhh.. Do you NOT believe what he wrote???? You ABSOLUTELY do. You ain't fooling anybody.

excon

Hello again, Steve..

Nahhh.. Do you NOT believe what he wrote???? You ABSOLUTELY do. You ain't fooling anybody.

excon

Do I believe blacks have fared worse under Obama? Yes. Do I believe conservative policies are more conducive to success and regaining self-respect and pride? Yes. Do I believe Al Sharpton is a race baiter? Yes. That doesn't make me a racist.

Do I believe blacks have fared worse under Obama? Yes. Do I believe conservative policies are more conducive to success and regaining self-respect and pride? Yes. Do I believe Al Sharpton is a race baiter? Yes. That doesn't make me a racist.

Are you listening to yourself? Everybody has teamed up to reject you wingers. Not just black people, but everybody. Even my conservative republican friends think you are crazy and have promised to keep Ted, and Sarah on TV, and not in positions of power, or policy.

What a racist joke claiming how well you treat yo' N********'s.

Are you listening to yourself? Everybody has teamed up to reject you wingers. Not just black people, but everybody. Even my conservative republican friends think you are crazy and have promised to keep Ted, and Sarah on TV, and not in positions of power, or policy.

What a racist joke claiming how well you treat yo' N********'s.

Now that's offensive, but demonstrative. You can shove that BS where the sun don't shine.

DUDE! The whole premise of this thread is offensive and highly insulting!

DUDE! The whole premise of this thread is offensive and highly insulting!

No it isn't, and you crossed a line I will not tolerate.

you crossed a line I will not tolerate.Damn it, if only we could see the posts of yours that get removed by the mods from this site, we'd get a better idea of why this statement is a joke.

Damn it, if only we could see the posts of yours that get removed by the mods from this site, we'd get a better idea of why this statement is a joke

If only you'd realize no one cares about what ankle biters like you make up.

Don't even know what "ankle biter' refers to or why it's a bad thing. LOL. Once again, you're opinion of me matters very little seeing what you do here day in day out.

Don't even know what "ankle biter' refers to or why it's a bad thing. LOL. Once again, you're opinion of me matters very little seeing what you do here day in day out.

And what is it you do besides cowardly sniping?

Don't even know what "ankle biter' refers to or why it's a bad thing. LOL. .

http://tsg3.us/tnsg_lib/pldc_school/off_basic/st_7000_materials/admin_app.pdf

Tom,
Thanks, that is indeed an informative doc, now I know what it means. I don't think it's part of popular usage though.
I really don't see anyone continuously offer any constructive alternatives in Current Events. It's really just a board for US political pundits to vent and belittle the opposite party. is this not correct?

And of course we have NK to bring us insightful, thoughtful commentary to fill the gap.

Thanks man. Cheers.

Tom,
Thanks, that is indeed an informative doc, now I know what it means. I don't think it's part of popular usage though.
I really don't see anyone continuously offer any constructive alternatives in Current Events. It's really just a board for US political pundits to vent and belittle the opposite party. is this not correct?

Yes that is correct.

Far left cartoonist Ted Rall is showing his racist stripes (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/10/25/1250564/-Via-Sarah-Palin-How-Obama-s-Idiotic-ACA-Might-Lead-to-Real-Healthcare-Reform#) again.


No, Governor Palin, the truth behind the ACA mess is that Obama and his gang of golfing buddies are idiots.

Of course he's right about that part but you can't say that, you can't criticize a black president without being a racist.

Far left cartoonist Ted Rall is showing his racist stripes (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/10/25/1250564/-Via-Sarah-Palin-How-Obama-s-Idiotic-ACA-Might-Lead-to-Real-Healthcare-Reform#) again.



Of course he's right about that part but you can't say that, you can't criticize a black president without being a racist.

It depends on how you use the term and in what context. People often demonstrates themselves to be idiots in lots of different ways.

It depends on how you use the term and in what context.

Not if you're a conservative.

Breaking News

Federal judge: Texas abortion limits unconstitutional (http://news.msn.com/us/federal-judge-texas-abortion-limits-unconstitutional?ocid=ansnews11)

Federal judge: Texas abortion limits unconstitutional


A federal judge says that Texas' abortion restrictions violate the rights of abortion doctors to do what they think is best for their patients.

It depends on how you use the term and in what context. People often demonstrates themselves to be idiots in lots of different ways.

Yes, we have observed high incidence of this phenominom

Judge Yeakel must think that a law that sets standards for fetal slaughterhouses the same as required for other medical clinics is unconstitutional .Obviously abortionists working in rat infested sub standard facilities are looking after the best interests of their patients. You see ;abortionist's rights to wack babies are constitutionally protected... but Christian hospital's 1st amendment rights are subject to the whim of the emperor.

Tom you can be sure your founders didn't consider the likelihood that abortion would become endemic, but we can be certain they would have thought the practice abhorrent. How then can permitting abortion be considered constitutional. Only because there is no specific mention of either permission or prohibition. Surely it is time to allow common sense to prevail. It is a great pity some people weren't aborted

The founders in the Declaration spoke of the right to life. They also in the 5th Amendment made it clear that life could not be taken legally without due process .The 14th amendment expanded the due process clause to states . William Blackstone, the British legal scholar, wrote in 'Commentaries on the Laws of England' that life is a “right” that “is inherent by nature in every individual, and exists even before the child is born.” Blackstone's work was well known by the founders when they wrote the Constitution.

Where is the due process in abortions ? Are we to believe that due process is satisfied because a mother deems it so ? If that's the case then why would the woman who gave birth and stuffed her child in a shopping bag ;and continued shopping at Victoria's Secret come under criminal investigation ? (she was caught because she was shop lifting . )
So what we had before Roe v Wade was a clear case for the right to life in at least 2 of the amendments... as opposed to a vague implied 'right to privacy that was granted by judicial fiat and was founded in the in the "penumbras" and "emanations" of other constitutional protections.In other words ,the justices twisted the words of the constitution to make it legal to kill babies.

The founders in the Declaration spoke of the right to life.
The founders didn't even count women and blacks as human, so why would they have thought about unborn babies? Only landed white gentlemen had rights.

The founders didn't even count women and blacks as human, so why would they have thought about unborn babies? Only landed white gentlemen had rights.

Ah such were the days of the enlightenment and yet their every though is sacrosanct

America needs a capable person to be president! Doesn't matter if the President is male, female, older, younger, white, black, yellow, so on and so forth...

America needs a capable person to be president! Doesn't matter if the President is male, female, older, younger, white, black, yellow, so on and so forth...

Given the size of the population there should be many aspirants, however the political system ensures that only those who can raise megabucks have a chance. You would think that skill would translate into a useful management skill for the country, but no, the politics of division reigns. Certain people are excluded which lowers the pool to those with access to old money

The founders didn't even count women and blacks as human, so why would they have thought about unborn babies? Only landed white gentlemen had rights.

More distortions about the founders . It's all well and good to apply 21st century norms to the 18th century, but it falls flat on examination. The idea of universal suffrage for all propertied men was extremely radical. At the time of the founding, America was the most egalitarian country in the world.And they put together a governing system that planted the seeds for all the reforms that came later .

More distortions about the founders . It's all well and good to apply 21st century norms to the 18th century, but it falls flat on examination. The idea of universal suffrage for all propertied men was extremely radical. At the time of the founding, America was the most egalitarian country in the world.And they put together a governing system that planted the seeds for all the reforms that came later .

Yes unfortunately some of those seeds fell on fallow ground, the abolution of slavery for example, the US had to be dragged kicking and screeming to that table, equality was another aspiration that fell on fallow ground, it took two hundred years for those seeds to sprout and you don't have a full crop yet. Yes universal suffrage for all men is still opposed for some within your borders, it is still a radical idea among men of property

Yes unfortunately some of those seeds fell on fallow ground, the abolution of slavery for example, the US had to be dragged kicking and screeming to that table, equality was another aspiration that fell on fallow ground, it took two hundred years for those seeds to sprout and you don't have a full crop yet. Yes universal suffrage for all men is still opposed for some within your borders, it is still a radical idea among men of property

Look inward before you criticize us . You are as racist as anyone on this site .

Yes unfortunately some of those seeds fell on fallow ground, the abolution of slavery for example, the US had to be dragged kicking and screeming to that table, equality was another aspiration that fell on fallow ground, it took two hundred years for those seeds to sprout and you don't have a full crop yet. Yes universal suffrage for all men is still opposed for some within your borders, it is still a radical idea among men of property

More lies . Every leading Founder acknowledged that slavery was wrong. Slavery was legal and practiced in every state in 1776; by the end of the founding era, more than a hundred thousand slaves had been freed by the outlawing of slavery in seven of the original thirteen states or by individual acts of manumission, especially in the South. Within a generation ,the nation was at war to free the slaves .The groundwork for the eventual total abolition of slavery was laid in establishment of the equality principle .

More lies . Every leading Founder acknowledged that slavery was wrong. Slavery was legal and practiced in every state in 1776; by the end of the founding era, more than a hundred thousand slaves had been freed by the outlawing of slavery in seven of the original thirteen states or by individual acts of manumission, especially in the South. Within a generation ,the nation was at war to free the slaves .The groundwork for the eventual total abolition of slavery was laid in establishment of the equality principle .

That was a damn long generation, yes there were skermishes but real war didn't happen until 90 years later, by my reckoning that's four generations but maybe they were a bit slow then and didn't marry until forty, nevertheless, a long, long, time for those in chains. Acknowledging slavery was wrong and freeing the slaves was something entirely different, a matter of conscious perhaps. The same sort of conscious that doesn't make your trickle down economics work today

Again ,look inward . The life of a slave on an Australian sugar plantation was little different from that on the American cotton plantations. Brutality and deprivation were the daily ritual . Slavery didn't end on your continent until the beginning of the 20th century . And you came kicking and screaming under pressure from the Brits.

Look inward before you criticize us . You are as racist as anyone on this site .

Racist, well I'll have to let my abo's go loose, goose, then won't I. Racist because I don't want my country overrun by middle eastern and south asian yobboos, because I don't want the same conditions you enjoy to arise here. Because I don't want an underclass. Declare your hispanics citizens and then speak to me of racism. When I look at Obama I don't see a black man, can you say the same?

It is not racist to be anti-muslim, anti-terrorist and anti-bullshiite. We, in this country, are fed to the teeth with multi-culturism, an idea completely foreign and imported from northern climes who now wish they had never thought of it. Our original inhabitants are unimpressed with boat people, discuss racism with them

Breaking News

Federal judge: Texas abortion limits unconstitutional (http://news.msn.com/us/federal-judge-texas-abortion-limits-unconstitutional?ocid=ansnews11)

Federal judge: Texas abortion limits unconstitutional

Don't tell me, it's a racist law.

Hello again, Steve:

Nahhh... It's a non existent victory in the non existent war on women...

non existent excon

Racist, well I'll have to let my abo's go loose, goose, then won't I. Racist because I don't want my country overrun by middle eastern and south asian yobboos, because I don't want the same conditions you enjoy to arise here. Because I don't want an underclass. Declare your hispanics citizens and then speak to me of racism. When I look at Obama I don't see a black man, can you say the same?

It is not racist to be anti-muslim, anti-terrorist and anti-bullshiite. We, in this country, are fed to the teeth with multi-culturism, an idea completely foreign and imported from northern climes who now wish they had never thought of it. Our original inhabitants are unimpressed with boat people, discuss racism with them

I rest my case.

Hello again, Steve:

Nahhh... It's a non existent victory in the non existent war on women...

non existent excon

What's odd is on the "affordable" health care thread the argument is people should be happy to be forced to purchase coverage that's provides better care, while on this one you're arguing women should be happy to have less stringent standards of care.

You libs make no sense.

Originally Posted by talaniman
Breaking News

Federal judge: Texas abortion limits unconstitutional

Don't tell me, it's a racist law.

Sexist is a better word.

Hello again, Steve:
You libs make no sense.

Well, when you grasp that the law to require a doctor to have admitting privileges at a local hospital, has NOTHING to do with care, and EVERYTHING to do with closing down the clinic, you'll understand.

But, I ain't holding my breath..

excon

Hello again, Steve, my very, VERY naive friend:

But, I ain't holding my breath..I been thinking... You really CAN'T believe that trap laws are designed to protect women.. You CAN'T...

If you came upon a 3 Card Monty player on the street, you'd IMMEDIATELY recognize that the PURPOSE of the game was NOT to offer the player a chance to win money, but to STRIP the player of his money...

That's what trap laws are for. It's the ONLY reason. The INTENTION of the law is to SHUT DOWN abortion clinics, and it was going to DO that before the judge stepped in..

Look, my friend.. I'd have a LOT more respect for you if you'd ADMIT that you KNOW what trap laws are for, instead of pretending they're for the health of the woman...

If in fact, you BELIEVE 3 Card Monty is an honest game of chance, then I have some real estate to sell you..

excon

Hello again, Steve:

Well, when you grasp that the law to require a doctor to have admitting privileges at a local hospital, has NOTHING to do with care, and EVERYTHING to do with closing down the clinic, you'll understand.

But, I ain't holding my breath..

excon

And in light of Gosnell you have no issues with making sure women have quality care.


The State’s Exhibits appear to be devastating to the abortion clinic’s arguments that abortion is so safe that hospital privileges are unnecessary.

A declaration submitted by John Thorp, Jr., M.D. notes that hospital privileges make it more likely that abortionists can effectively care for patients (http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/state-cites-safety-concerns-in-defending-mississippi-law-that-could-close-i). He stated that 73% of hospitals report inadequate on-call coverage by specialists, especially Ob/Gyns. Dr. Thorp also concluded that hospital privileges prevents patient abandonment by itinerate physicians.

A declaration by James C. Anderson, M.D. states that the new law “will most likely improve the quality of care…and enhance patient follow-up care after an abortion.”

Anderson continued, “As stated earlier, I have worked in local Emergency Rooms across Virginia for over thirty years. When women have come to the Emergency Room with complications related to an abortion, never once have I received a phone call initiated by the provider conveying information about the abortion, the young woman’s condition or potential complications. I have always had to evaluate the situation, come to my own conclusions, and initiate what I thought was appropriate treatment. This definitely created some time delays that were not in the patient’s best interest. I have called many abortion clinic physicians but never once has the provider come to the Emergency Room to assume care. I have always had to call a staff physician. This then creates another delay since the staff physician is taking care of his/her own patients, but now must change his/her schedule to assume the care of someone else’s patient. These delays can have life-threatening implications when dealing with hemorrhage or infection.”

Dr. Anderson cites the cases of 35 abortion clinics and providers from recent news stories as “illustrative of the need for state regulation of abortion practice and conformity to standards of care in medicine.” Those cases include that of Ann Kristin Neuhaus in Kansas, Feliciano Rios and Andrew Rutland in California, Rapin Osathanondh in Massachusetts, Alberto Hodari in Michigan, and ten abortionists in Texas who were discovered to have committed violations during an undercover investigation conducted in 2010 by Operation Rescue and The Survivors, and other cases.

I can admit that such laws will either force abortionists to provide quality care or close, I have no problem with that. I don't believe any woman should face the prospect of a Gosnell.

I can admit that such laws will either force abortionists to provide quality care or close, I have no problem with that. I don't believe any woman should face the prospect of a Gosnell.
If they do abortions at a walk-in/women's clinic, it must be a Gosnell-type clinic.

I said nothing of the sort, I said women deserve quality care. Why would any reputable abortionist, an oxymoron if ever there was one, not have admitting privileges? Why would they not want to care for their patient in the hospital?

It's more of the absolute contradiction that is liberal/progressive America. Whine about anti-choice Americans while limiting our choices. Forcing us to pay for better care while denying higher standards to women facing an abortion. It makes no sense.

Why would any reputable abortionist, an oxymoron if ever there was one
So it's not the cleanliness of the clinic that bothers you. It's what they might be doing inside.

It's more of the absolute contradiction that is liberal/progressive America. Whine about anti-choice Americans while limiting our choices. Forcing us to pay for better care while denying higher standards to women facing an abortion. It makes no sense.
Isn't Republican closing of walk-in/women's clinics exactly that -- limiting women's choices? and forcing us to go to high-priced hospitals where they charge $$ for your "welcome pack" of toothpaste/toothbrush/tissues/deodorant/paper slippers?

So it's not the cleanliness of the clinic that bothers you. It's what they might be doing inside.

Isn't Republican closing of walk-in/women's clinics exactly that -- limiting women's choices? and forcing us to go to high-priced hospitals where they charge $$ for your "welcome pack" of toothpaste/toothbrush/tissues/deodorant/paper slippers?

I make no pretense that I don't despise abortion or that such laws may limit "choice", I've been very clear and non-contradictory about that. I'm not the one that remained silent about the horrors in Philadelphia while fighting every effort to set standards of care and loudly,hypocritically for years and years claiming they want to make abortion "safe and rare."

Hello again, Steve:

And in light of Gosnell you have no issues with making sure women have quality care.If Gosnell were the norm instead of a criminal, certainly. But, it's NOT.

Andrea Ferrigno, vice president of Whole Woman's Health, which operates for-profit abortion clinics in five Texas cities, testified Tuesday (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/sns-wp-blm-news-bc-abortion-texas22-20131022,0,5733829.story)on the potential impact of the law on two clinics in the Rio Grande Valley. Abortions account for 90 percent of the company's business, she said.

The company so far has approached 32 hospitals and submitted 15 applications for privileges without success, Ferrigno said. Ferrigno acknowledged under cross examination that none of the applications has been rejected. She said she didn't know whether they will ultimately be accepted or denied.

State law also bans abortions after the 20th week of pregnancy and, as of Sept. 1, 2014, will require clinics to meet the same standards as ambulatory surgical centers. Those provisions weren't challenged in Planned Parenthood's lawsuit.

The law says any doctor who performs abortions must have admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles (48 kilometers) of his clinic. The rule is unjustified because fewer than 0.3 percent of abortions nationwide result in hospitalization, according to Planned Parenthood.

excon

And you believe everything Planned Parenthood says. Bwa ha ha!

Abortions or most female reproductive services can be done safely in a doctors office. Why make them go to a hospital? And what hospital wants a doctor who has no need to admit patients?

And not all abortion facilities are the rat infested unclean place that the right paints them to be. If you cannot understand that the Texas law creates obstacles then you must have an agenda besides safety or health.

Abortions or most female reproductive services can be done safely in a doctors office. Why make them go to a hospital? And what hospital wants a doctor who has no need to admit patients?

Things go wrong.


And not all abortion facilities are the rat infested unclean place that the right paints them to be. If you cannot understand that the Texas law creates obstacles then you must have an agenda besides safety or health.


Already answered (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/3577313-post130.html), and in the spirit of the OP if you can't see I despise racism you must have an agenda besides ending racism.

Things that go wrong are not widespread or the norm for 99.9% of clients and middle class clients have had no such obstacles placed before them because they have insurance to pay for a private doctor. That's the whole key for making abortions rare.

To address racism, which is only a small part of hate, you must first address inequality. You may not change a sick mind, but you can make sure the law is applied equally to all and protection under the law is equal. You cannot outlaw racist thinking, but you can outlaw racist behavior.

Agreed?

That's the whole key for making abortions rare.
Nah ,making abortions rare was just another lie . They want it free ;and on demand .
Evidently safe is optional .
Free Abortions on Demand Without Apology | The Nation (http://www.thenation.com/blog/175934/free-abortions-demand-without-apology#axzz2dBkjGB00)

Things that go wrong are not widespread or the norm for 99.9% of clients and middle class clients have had no such obstacles placed before them because they have insurance to pay for a private doctor. That's the whole key for making abortions rare.

You know PP is in this not only for an agenda but to make PROFIT while obfuscating (http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2013/05/07/_3_percent_of_planned_parenthood_s_services_are_ab ortion_but_what_about.html) how they get all that revenue, but those evil profits don't concern you any more than making sure women have access to that "safe" abortion they preach. And no, having insurance is not the key to making abortions rare. That's a ridiculous argument.


To address racism, which is only a small part of hate, you must first address inequality. You may not change a sick mind, but you can make sure the law is applied equally to all and protection under the law is equal. You cannot outlaw racist thinking, but you can outlaw racist behavior.

Agreed?

No, I disagree. We don't need more laws and the ones we have now have spurred a lot of resentment as it is and in some areas as segregated as ever. As I've said before until your side stops fanning the flames racism will always be an issue, Democrats WANT it to remain an issue.

Things go wrong.
Women have home births all the time. That must be even risker and, gosh, should be forbidden because she is pushing out an 8+ pound object (instead of a miniscule one). Things could go wrong! New law = no more home births.

Women have home births all the time. That must be even risker and, gosh, should be forbidden because she is pushing out an 8+ pound object (instead of a miniscule one). Things could go wrong! New law = no more home births.

Giving birth is a natural event taking place for millennia, induced abortion is medical intervention.

Giving birth is a natural event taking place for millennia, induced abortion is medical intervention.
Guess how many home births are not totally natural and need medical intervention of some kind. That little object doesn't just slip out effortlessly.

Woman have been terminating pregnancies for centuries. Men still don't know when they do and I doubt they ever will but targeting those that depend on walk in clinics is a rather cowardly way of doing things.

And even more hypocritical in my view is getting between a doctor and patient with laws passed by republican lawmakers always men for some reason against objections by women. What would we call unwanted advice and help for someone that isn't affected by that help and advice?

You want to stop abortions and Planned Parenthood, then give females money, doctors, and insurance. And stop the hypocrisy,

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/07/06/1221712/-Follow-the-Money-Rick-Perry-Abortion-Edition#


So if this bill passes, it provides Rick Perry's sister's company an opportunity to move into a new field, one where poor women can be charged an exorbitant rate for a desperate procedure. Expect abortions in Texas to continue, just at 2-3 times the previous going rates.

http://texasascsociety.org/

Destroying the completion is a great way to make MO' money so its not about the patients completely but a new revenue stream. Helps if your brother is the GOVENOR.

http://tascs.affiniscape.com/displaycommon.cfm?an=8


Become an Industry Leader

We have had a tremendous start to the 2011 - 2012 election cycle, but we need your support to continue the push! We are asking each ASC to become an "Industry Leader" by contributing $1,000 or more to the Texas ASC Society PAC. See enclosed contribution form. By supporting your PAC, you and your colleagues can ensure that the Texas ASC industry continues to have a strong voice in the political process.

Accept our challenge, step up and be a true ASC Industry Leader by contributing $1000 or more to your Texas ASC Society PAC today!

How do I contribute?

Click here to contribute and learn who can contribute.

It's about money in Texas, not morals. And lets be clear about Perry's decision to not support Medicaid expansion to his uninsured citizens. Its about him running for president, as he knows the NEXT governor WILL expand to save money and his sister will get that money for her company without it being an issue.

I daresay funneling tax payer money from the government to private businesses is so pervasive in this country its no wonder we are going broke with such corrupt business practices.

Guess how many home births are not totally natural and need medical intervention of some kind. That little object doesn't just slip out effortlessly.

I never said intervention wasn't ever necessary in childbirth, I said it's natural. I said induced abortion is intentional medical intervention. Especially the one where they shove instruments up her vagina that can cause damage to the woman while they cut, crush and suck the life out of the child.

I never said intervention wasn't ever necessary in childbirth, I said it's natural. I said induced abortion is intentional medical intervention. Especially the one where they shove instruments up her vagina that can cause damage to the woman while they cut, crush and suck the life out of the child.
How many women are able to have natural childbirth? From what I know, not many.

And the instrument probing and device shoving and life sucking are the norm?

Moving along, it's obvious you people don't believe abortionists should meet even a minimum standard of care, and the Perry's sister thing was debunked months ago.

Moving along, it's obvious you people don't believe abortionists should meet even a minimum standard of care, and the Perry's sister thing was debunked months ago.

I agree all facilities should have a high standard of healthy and safety, but we disagree as to how to get there. Just like we disagree how to address many problems we face as a country.

Trying to do better isn't an easy transition at all. Especially when you have no money to finance this mess. :(

Stop wasting all our money.

Wouldn't sending billions of dollars to Israel every year be a much bigger waste of your money instead of funding a high standard of safety for healthcare facilities?

Wouldn't sending billions of dollars to Israel every year be a much bigger waste of your money instead of funding a high standard of safety for healthcare facilities?

What, you don't like Jews?

Stop wasting all our money.

End corporate welfare, and tie tax rates to job creation. Thus reducing social welfare also. Just an idea.

What, you don't like Jews?Playing the anti-semitic card is lame and tired, it could be East Bucketstan for all I care, the amount given yearly is a terrible waste of taxpayer money.

Playing the anti-semitic card is lame and tired, it could be East Bucketstan for all I care, the amount given yearly is a terrible waste of taxpayer money.

I don't consider supporting Israel a waste of money. Obama spent nearly 8 times our total aid to Israel since we began with a loan in 1949 in one swoop with his porkulus bill.

But that likely won't happen again, yet that large sum goes to them every single year.

But that likely won't happen again, yet that large sum goes to them every single year.

Whatever, one day everyone whines that we don't give enough foreign aid and the nest they when we give too much - to Israel - even though the emperor himself had over $3 billion in his last budget.

one day everyone whines that we don't give enough foreign aid I don't think that's ever the case.

Breaking News

Federal judge: Texas abortion limits unconstitutional (http://news.msn.com/us/federal-judge-texas-abortion-limits-unconstitutional?ocid=ansnews11)

Federal judge: Texas abortion limits unconstitutional

Breaking news (http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/10/31/21268354-appeals-court-reinstates-most-of-texas-abortion-restrictions), federal appeals court reinstates Texas new abortion regs.


New restrictions on abortions in Texas went into effect Thursday night after a federal appeals court lifted an order that would have blocked them.

One provision requires any doctor performing abortions to have admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles of the clinic. On Monday, a federal district court judge in Austin said the requirement places an undue burden on a woman seeking a legal abortion and adds no medical value. The women's groups challenging the law said it would force about a third of the 36 abortion clinics in Texas to shut down. The judge blocked the law the day before it was going to take effect.

The state immediately appealed, and late Thursday a three-judge panel of the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed that order, allowing the restriction to go into effect. The panel said the provision does have a valid medical purpose – helping to ensure that the credentials of doctors who perform abortions are current. The law, the court said, acts as another layer of protection for patient safety.

It's not an undue burden, the panel said, even though it may make it harder or more expensive for women in Texas to get access to an abortion clinic. The state, it said, has a legitimate interest in protecting the integrity of the medical profession.

Hello Steve:

It AIN'T over till it's over.. We've heard from the lib judge, and we heard from a right wing 3 judge panel.. The NEXT level is the FULL panel OR the Supreme Court.

Personally, I think it IS a burden on low income women to have to travel LONG distances and spend LOTS of money for something that WAS available locally, but not now.

But, that's just me.

excon

Yup there is always Gosnell like clinics for the low income.. right ? Or maybe the clinics can spend the money necessary to comply to mandated standards like every other business is expected to do.

Hello again, tom:

Yup there is always Gosnell like clinics for the low income.. right ?If you were pregnant, poor, and can't get a legal abortion, would you opt for (a) a Gosnell like clinic, or (b) a coathanger?

I know you THINK you're gonna force her to have her baby.. But you guys THINK laws against marijuana are gonna KEEP people from smoking marijuana.

Bwa ha ha ha ha ha.

excon

We aren't the ones fighting every "layer of protection for patient safety" for women in need.

Hello again, tom:
If you were pregnant, poor, and can't get a legal abortion, would you opt for (a) a Gosnell like clinic, or (b) a coathanger?

I know you THINK you're gonna force her to have her baby.. But you guys THINK laws against marijuana are gonna KEEP people from smoking marijuana.

Bwa ha ha ha ha ha.

excon

Let's say instead of an abortion factory we were talking about a Catholic clinic that ministers to the poor. Would you accept substandard facilities that don't comply with code ? Don't answer .I already know... You don't think that faith based charity should operate at all unless they violate their own convictions to comply with a law that violates their 1st amendment protections..

Hello again, tom:

Let's say instead of an abortion factory we were talking about a Catholic clinic that ministers to the poor.Nahhhh. You got me wrong. I'm HAPPY the church would minister to the poor. Now, under Obamacare, they don't have to insure their workers any more either, so there's no 1st Amendment issue. Obamacare SOLVED that one, huh?

excon

Not really . What Obamacare does is to force them into a socialized system or violate their convictions.
But I see you didn't address the issue of a Catholic clinic that was operating outside of safety code. Would you permit it to remain open without making the changes to comply ?

Hello again, tom:

But I see you didn't address the issue of a Catholic clinic that was operating outside of safety code.You know I don't duck stuff.

As you may know, I DON'T live my life by what SOME people write down in a book and call it law.

Were I to observe an attempt to CLOSE your Catholic charity for POLITICAL reasons, and political reasons ONLY, I'd object, and object STRENUOUSLY. That's clearly the case here.

Some people, somehow, believe these trap laws are designed for the safety of women. I can't imagine HOW they could believe that, but they do.

excon

Hmmmmm the ole death by 1000 cuts incrementalism strategy.. Something the left has employed for decades . The abortion clinics are conducting commerce (specifically surgery )... and can and should be regulated just as any other ambulatory surgical centers that performs such services require .

A related note... today Judge Janice Rogers Brown wrote an appeals court decision about the contraceptive mandate .She ruled in favor of Freshway Foods objections to the mandate She wrote that as a result of the regulation, the plaintiffs "can either abide by the sacred tenets of their faith, pay a penalty of over $14 million, and cripple the companies they have spent a lifetime building, or they become complicit in a grave moral wrong."
Appeals courts rulings have gone both ways ;so it can be assumed that SCOTUS will make a decision sooner or later .

Tom why don't you rephrase your question and remove the word catholic. Now should that clinic be regulated, of course it should

Agree Clete.. The pro-abortionists here think abortion clinics should work outside of standard regulations.

The left never met a regulation it didn't love unless it's abortion related.

Republicans only regulate what they don't like, but they refuse to regulate anything that big business does. Matter of fact they give them MO'MONEY every chance they get.

Matter of fact they give them MO'MONEY every chance they get.
Yup Repubics are part of the problem too.

A related note... today Judge Janice Rogers Brown wrote an appeals court decision about the contraceptive mandate .She ruled in favor of Freshway Foods objections to the mandate She wrote that as a result of the regulation, the plaintiffs "can either abide by the sacred tenets of their faith, pay a penalty of over $14 million, and cripple the companies they have spent a lifetime building, or they become complicit in a grave moral wrong."
Appeals courts rulings have gone both ways ;so it can be assumed that SCOTUS will make a decision sooner or later .

The court seemed unimpressed with the government argument.


Obama administration said that the requirement is necessary to protect women’s health and abortion rights. The judges were unconvinced that forcing companies to violate their religious rights was appropriate.

Brown wrote that “it is clear the government has failed to demonstrate how such a right — whether described as noninterference, privacy, or autonomy — can extend to the compelled subsidization of a woman’s procreative practices.”

Court Rules Obama Admin Can't Make Catholic family Business Follow HHS Mandate | LifeNews.com (http://www.lifenews.com/2013/11/01/court-rules-obama-admin-cant-make-catholic-family-business-follow-hhs-mandate/)

Another argument for single payer, and doing away with employer based health care. But the down side is that eventually workers who lose insurance benefits or have theirs modified will want something in return, and that's MONEY.

Cool. I know those religious folks see that coming. Good Luck in the court.

In other words you think the same government that can't build a website in 3 1/2 years would excel with even more control.

Fixing problems isn't more control. Making things work would be better than flat out sabotage. And its not more control that's the goal but more cooperation to make it work.

Ironic again that the people that passed it against our will and shut us out of the process would preach about cooperation.

You did your best to kill the bill and the government and FAILED. Don't care if you cooperate or not. I don't expect you to cooperate. That's not ironic just fact. Not something to lose sleep over or stop working for. That would be false hope on my part.

I'm going to cooperate and let the dems take the heat.

There you are sense at last

Hello again, Steve:

Ironic again that the people that passed it against our will and shut us out of the process would preach about cooperation.This is the LORDS day. It's NOT a day you should be hypocritical.. If the lord won't tell you, I WILL.

You come from TEXAS where your state government is RAMMING abortion and voter ID CRAP down the throats of your citizens, and I DON'T hear you talking about "cooperation"...

Look, Right Winger. When YOUR side in in control you RAM, RAM, and then you RAM some more... So, does your opposition.. Don't act so hurt about it. Buck up, Righty.

excon

Hello again, Steve:
This is the LORDS day. It's NOT a day you should be hypocritical.. If the lord won't tell you, I WILL.

You come from TEXAS where your state government is RAMMING abortion and voter ID CRAP down the throats of your citizens, and I DON'T hear you talking about "cooperation"...

Look, Right Winger. When YOUR side in in control you RAM, RAM, and then you RAM some more... So, does your opposition.. Don't act so hurt about it. Buck up, Righty.

excon

Greenies for days

Hello again, Steve:
This is the LORDS day. It's NOT a day you should be hypocritical.. If the lord won't tell you, I WILL.

You come from TEXAS where your state government is RAMMING abortion and voter ID CRAP down the throats of your citizens, and I DON'T hear you talking about "cooperation"...

Look, Right Winger. When YOUR side in in control you RAM, RAM, and then you RAM some more... So, does your opposition.. Don't act so hurt about it. Buck up, Righty.

excon

I believe I asked this before, who besides some media hero wearing sneakers, pro-abortion loonies and a few indignant libs was upset at this conservative state passing laws to protect women and the integrity of the vote?

In the case of obamacare the opposition was loud, clear and overwhelming. Most of us here are just fine with the new Texas laws.

Hello again, Steve:

who besides some media hero wearing sneakers, pro-abortion loonies and a few indignant libs was upset at this conservative state passing laws to protect women and the integrity of the vote? So, RAMMING is just fine if it's YOUR side doing it.

HYPOCRITE!!!

excon

Hello again, Steve:
So, RAMMING is just fine if it's YOUR side doing it.

HYPOCRITE!!!

excon

What part of we like it are you not getting? It's not ramming if we support it.

P.S. What was the name of Ted Cruz' Democrat opponent?

Hello again, Steve:

P.S. What was the name of Ted Cruz' Democrat opponent?His name was Loser. Who cares?

What makes you a hypocrite is that you PUT PEOPLE DOWN for DOING EXACTLY what you're doing. It's something you'll NEVER get.

Look. I don't LIKE what right wingers are doing on abortion, but they WON, and that's how we do business here.. I'd NEVER say they RAMMED it down anybody's throat, because that's fundamentally INCORRECT!!!! I UNDERSTAND democracy. You guys have no clue.

For the above reasons, and more, liberals are MUCH better people than you.

excon

I believe I asked this before, who besides some media hero wearing sneakers, pro-abortion loonies and a few indignant libs was upset at this conservative state passing laws to protect women and the integrity of the vote?

In the case of obamacare the opposition was loud, clear and overwhelming. Most of us here are just fine with the new Texas laws.

No it wasn't it was just you right wing loony's that didn't like it, and shut down the government because of it. Its one thing to screw people loudly in your own state, but nowhere can you prove that you have even most AMERICANS on your side.

You could have change it your way if you had votes, so stop throwing rocks and thinking we are stupid enough to believe your lies.

When we get the votes in Texas, we are going to make a whole bunch of changes, and I doubt you like it.

What makes you a hypocrite is that you PUT PEOPLE DOWN for DOING EXACTLY what you're doing. It's something you'll NEVER get. Amen brother.

Amen brother.

Look in the damn mirror Mr ankle biter.

Hello again, Steve:
His name was Loser. Who cares?

What makes you a hypocrite is that you PUT PEOPLE DOWN for DOING EXACTLY what you're doing. It's something you'll NEVER get.

Look. I don't LIKE what right wingers are doing on abortion, but they WON, and that's how we do business here.. I'd NEVER say they RAMMED it down anybody's throat, because that's fundamentally INCORRECT!!!! I UNDERSTAND democracy. You guys have no clue.

For the above reasons, and more, liberals are MUCH better people than you.

excon

You seem to be having comprehension issues today, ex. IT ISN'T RAMMING IF THAT'S WHAT WE WANT. Tal, Wendy Davis and a bunch of bussed in protesters do not a majority make. Your side does in spite of overwhelming majority opposition.

Look in the damn mirror Mr ankle biter.https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/unaffordable-health-care-act-769112-101.html#post3579974

LOL, perfect example of the hypocrisy.

Hello again, Steve:
You seem to be having comprehension issues today, ex. IT ISN'T RAMMING IF THAT'S WHAT WE WANTLemme see. It's only ramming if the OTHER guy wants it, huh? If YOU do it, it's fine..

And you have the balls to ask ME about comprehension???

excon

https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/unaffordable-health-care-act-769112-101.html#post3579974

LOL, perfect example of the hypocrisy.

Dude, if you want to insult someone at least try and make sense you moron.

Hello again, Steve:Lemme see. It's only ramming if the OTHER guy wants it, huh? If YOU do it, it's fine..

And you have the balls tot ask ME about comprehension???

excon

Yes I have the balls, in our case they're doing what we the people want, in your case they did what we the people told them explicitly NOT to do. If you can't understand that difference you're beyond help.

Stop making excuses for not be able to count! There is more than enough of US that think you are crazy and extreme. Just not in your neighborhood. WE would be very foolish to even listen to the loud lunatics on the far right.

Do you even listen to yourself and what YOU write? For example, you holler about sticker shock, but defend profits! The insurance company's sets the price so they can make profits!

So you holler and blame everybody else, and defend the ones who give you sticker shock. That's loony!

Tal, start making sense.

try and make sense you moron.

you're beyond help.Why are you so angry all the time? Why can't you treat all people with some modicum of respect? Is this what all right-wing types do? belittle, bully, and insult?

Why are you so angry all the time?
Maybe the Texas dust storms?

Hello again, Steve:

Yes I have the balls, in our case they're doing what we the people want, in your case they did what we the people told them explicitly NOT to do. If you can't understand that difference you're beyond help.Let's review, shall we??

Not long ago we had a national election.. It wasn't a poll. It was an ELECTION.. EVERYBODY was counted. That would be EVERYBODY... One of the candidates said he'd repeal Obamacare on his first day. When the NUMBERS came in, he LOST, and he lost BIG.

What part of a MAJORITY of the American people speaking, and speaking LOUDLY, do you not get???

excon

Hello again, Steve:
Let's review, shall we??

Not long ago we had a national election.. It wasn't a poll. It was an ELECTION.. EVERYBODY was counted. That would be EVERYBODY... One of the candidates said he'd repeal Obamacare on his first day. When the NUMBERS came in, he LOST, and he lost BIG.

What part of a MAJORITY of the American people speaking, and speaking LOUDLY, do you not get???

excon

One candidate told us that if we like our insurance and doctors we could keep em .

Tal, start making sense.

I do make sense, you guys are just to loony to understand sense. Must be all that hollering. Obama Care probably covers that.


One candidate told us that if we like our insurance and doctors we could keep em .

You still got yours don't you? Then you weren't lied to.

One candidate told us that if we like our insurance and doctors we could keep em .
It'll all settle out just like Medicare Part D did.

Hello again, tom:

One candidate told us that if we like our insurance and doctors we could keep em .It's true. He shoulda told them that they'll get BETTER policies under Obamacare. It might cost them a little more, but they'll have REAL insurance, instead of the CRAP they're now losing.

excon

I'm sorry, but I must be in some fairy tale or something because I fail to see how triple the price, triple the out of pocket, triple the annual cap and fewer choices in providers is better.

Hello again, Steve:

because I fail to see Truer words were never spoken.

excon

Hello again, Steve:
Truer words were never spoken.

excon

By all means, tell me how how triple the price, triple the out of pocket, triple the annual cap and fewer choices in providers is better.

By all means, tell me how how triple the price, triple the out of pocket, triple the annual cap and fewer choices in providers is better.
Better/broader coverage, probably lower copays, low deductible.

Better/broader coverage, probably lower copays, low deductible.

Did you even read what we've been saying? Triple the price, triple the out of pocket, triple the annual cap and fewer choices, and you can add the others which we've already shown as well, higher co-pays, higher deductibles. The only thing better is you can't be canceled and everyone gets contraceptives.

. The only thing better is you can't be canceled and everyone gets contraceptives.

Now there is a lesson in that isn't there, some one wants you to be happy

The only thing better is you can't be canceled and everyone gets contraceptives.
And any health condition will be treated and paid or (no exclusions) plus I can get my abortion paid for too.

And any health condition will be treated and paid or (no exclusions) plus I can get my abortion paid for too.

If you aren't broke from paying the premiums (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/unaffordable-health-care-act-769112-100.html#post3579721) first or die from not being able to see your cancer doctor (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/unaffordable-health-care-act-769112-101.html#post3580111) any more, that might be relevant.

Hello again, tom:
It's true. He shoulda told them that they'll get BETTER policies under Obamacare. It might cost them a little more, but they'll have REAL insurance, instead of the CRAP they're now losing.

excon

Yeah that advanced stage cancer patient who now doesn't have insurance or doctors takes solace in having her abortion pills paid for

Yeah that advanced stage cancer patient who now doesn't have insurance or doctors takes solace in having her abortion pills paid for
And she won't have to worry about getting pregnant again because her contraceptives are covered.

She is concerned about dying... the death panel just made that call for her .

She is concerned about dying... the death panel just made that call for her .
Naw, you have to live life to the fullest even when you might die. Been there, done that.

Naw, you have to live life to the fullest even when you might die. Been there, done that.

Well that was exceptionally compassionate.

I don't suppose you read the link Speech provided where the woman's critical care and doctors of her choice are going to be denied to her.
This is too serious for flippancy . She had coverage and doctors that suited her needs and now she doesn't . Her's wasn't a bare bone plan. It was a premium plan that she had no issue with .
A Stage-4 Gallblader Cancer Survivor Says: I Am One of ObamaCare's Losers - WSJ.com (http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304527504579171710423780446)

Well that was exceptionally compassionate.
Have you been there and done that?

Why are you not as compassionate about the millions who had been kicked off their insurance, and couldn't get more because of pre existing conditions? Don't they deserve to live too? Why isn't the woman with cancer eligible for subsidies to help her with her premiums?

Don't act like you care when you never have and its disingenuous to cherry pick horror stories like that's the only story. If you tried you would find them. You don't care about the woman in California. You just want to use her story to advance your narrative.

That's pretty shady since you have advanced the notion of profits before people many times before.

Her insurance company had paid well over $1 million to cover her . Obviously that greedy insurance company put profits before her. Before this monstrosity Obamacare ,there were around 4% of Americans in the private market . Of those ,1 in 8 had preexisting conditions that meant they paid more in premiums . A few others were denied. Let's say combined we are talking about 1.5 million affected . Those could've been easily addressed with subsidies without blowing up the whole system that worked well for 96 percent of the rest of us .
Contrast that with 2 million Americans have already lost their private health care coverage…lost the coverage they were happy with and lost the doctors they knew and trusted. They will get insurance that they have to pay more for . I'll believe your subsidy lie when I see it. You can't expand coverage in a vacuum ;someone pays for it . Who will ? The invincibles ?
And that's just the beginning. The numbers of those dropped under Obamacare could actually reach upwards of 16 million once happy with their plans American citizens. That would be in other words ,the vast majority of those previously covered under private insurance.

Have you been there and done that?

This isn't about me, it's about your flippancy toward this woman's situation.

America can't even keep it's past white Republican presidents...

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/lincoln-democrat.jpg