Type to search

Obamacare Opponents Still Await The Apocalypse

Memo Pad Politics

Obamacare Opponents Still Await The Apocalypse


A while back, progressive activists and politicians pushed for legislation to provide health insurance for a cohort of Americans who could not easily pay for their doctors’ visits and medications. Predictably, that effort was met with fierce resistance from conservatives, who didn’t seem concerned about those less-fortunate citizens who couldn’t afford medical care.

Conservatives denounced the plan as “socialized medicine” or a “communist takeover” of the American health care system. One notable conservative was especially alarmist, declaring that if the proposal passed Congress, “… you and I are going to spend our sunset years telling our children, and our children’s children, what it once was like in America when men were free.”

No, that hysterical tirade didn’t come in response to the Affordable Care Act. Those words were spoken in 1961 by Ronald Reagan, who was crisscrossing the country to campaign against the adoption of Medicare. Yes, Medicare, which Congress passed in 1965 and is widely considered a resounding success.

Fast-forward a few decades. The same alarms were sounded more recently, as progressive activists and politicians pushed for legislation to provide inexpensive health insurance for those who couldn’t afford it. Actually, the denunciations of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, usually called “Obamacare,” may have been even more hysterical.

As the law neared passage, I watched angry crowds gather near the White House — many holding vicious, racially charged signs lambasting the president — to chant about “socialism” and “communism.” Strangely, the most vehement criticisms came from Americans 65 and older, the very cohort that benefits from Medicare.

President Obama signed the Affordable Care Act in March 2010, so it has been the law of the land for five years. Given that, it’s possible to make a reasoned assessment of its strengths and weaknesses.

First off, let’s note that there has been no “socialist takeover” of American medicine. Obamacare uses private health insurance providers; the law merely sets requirements for health insurance plans and issues subsidies to patients who cannot afford to purchase policies.

As you might expect, the number of Americans with health insurance — and, therefore, with access to preventive medical care — has increased in the last five years. Before the law went into effect, there were 48 million uninsured Americans. Now, with 16 million people having signed up for Obamacare, that number has been cut by a third.

Furthermore, health insurance companies are no longer allowed to deny coverage to patients who are already sick or to set a “lifetime cap” on the amount of money a company will pay for medical care. Adult children, who might be in college or working at low-paying jobs without benefits, can stay on their parents’ policies until they are 26.

The Affordable Care Act may also have decreased the rate at which health care costs were escalating. Five years ago, medical care costs were skyrocketing, well beyond the rate of general inflation. Now, those costs are still going up — but at the lowest rate in 50 years. While economists aren’t certain that Obamacare’s cost-containment measures are responsible, many of them give the law credit.

To be sure, the Affordable Care Act has been no panacea. There are still 32 million Americans without health insurance. And, despite the president’s early pledge that people already insured could retain their policies, a tiny but vocal group lost their insurance because Obamacare deemed those policies inadequate. Many in that group ended up paying more for insurance, hardly a happy outcome.

But the worst failings of the Affordable Care Act are beyond its supporters’ control. Because of persistent, irrational Republican opposition, more than 20 states have refused to expand Medicaid — even though the feds would pay the lion’s share of costs. That means that millions of working-class Americans are not getting the health care they need. Furthermore, Obamacare’s unrelenting antagonists have mounted yet another challenge to the law before the U.S. Supreme Court.

It’s hard to fathom. The Affordable Care Act has failed to produce the apocalypse (remember “death panels”?) its fiercest critics predicted; instead, it has given millions of people access to decent health care. Its opponents are as wrong about Obamacare as Ronald Reagan was about Medicare.

Cynthia Tucker won a Pulitzer Prize for commentary in 2007. She can be reached at cynthia@cynthiatucker.com.

Photo: Michael Moore via Flickr

Cynthia Tucker Haynes

Cynthia Tucker Haynes, a veteran newspaper journalist and Pulitzer Prize winner, is a Visiting Professor of Journalism and Charlayne Hunter-Gault Distinguished Writer-in-Residence at the University of Georgia. She is also a highly-regarded commentator on TV and radio news shows.

Haynes was editorial page editor of The Atlanta Journal-Constitution newspaper for 17 years, where she led the development of opinion policy. More recently, she was that newspaper’s Washington-based political columnist. She maintains a syndicated column through Universal Press Syndicate, which is published in dozens of newspapers around the country. Besides winning the Pulitzer Prize for commentary in 2007, Haynes has also received numerous other awards, including Journalist of the Year from the National Association of Black Journalists.

  • 1


  1. Dominick Vila March 28, 2015

    The relentless attacks against the Affordable Care Act, like those against Social Security and MEDICARE, have a lot more to do with social irresponsibility – the refusal to pay for what we need and benefit from – than ideology or logic. We have to go no further than consider the lack of an alternative in the incendiary rhetoric we hear from the far right to understand that, for them, the goal has nothing to do with effective social programs to help our seniors, students, the poor, and some middle class citizens, but with a desire to reduce government outlays to a minimum (Defense and programs designed to reduce the cost of corporate investment) as a way to reduce taxation. What happens to those who depend on Social Security and MEDICARE, to the 5% of our population that benefit from the ACA, and to middle class and poor students, is irrelevant to them. Being able to afford the latest gadget Made in China is much more important to them than doing what we did for our elders and our young when it was our turn to help them. The “me” generation is not in charge, and don’t even make an attempt to hide where their priorities, humanity, and sense of responsibility are.
    Interestingly, these are the same people who see nothing wrong with the largest redistribution of wealth from the public to the private sector in Iraq, they see nothing wrong with subsidies to wealthy farmers and oil companies, and they see absolutely nothing wrong with a judicial and financial system that has helped the elite accumulate 2/3 of our national wealth, and that remains in place to increase their holdings at the expense of those who have nothing to offer, but their labor.

    1. mogedy March 28, 2015

      Very well said…I think there is also an undercurrent of racism beneath all the opposition to Obamacare as well as anything else the President tries to do.

      1. paulyz March 29, 2015

        OMG, there he goes, playing the stale, old race card. I suppose we can call you all racists for criticizing Sen. Cruz as well. LMAO!

      2. plc97477 March 30, 2015

        And in some places it is right out front. I agree.

    2. mike March 28, 2015

      You seem to forget that Wall Street is already behind Hillary, but it is all the republicans fault.
      Don’t forget the revolving door between Wall Street and Washington. Perfect example is Tom Niles who left Wall Street to work for Hillary and is now back at Morgan Stanley,
      The so called rants about ACA, is facing the facts that it is going to cost more money than promised, the lies about total enrollment, etc., that there will still be 30 Million still uninsured in 2024.
      SS is going bankrupt-down to about 2.5 workers to each participant, SS Disability will be out of money shortly, reforms are necessary. Obama refuses to address it,
      The irresponsible people are those who refuse to face the facts that it can’t continue as is, like you and the left.

      1. PeteMartin March 28, 2015

        I just spent 30 minutes researching each of your points and came up with six paragraphs of refutation. And then I realized, that if you believe all the points in your post you’ll not be swayed by accurately researched data.

        1. mike March 28, 2015

          I am not sure what you have but bring it on.
          Hillary and Wall street is indisputable.
          SS is in trouble and must be reformed,
          Obamacare will cost 1.9 trillion by 2024. CBO 2014-2024, 9-17-14.
          You forget Obama said:

          <img height=”1″ width=”1″ alt=”” style=”display:none” src=”https://www.facebook.com/tr?ev=6023368737404&amp;cd[value]=0.00&amp;cd[currency]=USD&amp;noscript=1″ />
          President Obama and other Democrats attempted to win support for the health-care bill by touting it as a fiscally responsible enterprise. “I will not sign a plan that adds one dime to our deficits — either now or in the future,” Obama told a joint-session of Congress in September 2009. “I will not sign it if it adds one dime to the deficit, now or in the future, period.”

          Congressional Budget Office

          1. Dominick Vila March 28, 2015

            The answer to your claim is simple: fund the ACA, and all other social programs, and the deficit will disappear. The problem is not our social programs, but our refusal to pay for them and the subsequent deficit spending that we have seen, time and again, whenever Republicans are in control of the WH and Congress.
            Do you want to end deficit spending? Raise taxes to a level that allows the government to cover outlays. Do you want to reduce government spending? Cut the DoD budget to a realistic level, limit foreign aid to humanitarian aid only, eliminate functional duplication between government departments and agencies by merging some of them and eliminating waste. In crease revenues by ending subsidies to the wealthy and to corporations that don’t need them to grow and profit, cut all loopholes that allow the wealthiest members of our society to stash their loot away overseas to avoid paying Uncle Sam their fair share, reform our tax system to ensure all Americans pay their fair share. Reform SS by raising the contribution cap to $200K. Go after the pharmaceuticals that are charging outlandish prices RX, and against manufacturers of medical equipment that charge more for their products at home than they do when they sell them abroad.

          2. mike March 29, 2015

            First, you give a year old report. Numbers have changed.
            Second, Obama said: “I will not sign a plan that adds one dime to our deficits”

            Name a government program of this magnitude that cost have gone down?? Hell any program that has cost less!!
            This one is from June 2014
            Then there is the September 17, 2014 CBO report.

          3. Steve-P March 29, 2015

            so this program should go down even though none other has? Love your circle logic. I did look at your link, and it’s a right-wing bubble site. Do you have a link from outside your right-wing echo chamber? Like to read it! BTW, Obamacare has existed for 5 years and the deficit has gone down… just saying.

          4. mike March 29, 2015

            “Right wing bubble site” that is quoting the CBO report but yet it isn’t legit. Give me a break. What horse manure on your part.

            You keep ignoring Obama in 2009 saying:
            “I will not sign a plan that adds one dime to our deficits”

            Heck, you wouldn’t be happy unless it comes from mediamatters.

            Try these: All have deficit due to ACA



            Deficit has gone down because forced spending cuts and highest revenues(higher taxes) ever.

          5. Steve-P March 29, 2015

            Give me a break mike. how about this from CNN


            from the same date:

            Obamacare will cost less than thought

            or is that headline not clear enough?

          6. mike March 30, 2015

            Give you a break, what a laugh.
            Did you even read the CBO report??
            What you can’t get through your head is that fact ACA WILL ADD TO THE DEFICIT BUT NOT AS MUCH, what is so hard to understand. ACA will add to the deficit but just a little less.

            25 million will still be uninsured by 2025. Doesn’t guarantee quality of service, out of pocket higher, deductibles higher. ;premiums higher and most importantly ACA will save every family $2400.00-what a joke.
            Plus no choice of service, one size fits all people-young or old, male or female, etc.. So UN-AMERICAN.

            Obama 2009:
            “I will not sign a plan that adds one dime to our deficits”

            Come on, It still adds at least 1.2 TRILLION to the bottom line over 10 years.

            Obama 2009:
            “I will not sign a plan that adds one dime to our deficits”.

            One of many lies by Obama. Obama Liar of the Year in 2013.

      2. Dominick Vila March 28, 2015

        Wall Street is behind Hillary Clinton? You may want to do a little research before you say things life that. The 3 largest banks threatened to discontinue political contributions to Democrats, in part because of Elizabeth Warren’s efforts to end Wall Street fraud and abuse, and in part because they believe that policies passed by Democrats are limiting their ability to rip off consumers.
        As for the ACA, your opinion is identical to the same claims you have been making for months. My opinion is the exact opposite to yours on ACA, Social Security, and MEDICARE.

        1. mike March 28, 2015

          Now there you go again. I said nothing about Warren and her dislike of Wall Street, I am stating Clinton is very close to Wall Street and there is a history of the Clinton’s and Wall Street.
          WP: 6 in 10 Wall Street types are democrats.
          Robert Wolf, former president UBS investment bank and a big Obama BFF, was a host at a big gala to honor Clinton Dec 16th. and said “There’s no question, when and if she decides to run, that she’s going to have an incredible support foundation from Wall Street.”

          Beyond that, Hillary Clinton—and the Clintons generally—have always courted Wall Street assiduously and without apology. In June, the biggest donors to the Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation met with the Clintons at Goldman Sachs’ headquarters in lower Manhattan for a day-long discussion about the foundation’s goals. Goldman has donated hundreds of thousands of dollars to the Clintons’ foundation, and in October 2013, Hillary Clinton gave two speeches at Goldman. Her usual speaking fee is $200,000, and Goldman is known to be a full payer on the speaking circuit. Goldman is hardly alone—Clinton is popular in the financial industry: In 2013, she also gave speeches to KKR and the Carlyle Group, two private-equity behemoths.

          Wall Street does not seem to be the slightest bit shy about coming out for Hillary—and are now contributing their money to prove it. While Priorities USA Action, a super PAC dedicated to getting Clinton elected in 2016, does not have any Wall Street banks among its top 50 donors to date, there have been large contributions from wealthy hedge funds, such as Renaissance Technologies, which has donated $4 million (the largest single contribution); D.E. Shaw, whose employees have donated $1.375 million; Khosla Ventures and Soros Fund Management, which have each donated $1 million; and Ripplewood Holdings, a private equity firm, which contributed $400,000. There are many Wall Street financiers who have donated $25,000—by design, the maximum contribution—to the Ready for Hillary superPAC.

          Wall Street is into the Clinton juggernaut again. If you think differently in are living in la la land.

          1. Dominick Vila March 29, 2015

            Wall Street donates to both parties to cover all their bases and ensure influence and support regardless of who wins and which party controls the White House and Congress.
            Their recent threat to discontinue donations to Democrats, as a result of Sen. Warren’s investigations and her push for effective policies and oversight to minimize the probability of fraud and consumer abuse included all Democrats, not just Sen. Warren.
            Their donations to the Clinton foundation are minimal, compared to what the Koch siblings and billionaires like Adelson donate to far right political organizations. In any case, donating to a Foundation focused on helping countries afflicted by natural disasters, famine, or disease is not the same as donating to political organizations whose only goal is to win political campaigns. Yes, they may be buying influence, or at least sympathy, but donations to charitable institutions is not the same as donations to political organizations, which your statement implied.
            In any case, I am delighted to see conservatives admitting that Hillary is a pro-business politician, which she clearly is, and so is her husband. I guess this means that we are not going to hear claims of socialism, communism, and all the other “isms” if Hillary decides to run…

          2. mike March 29, 2015

            That is true that Wall Street gives to both sides. In 2008 it overwhelming to Obama, 2012 Wall Street moved back to Romey. What you are ignoring that the big companies are in Hillary’s corner.
            Back at your old deflections again and the terrible Koch’s, Same s&&t, different day.
            Conservatives aren’t admitting anything of the such. Wall Street is heavily Democratic(WP-6 of 10 wall street types Democratic).
            No, she is not that clearly pro-business just big business and big money, look at the history of Bill’s relationship with Wall Street. It’s all about the monies pouring in from the large corporations.
            All she is doing is riding Bill’s coattails with not one accomplishment to her name.

          3. Dominick Vila March 29, 2015

            Hillary is not riding on anybody’s coattails. She has her own qualifications, record, values, and vision. Whether or not the electorate is impressed by her attributes, or not, remains to be seen.
            In many ways, Hillary has demonstrated the same courage and determination as other female politicians have, in the past and present. While President Obama can be credited for proposing the stimulus package that, along with the TARP, helped save the U.S. economy and end the recession that began in late 2007, for proposing and signing the ACA, for ending the invasion of Iraq, ending the use of torture, fighting for financial and social equality, Wall Street reform, and other such initiatives, the truth is that most of his proposals would have gone nowhere had it not been for the courage and determination shown by the likes of Nancy Pelosi and Elizabeth Warren. It was them who remained steadfast in their determination to make policy changes designed to strengthen our economy, what Reagan referred to as the “safety net”, and put in place desperately needed regulatory reforms to minimize the probability of another Great Recession and end consumer abuse. Hillary Clinton, like Nancy Pelosi and Elizabeth Warren, are likely to be remembered as the true champions of change and progressive policy making when historians analyze what has taken place during the last six years.
            I find your efforts to transform Hillary Clinton as a politician in the pockets of Wall Street and Big Business, while taking a step back and claiming that she is not really pro-business amusing, and typical of the duplicity characteristic in Republican discourse. The truth is that Hillary’s record, on foreign and domestic policy, is too far to the center-right for many liberal Democrats.

          4. mike March 29, 2015

            What a load of BS!!!
            She is riding Bill’s coattails and connections.
            Name one accomplishment of any importance as a Senator, as Secretary of State. Time to put up or shut up!!! Remember, Importance!
            We are not talking “other female politicians”, I am not going to let you play the gender game. She is in politics and there is no gender, you have it or you don’t. You would love to try and play that game. which is an insult to every women. “other female politicians” how insulting.
            Obama and the lack of recovery is well documented, his policies and rules help slow the economies recovery and made it the slowest ever. It is still fragile and this great breakout you so exclaimed last year sure didn’t happen in the 4th quarter, the economy came back to the old humdrum Obama economy.
            “Bad policy, not the financial crisis, is why we’ve had a pathetic economic performance these last five years” said Christina and David Romer, well know liberal leaning economists who authorized the study.. You remember Christina, Obama’s Chief Economic Adviser.
            New data from suggests, Obama’s incompetence, not the financial meltdown, is why the recovery was such a disaster.
            Michael Bordo of Rutghers and Cleveland Federal Reserve Joseph Haubrich point out recession from financial meltdown recovery quickly, not slow down.
            Hillary will try and ride the coattails of Bill’s connections, other than being a women she has nothing else to brag about.
            What did she say a few weeks ago: “Isn’t time for a female President.” Tell me if that is not trying to play the gender game. That is all she’s got.

          5. Dominick Vila March 29, 2015

            Unfortunately for you, and for most Republicans, a plurality of Americans are impressed with Hillary’s poise, character, record, and vision. Acknowledging the courage and determination of most female politicians may be insulting to you, I doubt most women will take offense. In fact, they probably agree.
            I realize that being a member of the group that authorized the raid that ended the life of Osama bin Laden is not a big deal. Who can forget the acknowledgment made by your hero in 2007 when he said that getting OBL was not a big deal. Along the same lines, I am certain that for people like you reducing the incidence of attacks against U.S. diplomatic facilities from 11 to 1 is evidence of failure, and reducing the number of victims of foreign terrorist attacks from 3,100 down to 4 constitutes the epitome of ineptitude.
            As for President Obama’s performance, I would start that he has managed to prevent a sequel to 9/11, a tragedy that took place when the GOP controlled the WH and Congress. That he managed to turn around the economy, end the Great Recession that began in 2007, in spite of obstructionism that none other than Sen. McConnell was done intentionally to ensure he was a one-term President.
            Claiming that the economy is weak because of a slowdown during one of the worst Winters in decades show how desperate you are to find flaws in everything President Obama has done. Wait until the April results come up and then come back and remind us of President Obama’s horrible economic policies. From the DOW Index rising an unprecedented 10,000 points, to solid corporate profits, to job creation, to a dramatic reduction in deficit spending, President Obama has exceeded his own expectations, and has established a clear contrast between the tepid and reckless Republican economic and fiscal policies, and those championed by Democrats.
            You really have to be desperate to compare where the economy was in January 2009 with where we are today.

          6. mike March 29, 2015

            Now, where are all the accomplishments?
            As I said before, put up or shut up.
            I have seen many women that have shown courage and determination with their accomplishments. What I said was this coming election should be based not on gender but accomplishments. She has none as you continue to point out with your silence.
            Keep trying on those Obama performances! Sequel of 9/11, you really are delusional. You want to talk performance by Obama, under his lack of leadership, he is now responsible for ISIS in Libya, Iran in Yemen(remember Obama bragging a success story), ISIS J-V, ect.. At this time Iran has major influence in 4 capitals in Middle East. Saudi attacked the Houthi in Yemen without informing the US until the last second. Obama is no longer trusted by many countries.
            The Middle East is imploding and the major reason is Obama and leading from behind.
            Even liberal leaning economists know and write the recovery has been the fault of Obama policies.
            Your ignorance is breathtaking when you think the DOW has anything to do with Obama. It is the Federal Reserve, an independent organization, that has so-called printed money and kept interest rates at near zero. Deficit is down because of the increased revenues-higher taxes, and spending cuts forced on the administration by the right. What you are incapable of grasping is deficits are headed back up in the next few years(CBO).
            Keep trying to justify your vote for a worthless and incompetent person, named Barack.

          7. Dominick Vila March 29, 2015

            The root cause for ISIS was the ousting of Saddam Hussein and the removal of Sunni Baathist from power. You don’t displace and force two million people to flee their country to save their lives and expect them to accept their fate. That is, unless you are a myopic, arrogant, Republican. ISIS is a Sunni organization. Some of its political and military leaders were trained in American military academies, and enjoyed the full support of the U.S. government during the Iran-Iraq war…until W, or more accurately Cheney and Rumsfeld, decided to seek revenge and take advantage of a useful idiot to project an illusion of revenge where there was none.
            If the allegations made by the GOP are correct, Iran has helped Shia organizations in the past, in places such as Lebanon and in Syria. They, allegedly, did it in Somalia, and it is not surprising that they are doing it now in Yemen, while the Saudis help their fellow Sunnis. Highlighting the religious and tribal wars that have characterized life in much of Africa, the Middle East, and the Persian Gulf region, and insinuating that turmoil is, somehow, due to President Obama’s policies is the epitome of cynicism. Sunnis and Shias have been fighting each other for seven centuries, and their struggles are likely to continue for many centuries to come regardless of who is President of the United States.
            I am pleased to see Jordan and Saudi Arabia take a more active role in fighting terrorism and/or trying to stabilize a region where warfare seems to be a way of life.
            As for economics, the evidence speaks for itself. Republican administrations presided over out of control deficit spending and accumulation of debt; were in control of the U.S. government when 9/11 took place, and when 11 U.S. diplomatic facilities were attacked; the DOW Index was below 7,000 points; unemployment was on the rise January 2009; deregulation and irresponsible tax breaks contributed to the worst Great Recession since the Great Depression, even worse than Reagan’s; the S&L was almost destroyed by Reagan’s policies and the U.S. economy was on the verge of collapse (W’s words) as a result of Bush’s policies. Last, but not least, fraud and abuse were rampant (Lehman Brothers, AIG).
            Incredibly, and in spite of robust obstructionism designed to make him a one-term President, Barack Obama managed to save the day. The GOP is not downplaying Obama’s accomplishments because they are dumb, they are doing it because those accomplishments and successes mean the success of Democratic policies and the abject failure of Republican policies.
            Creating a problem and then blaming the one that was left holding the bag is typical Republican strategy.

          8. mike March 29, 2015

            Dom, thanks for the good chuckle!!! Good old Dom, trying to deflect or ignore, keep bobbing and weaving! LOL!!!
            I will give you one more try at answering a very simple question.
            List the accomplishments of Hillary that qualify her to be president!!! No big deal. What has she accomplished as Senator or Secretary of State??

            BTW, all the mumbo jumbo you tried to say in your post, can not and will not change the Implosion of the Middle East and Obama’s role in this disaster.

          9. Dominick Vila March 30, 2015

            Her accomplishment – and qualifications – include earning a law degree, practicing law, being First Lady for 8 years, serving as a U.S. Senator, and her tenure as Secretary of State.
            Compare that to the record or qualifications or your idol: Substandard student who graduated thanks to his Dad’s influence, avoided going to Vietnam thanks to his Dad’s influence, almost bankrupted his family’s oil business, almost bankrupted the Texas Rangers, and a lackluster record as Governor of Texas.

          10. mike March 30, 2015

            Dom, what a ridiculous response. She has none nothing as a Senator, and definitely did even less as the Secretary of State.
            Name the accomplishments as a Senator other than getting elected in a very liberal state, as Sec. of State, Russian reset didn’t work, Libya was unmitigated disaster, and more importantly she violated the NARA with her PRIVATE SERVER, deleted emails without authorization.
            Accomplishments including a law degree, laughable.
            What did she once say: “Judge me on my record”. Show me her record.
            Now, Now, we are talking about Hillary, no one else.
            Show me her accomplishments.

          11. Dominick Vila March 30, 2015

            “Although her major initiative, the Clinton health care plan was not implemented, it set the groundwork for the Affordable Care Act. She was among those advocating the creation of the State Children’s Health Insurance Program, which provides state support for children
            whose parents cannot provide them with health insurance coverage. She promoted nationwide
            immunization against childhood illnesses. Played a leading role in
            the creation of the Adoption and Safe Families Act and the Foster Care Independence Act. Hillary encouraged older women to seek a mammogram for early detection of
            breast cancer (which is covered by Medicare) and successfully sought to increase research funding for prostate cancer and childhood asthma at the NIH.
            She worked to investigate illnesses that were reportedly affecting Veterans of the Gulf War; now commonly known as Gulf War Syndrome. Hillary pushed for an Office on Violence Against Women at the Department of Justice. She is also the first First Lady to hold a post graduate degree, and she traveled to more countries than any
            other First Lady.
            As a U.S. senator, she was the first First Lady to become a Senator. She was instrumental in securing $21 billion in funding for the World Trade Center site’s redevelopment. She subsequently took a leading role in investigating health issues encountered by 9/11 first responders. Visited soldiers in Iraq. Noting that war deployments were draining regular and
            reserve forces, she co-introduced legislation to increase the size of the regular Army by 80,000 soldiers to ease the strain, and supported retaining and improving health benefits for veterans. Hillary introduced the Family Entertainment Protection Act during her first term. She won re-election easily, and continued her active role in championing legislation to help veterans, women, and children during her second to term.
            Last, but not least, she received over 17 million votes during her run for the nomination of a presidential candidate for the Democratic party. As Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton visited 112 countries, helping to repair a badly damaged U.S. reputation. She advocated an expanded role in global economic issues for the State Department and cited the need for an
            increased U.S. diplomatic presence, especially in Iraq, where the Defense Department had
            conducted diplomatic missions. Clinton unveiled the Global Hunger and Food Security program, prevailed over Vice President Biden to send an additional 21,000
            troops to Afghanistan, saved the signing of a Turkish-Armenian accord, and assisted the president with major decisions as to the U.S.
            position with regard to the revolution in Egypt and the decision to use military force in Libya. Last, but not least, the incidence of terrorist attacks against U.S. diplomatic facilities declined from eleven during Condi Rice’s tenure down to one, with casualties dropping from over 100 down to 4”
            I am sure you will challenge and/or minimize the importance of her accomplishments, but for many Americans she is a formidable candidate for the presidency, and as qualified and capable as most of her predecessors.

          12. mike March 30, 2015

            Clinton initiative on healthcare went nowhere, Senate majority leader George Mitchell said it was dead for that session of Congress in 1994. It was poorly presented to the American people, many different proposals came forward, much confusion by the American people. The biggest negative was it was done “in Secrecy”. Now doesn’t that sound familiar, Secret meetings and agendas, SECRET SERVERS when Secretary of State. It is like she can do anything she wants but the rest of the country can’t.
            She went to more countries and accomplished what???? Arab Spring was a disaster.The middle east is imploding, Russia reset was a no-set.
            Back to Bush bashing, pathetic.
            Libya disaster is all hers.
            Qualified and capable, like Obama? Now you are delusional.
            No, she has no accomplishments to render her qualified to be president, all she has is Bill’s coattails.
            Nice try anyway.

          13. Dominick Vila March 30, 2015

            If Hillary’s attempt at healthcare reform was done in secret, all I have to say is that it was the worst kept secret in history. Every new outlet covered her proposal since inception, with the anticipated attacks from special interests.
            Libyan is a mess because of Hillary? Libya, and much of North Africa, the Middle East, and the Persian Gulf have been a mess since at least the end of the British Mandate. In fact, since the worship of Islam was divided into two factions: Shias and Sunnis. Tribal rivalries don’t help either. I take it you would have preferred to see Qaddafi, the man responsible for the downing of a Pan Am plane over Lockerbie stay in power. That thug got what he deserved. Whether or not people in countries like Libya, Egypt, and Syria, to name a few, are ready for democracy is a different matter. Clearly, they don’t understand the meaning of democracy, or the responsibilities that come along with it.

          14. mike March 30, 2015

            Dom, at it again aren’t you?
            David Bok, Harvard University:

            Months later, after deliberating under a cloud of secrecy, the task force produced its report. It was kept secret until it went to Congress. Duh!!!

            Here’s more:

            http://www.americanhealthline.com/analysis-and-insight/features/why-hillarycare-failed-and-obamacare-succeededB. Go read Jan 22 and April 4 1993. See where they felt she wasn’t up to the task and the secrecy surrounding the final bill.

            Did Obama/Hillary/ NATO overthrow Gaddfi?? Yes or No??? So save me your stupid history lesson. Libya was part of Hillary’s era at the State Department, as was Russia.

            Clearly you will deflect, lie, ignore to save Hillary.

          15. Dominick Vila March 30, 2015

            I don’t have to save Hillary. She is very capable of defending herself, and has demonstrated as much on more than one occasion. Particularly when confronted by Republicans in Congress.
            The U.S. participation in the overthrow of Qaddafi was minimal, compared to the role played by the Libyan opposition, the UK, and France. Would you have liked it better if the man who ordered the downing of a Pan Am plane over Lockerbie had remained in office longer than he did?

          16. mike March 30, 2015

            Minimal my eye!!! Do you even try to be truthful?
            The US military played an instrumental role in the initial stage of the intervention, suppressing Libyan air defenses and coordinating international forces in the establishment of a no-fly zone over Libya, before handing command responsibility to NATO and taking a supporting role in the campaign of air strikes against pro-Gaddafi forces. The intervention severely weakened the Gaddafi regime and aided the rebels to victory, with the fall of Tripoli in August 2011.
            The divided NATO could not have waged the war without extensive US help.

            Your last post is just another example of you trying to shape your version of the truth or deflecting the facts that don’t fit what you think the truth is.
            Hillary has no accomplishments, period!!!

          17. Dominick Vila March 31, 2015

            NATO, and the EU without us, could have destroyed the Qaddafi regime without our help, and without any problems. You either don’t understand the fire power and capabilities of the British and French armed forces, or you are once again trying to demonize President Obama. In any case, what was the alternative? I asked you a question in my earlier post, would you have liked it better if the man responsible for the downing of a Pan Am passenger plane over Lockerbie had stayed in power?
            What the Libyans do with their country is for them to solve. Don’t forget what Reagan said after 270 U.S. marines were slaughtered at the Beirut airport: “that’s not our war”, and then ordered one of the most most embarrassing cut and runs in U.S. history. In a way, he was correct, we cannot play policeman of the world every time a crisis arises or whenever there is instability in a part of the world, but we do have the right to retaliate when we are attacked.
            I gave you a list of some of Hillary’s accomplishments. If you don’t like them, and you prefer accomplishments such as being a “B” rated movie actor, or almost bankrupting the family oil business and a baseball team, that’s fine. We all have our values and the privilege to decide what is best for us and what we should reject. Indiana Republican laws notwithstanding…

          18. mike March 31, 2015

            Dom, you again show your lack of knowledge.
            It was not a minimal operation. NATO did not have the technology, equipment. military skills, experienced officers. As Gates reported NATO had a shortage of intelligence-gathering aircraft, manned and unmanned, refueling aircraft(30 of 40 used were US, GPS packages for precision bombing, and NATO had to be resupplied from US Stockpiles.
            For all the 75% of sorties by NATO, the US is still the backbone of any NATO offense. 1200 American sorties on Libyan targets or the 5600 missions reported by the Pentagon.
            12 warships off the coast, the submarine USS Florida lauching 100 guided missiles. The use of U.S. JSTARS, AWACS.

            European Allies were hardly going it alone in the operation and definitely we did not play a minimal role.

            As to the rest, just more fluff and not pertinent to the subject.

            As to Hillary, what you think are accomplishments just shows she lacks the qualifies to be president. Nice try but no cigar.

            She was a bust as Secretary of State. didn’t improved relationships with one country, violated federal regulations by having her own server, deleted files from server after Congressional subpoena of State department files had been issued.

          19. Dominick Vila March 31, 2015

            I did not even insinuate our alone Allies carried out the attacks that helped oust Qaddafi. We did provide most of the aerial surveillance, satellite imagery, intelligence, and logistics to ensure the operations against Qaddafi were successful. However, most of the sorties carried out against Qaddafi and his loyalists were carried out by UK and French jet fighters. BTW, you haven’t answered my question as to whether or not you would have preferred Qaddafi staying in power, and getting away with murder. You demand answers to your questions, but seldom provide any to those directed at you.
            You are free to dismiss Hillary’s qualifications, and I have the right to believe that she is well qualified to be President. Ultimately, it is up to the U.S. electorate to decide, not you or me.

          20. mike March 31, 2015

            You are believable with your statements.
            First. You said, “US had minimal participation” Which was a down right lie, and if not a lie, another example of your lack of the facts. You have a pattern of making statements which have been proven wrong. I sometimes think you say things just to hear/see your words without any interest in the facts or truth.
            Second. You said: “NATO, and the EU without us, could have destroyed the Qaddafi regime without our help, and without any problems.” “Without any problems”, pure ignorance on your part. They neither had the technology to do pin-point bombing, equipment like refueling aircraft on 27/7, didn’t have the drones, intelligence capabilities, or military expertise to carry out a war “without any problems”. As I said they carried out 75% of the sorties, which means 25% of the sorties were by US totaling, 1200 sorties and 5300 missions.
            Far from minimal participation.Heck, they had to change their aircraft to fit our ordinance.
            The US is the backbone of NATO and can’t do squat without the US. NATO/EU countries budgets very little for military, for some less that 1.7%.
            Obama/Hillary got all wrapped up in Arab Spring and this was part of their attempt to change the Middle East, which has backfired on them
            I don’t need to answer the question, Gaddfi had gotten rid of his nuclear program when we invaded Iraq, wasn’t a real player in the world.. You would have thought that after the mess in Iraq and attempt at democracy, Obama/Hillary would have known trying to change the government of other countries is not the best policy, it didn’t work and doesn’t work. The lose of Libya is all theirs.
            Most people are dismissing her qualifications, she has none. Her foreign Affairs stint was a failure, she has nothing to talk about running a business, a corporation, and the one department she did run, had her own rules and was caught with her own server against Obama’s request, the regulations of the Federal Govt.. And you think she is qualified. Deleted emails with authorization. And you believe she is qualified, what a load of horse manure.
            What you don’t get it, is not you or me who will elect or not elect her, it will be the 20% of independents. I have a feeling they will see, that she thinks she is above the law and better than the rest of American and far too privileged.
            Time will tell!!!

          21. Dominick Vila March 31, 2015

            You are, clearly, unfamiliar or inclined to distort fact to suit your arguments. Suggesting the UK and France could not defeat Libya without our help is one of the most bizarre, and inaccurate, statements you have ever made. They can, they did, and they could do it again.
            We did play a role in intelligence gathering, aerial surveillance, analysis of satellite imagery, logistics, and our naval and Air Force units did launch missiles against Libyan targets, but compared to the role played by the UK and France, our participation in that military mission was limited at best, when it comes to active military engagement with enemy forces.
            Oh, and yes, the UK and France do have the technology for precision bombing. Whether or not it was available to their units in the field at the time may be a different matter. BTW, suggesting that France, a country with an advanced space program, does not have the technology needed to bomb a target with pin point accuracy shows how little you know about the technical capabilities of other countries.

          22. mike March 31, 2015

            Typical response from you. I never said they couldn’t defeat Libya, what everyone knows except you, what I said and you can’t grasp is that NATO did not have expertise, the equipment, intelligence apparatus, to defeat Gaddfi, “without any problems”. Britain and France had to make modification to the aircraft when they ran out of their ordinance , Belgium, Norway, Denmark were using F-16’s and they too had to resort to US supplies. But the US played a MINIMAL ROLE, what a load of crap.
            Remember you said US played a minimal role, which was not the case. I gave you all the resources being used to support the necessary action to defeat Gaddfi, which by the way, was quite extensive.
            Bizarre and inaccurate statement is all yours, I pasted your comment, “without any problems”. “Limited at best” what a joke, 25% of the sorties were by US war planes, 5600 missions flown by US, 12 warships off the coast of Libya, USS Florida submarine launching 100 missiles. refueling around the clock 24/7 which NATO was incapable of doing, all the intelligence gathering. And it was all minimal!!!LOL!!
            What you continue to disregard is that this was all In Gates report but then that is an inconvenient truth by your standards.
            I understand more than you will ever know of the capabilities of other countries.
            You are the one who said the US played Minimal role, tell that to NATO and watch them laugh. Without US support and technology NATO could not done it the span of 6 month.
            NATO could not have taken on Gaddfi without the United States of America lead and it vast military powers. Did NATO play a bigger role after the initial attacks, Yes!! Could they have sustained it as easily as they did? No, not without the US arsenal-they ran out of ordinance, that is a fact.
            US played a minimal role, now that is a laugh!!!
            US is the backbone and integral part of NATO and without the US would be of little importance.
            But we played a minimal role, what an asinine comment and factually wrong.
            Pathetic try to put words in my mouth again when you have no argument.
            As to Hillary, her numbers have dropped in FL and PA, two swing states, and now we find she was using a I-pad after telling the world she just used one device for her emails, reports the AP. Do you remember she said she just had one, for convenience. Caught in another lie and you think she is qualified. Either she used poor judgement or did it to conceal her actions believing she above the law,
            US played minimal role, more crap from Dom the crapmeister.

          23. Dominick Vila April 1, 2015

            Who said this, They neither had the technology to do pin-point bombing? Compared to the combat operations carried out by the UK and France against the Qaddafi regime, our involvement in COMBAT OPERATIONS was limited. Most of the sorties carried out by fighter jets and bombers were done by the UK and France. That does not mean our support, including providing aerial and satellite imagery, intelligence gathered from intercepting Libyan communications as well as physical intelligence, and logistics, were not important or were not critical in the success of that mission. Obviously, they were.
            You still haven’t answered my question, would you have preferred to see Qaddafi, the man responsible for the downing of a U.S. Pan Am passenger airliner remain in power? You are good at deflecting or ignoring questions, while demanding answers to yours. which you then dismiss as irrelevant.

          24. mike April 1, 2015

            Keep trying Dom, no cigar again.
            You said, “The U.S. participation in the overthrow of Qaddafi was minimal, compared
            to the role played by the Libyan opposition, the UK, and France.” Your words, and very wrong.
            One more time,.
            12 warships off the coast of Libya
            One submarine, USS Florida launched 100 misslles.

            5300 missions by US aircraft of which 1200 were sorties against Gaddfi.

            25% of all sorties against Gaddfi were by US aircraft
            30 of 40 refuel tankers were US. allowing for 24/7 operations.

            U.S JSTARS surveillance aircraft
            U.S. AWACS aircraft over Mediterranean to operate/coodinate strike missions since NATO had limited AWACS to sustain operations.

            Billions of US dollars and yet we had little participation. Funny!!!

            What we did was give major support to NATO and no matter how you down play are role, IT WAS NOT LIMITED PARTICIPATION.

            As to Gaddfi, why after all those years after PAM AM was he still in power, you will have to ask those in power. Why was he attacked by Clinton, Rice, Powers, Obama after all these years, was it the Arab Spring or was it the Goldman Sachs, World Bank connection as some say.

            Dom, you were wrong on Limited Participation of US in Libya no matter how hard you try. NATO could not have done it “without any problems” with out the massive help from US.

      3. Wedge Shot March 29, 2015

        Actually, the last information from the Federal Budget office is that Obamacare is going to cost even less than they thought.

        1. mike March 29, 2015

          Do you mean Congressional Budget Office?? If not please post the documentation.
          So tell us all the last time a Government program cost less, and especially of this size.
          Keep using that foot wedge, because you missed the target again.

          1. mike March 29, 2015

            So you post a 2013 report and think it is relevant, Right???
            Don’t try and put words in my mouth, with your silly and stupid questions.
            Looks like your foot wedge missed the hole again.
            Now, how many govt. programs have seen their cost and budget get smaller?

        2. paulyz March 29, 2015

          Who told you that wedgie, Rachael Maddow?

          1. Independent1 March 30, 2015

            How about an article broadcast via Fox News-KDVR in Denver – lowlife???

            Obamacare will cost less than thought; price currently 29 percent below projections – POSTED 3:11 PM, MARCH 9, 2015

            NEW YORK — Obamacare’s price tag continues to fall.

            The president’s landmark health reform law will cost $506 billion for the coming five fiscal years, according to updated projections from the Congressional Budget Office, released Monday. That’s 29% less than the agency’s projection back in March 2010.

            – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

            If you double the current projection for 10 years that’s around 1.1 Trillion when 2 years ago the CBO was projecting 1.8 trillion.


      4. hicusdicus April 1, 2015

        The unions caused it all to happen.

    3. Independent1 March 30, 2015

      Sorry to go off topic, but I just came across an article in the Daily Kos which talks about salt water creeping into the Biscayne Aquifer in Broward County threatening the water supply for 6 million Floridians. That’s down your way isn’t it?? Have you heard much on the news about this happening?

      The Daily Kos article says that salt water has crept 6 miles in from the shoreline and is expected to keep moving west. And Florida is supposedly not going to get any federal aid for trying to solve this problem unless Scott stops officially denying that Climate Change/Global Warming exist.

      Here’s an excerpt from the Daily Kos:

      The phenomenon that can not be spoken in Florida continues as salt water intrusion moves inland

      The densely populated megalopolis of South Florida is losing it’s water wells as sea water intrudes into the Biscayne Aquifer. Salt water has already moved 6 miles inland in Broward County and is likely to continue to creep westward. Ninety percent of South Florida gets its drinking water from underground supplies, most from the Biscayne aquifer. This inland movement observed in Broward County is due to urban withdrawals from the Biscayne Aquifer, ocean water moving sideways into the aquifer and seepage of saltwater from surface sources.

      Governor Scott, this is threatening the habitability of a region of close to 6 million of your fellow Floridians. Your inaction and hostility towards climate issues and sustainability now threatens funds and other aid from FEMA as they will not give money to any state that does not plan for climate change. Where is the disaster relief going to come from if not from Federal sources?

      A report titled Climate Change AND Sea-Level Rise IN Florida notes the hellish calamity that will affect Florida’s urban populations, economy, ecosystems and coasts.


      1. Dominick Vila March 30, 2015

        This issue is probably not going to affect me directly since I live in the Northern part of Central Florida, but it is going to affect millions of people in South Florida, and it may be aggravated by Gov. Scott’s position on climate change.
        I would not be surprised if the main reason for this problem involves out of control development. Regardless of cause, this problem must be addressed ASAP, or it is going to have dire consequences for people living in South Florida…and the environment in that part of the country.

        1. hicusdicus April 1, 2015

          South Florida would be better off and prettier if it was completely submerged.

      2. Blueberry Hill March 30, 2015

        Too bad the words “Climate Change” are banned in Florida. We can be sure that the citizens know more than their moronic governor voted in by simple idiots.


  2. paulyz March 28, 2015

    There are big differences between SS & Medicare than Obamacare. The former uses our own money over our lifetime to pay for it, while the latter took $716 Billion “from” Medicare while hitting taxpayers with another $500 Billion in new taxes. Meanwhile, the former are going bankrupt, while this administration does nothing to shore it up.

    The Left likes to use SS & Medicare as an example of how the Federal Government helps Americans, but paying for these programs with our own money is the same as paying premiums for it. Most people would be better off had they used their own money on very long-term savings, and taking it out when they wanted, or leave it to their heirs when they died.

    1. charleo1 March 28, 2015

      You really need to get off the Right Wing talking points. As they are simply, and patently false. First, some perspective on the 716 billion. It concerned primarily, the prohibitively expensive Medicare Advantage Plans. And amounted to a reduction of payouts, (savings,) not a cut in benefits. And is over a 10 year period, in a program that amounts to payouts of more than 500 billion annually. So now the Gov. can’t cut .12 on the dollar in a program that’s slated to go broke in less than a decade, without the entire thing being characterized as a wholesale gutting of a program the Right Wingers didn’t approve of in the first place. There’s a lie in there somewhere, can you find it? If it was truly a matter of the workers paying into a program, then those monies completely paying for their benefits, Medicare would not going broke. Medicare is social medicine, paid for in large part, with current tax dollars. And as it turns out, Americans are very fond of it. Just as they would be very pleased with universal healthcare. But, unfortunately for the vast majority, our gov. is sold out to corporate interests, and we’re all paying a very high price for that. And ACA is by this circumstance, forced to be unnecessarily complex in the way it must go about expanding the private for profit market, with gov. subsidies. And some people are winners, and others are losers. But all that is beside the point, when we’re talking about access to something as vital to a person’s life as the air they breathe, being sold to them as a commodity, by a cartel in a protected closed market. That’s where the real problem lies. But, the thing about protecting the health of the citizens of a Nation. Is that cannot wait to settle out the other foundational problems, and the added expense involved with a government for sale to the highest bidder.

      1. paulyz March 29, 2015

        Nice double-speak, a reduction in payouts, not a reduction in benefits. The responsible Republicans that have been trying to protect SS & Medicare are pounded by you Liberals, when it is you that do nothing to correct it to continue for future generations, a actually steal from it! That, & raising taxes again for Obamacare, was necessary for the Left to ram it through to get votes by “appearing” to help others, when they are creating hardships. They think they can count on class-warfare to keep taxing wealthy Americans more, & cause even more companies to leave our shores because of uncompetitive tax rates to compete with most other nations. You are the people of division, not unity, the us against them mentality, to get votes & Federal Control of the masses.

        1. Wedge Shot March 29, 2015

          Actually it is the Republicans that are trying to turn Medicare unto a voucher system. That would kill Medicare and force many people into poverty.
          Why don’t you just STFU, moron. Being nice during these debates amounts to nothing. I think it is time for the Democrats to take the gloves off.

          1. paulyz March 29, 2015

            How do you Libs like Obama’s latest Executive Order; changing the L-1B visa program, thereby allowing foreign workers from American overseas corporations, to work in the U.S., but at their foreign, lower wages? That certainly helps American workers! That, and his NOT deporting tens of thousands of Illegals, including many criminal Illegals, will surely help American unemployment. You Socialists are pure geniuses.

          2. Wedge Shot March 29, 2015

            Made that up didn’t you?

          3. paulyz March 30, 2015

            You would never know because you listen to MSNBC propaganda

          4. Carolyn1520 March 30, 2015

            It’s made up.

          5. hicusdicus April 1, 2015

            You should know you are good at it.

          6. Carolyn1520 April 1, 2015

            What do you do, go though and read entire threads of comments so you can insert your snarky comments?
            Whatever does it for you. Enjoy!

          7. hicusdicus April 1, 2015

            Have you checked your wedge lately for liberal dingle berries?

          8. Insinnergy March 29, 2015

            Notice the change in topic as soon as he can’t answer…

          9. paulyz March 30, 2015

            Answered topic intelligently many times, why repeat facts that you Liberals never believe, or want to face? Ok, now you can resort to name-calling again, LMAO!

          10. Blueberry Hill March 30, 2015



          11. Jan123456 March 30, 2015

            Does you “BS” mean that you don’t agree with what Carolyn got off the Homeland Security website and/or what they reported Obama said at the summit? Or are you saying that it’s not actually ON the website and/or Obama did not say what was reported?

          12. Blueberry Hill March 31, 2015

            If you look at it, you will see that it is directed to Paulyz, which is above my comment; and is about HIS comment.


          13. Jan123456 March 31, 2015

            Got it. My apologies.

          14. Carolyn1520 March 30, 2015

            You should really stop getting your info from faux patriot rags and read some facts. You know , that stuff that isn’t made up, called facts? I know the problem. Facts could be mistaken for Fox when someone says it fast.

            Here’s the requirements from the official website of The Department of Homeland Security for the L-1B visa.

            NOTE THE DATE ON IT. 2004 WHO was president then?

            L-1B Intracompany Transferee Specialized Knowledge

            The L-1B nonimmigrant classification enables a U.S. employer to transfer a professional employee with specialized knowledge relating to the organization’s interests from one of its affiliated foreign offices to one of its offices in the United States. This classification also enables a foreign company which does not yet have an affiliated U.S. office to send a specialized knowledge employee to the United States to help establish one. The employer must file Form I-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker with fee, on behalf of the employee.

            General Qualifications of the Employer and Employee

            To qualify for L-1 classification in this category, the employer must:

            Have a qualifying relationship with a foreign company (parent company, branch, subsidiary, or affiliate, collectively referred to as qualifying organizations); and

            Currently be, or will be, doing business as an employer in the United States and in at least one other country directly or through a qualifying organization for the duration of the beneficiary’s stay in the United States as an L-1. While the business must be viable, there is no requirement that it be engaged in international trade.

            Doing business means the regular, systematic, and continuous provision of goods and/or services by a qualifying organization and does not include the mere presence of an agent or office of the qualifying organization in the United States and abroad.

            To qualify, the named employee must also:

            Generally have been working for a qualifying organization abroad for one continuous year within the three years immediately preceding his or her admission to the United States; and

            Be seeking to enter the United States to provide services in a specialized knowledge capacity to a branch of the same employer or one of its qualifying organizations.

            Specialized knowledge means either special knowledge possessed by an individual of the petitioning organization’s product, service, research, equipment, techniques, management, or other interests and its application in international markets, or an advanced level of knowledge or expertise in the organization’s processes and procedures (See 8 CFR 214.2(l)(1)(ii)(D)).

            L-1 Visa Reform Act of 2004

            The L-1 Visa Reform Act of 2004 applies to all petitions filed on or after June 6, 2005, and is directed particularly to those filed on behalf of L-1B employees who will be stationed primarily at the worksite of an of an employer other than the petitioning employer or its affiliate, subsidiary, or parent. In order for the employee to qualify for L-1B classification in this situation, the petitioning employer must show that:

            The employee will not be principally controlled or supervised by such an unaffiliated employer; and

            The work being provided by the employee is not considered to be labor for hire by such an unaffiliated employer.

            Here’s article 2 from LexisNexis® Legal Newsroom
            Immigration Law

            ALSO note the number of denials of L-1B visas in 2014 35% compared to the 6% denial rate in 2006. Rejections are at a historic level under Obama.
            WHO was president in 2006?

            03-24-2015 | 10:00 AM

            Author: Daniel M. Kowalski

            New L-1B Visa Guidance to be Released Soon: Obama

            “President Barack Obama on Monday announced that a long-awaited update for L-1B visas — which allow companies to temporarily transfer skilled foreign workers to the U.S. — is soon on its way, and he also unveiled new tools for foreign investors and touted current trade deals.

            Obama, speaking at the SelectUSA Investment Summit at a convention center in National Harbor, Maryland, said that his administration plans to “reform” the L-1B visa category, although the president didn’t provide details on the changes.

            “[T]his could benefit hundreds of thousands of nonimmigrant workers and their employers; that, in turn, will benefit our entire economy and spur additional investment,” Obama said of the L-1B visa update.

            According to the White House, new policy guidance on L-1B visas will be released by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, with the aim of increasing clarity on its adjudication process. A spokeswoman for USCIS told Law360 that the guidance could come out as early as this week.

            Better clarity on L-1B adjudications can’t come soon enough for many businesses, as rejections of L-1B visa petitions are at historic levels, according to a new report.

            The report, issued by research organization the National Foundation for American Policy, found that the denial rate for L-1B petitions hit 35 percent in the 2014 fiscal year, representing an eye-popping increase from the fiscal year 2006 denial rate of 6 percent.

            A sticking point for the report’s authors was the fact that USCIS has yet to provide updated guidance on the definition of “specialized knowledge” for L-1B petitions. In order to qualify for an L-1B visa — which allows a company to transfer a foreign employee to a U.S. office for up to five years — the foreign worker must have specialized knowledge connected to the company’s goals, according to USCIS.

            But just what exactly qualifies as specialized knowledge can sometimes be a bit hazy. In the most notable recent case, the D.C. Circuit reversed a decision denying steakhouse chain Fogo de Chao (Holdings) Inc.’s bid to bring in a Brazilian chef on a L-1B visa, in a dispute over specialized knowledge.

            The Administrative Appeals Office found that the chef’s cultural background and training could not be considered specialized knowledge, but the appeals panel was unable to pinpoint a “sufficiently reasoned path” regarding the AAO’s bar against “culturally based skills.”

            The upcoming guidance from USCIS, then, may very well shed some light on the specialized knowledge issue — although the NFAP warned in its recent report that any guidance that narrows L-1B eligibility will undercut the Obama administration’s goal of boosting the U.S. economy through immigration policy.

            On Monday, the president also gave a nod to new trade deals being hashed out with Asia and Europe, and said that he was “confident” that the Export-Import Bank of the United States can be reauthorized.

            Obama also unveiled several tools for foreign investors, including a website that provides data aimed at helping them pinpoint specific industries, or find possible business partners, according to the White House. Additionally, U.S. Secretary of Commerce Penny Pritzker will create an advisory committee to gather comments on foreign investment strategies and programs, the White House said.

            Monday’s SelectUSA Investment Summit was the second of its kind, and comes just four years after the program was launched by an executive order. The program seeks to entice companies from abroad to invest in the U.S., and create more jobs, according to Obama.” – Allissa Wickham, Law360, Mar. 23, 2015.

          15. hicusdicus April 1, 2015

            That was sure a lot of ado about nothing. Right from the mouth of somebody who knows nothing. I guess she still subscribes to readers digest.

          16. Carolyn1520 April 1, 2015

            What ever does it for ya!

          17. hicusdicus April 1, 2015

            So you have run dry on snarkisms. Do something useful with your life. Vacuum the house and scrub the bathroom. From your comments I would say that is your calling. You are just a girl after all.

          18. Carolyn1520 April 1, 2015

            Take care someone doesn’t flush or you ‘ll know your fate.

          19. hicusdicus April 1, 2015

            I always post my weight on the bathroom wall so the EMT’s will know how much to shovel out send to the ER.

          20. Carolyn1520 April 1, 2015

            That was me being snarky. I don’t really think that of you in spite of your dismal view of the world and other beings.
            You just need an attitude adjustment. 😀

          21. hicusdicus April 1, 2015

            You must be a young person but I guarantee that will pass.

          22. Carolyn1520 April 1, 2015

            Youth always does and no, I’m not.

          23. hicusdicus April 2, 2015

            I am sorry I did not mean to be impolite to someone who is in the wrinkle collecting stage of life. My advice is to walk slow drink a lot of water and don’t talk to anybody.

          24. Carolyn1520 April 2, 2015

            You’re rude to everyone! However, I’m pretty sure judging by your jaded attitude, I would be addressing you by Sir, if you warranted respect. 🙂
            Everyone should drink lots of water, walk with purpose and talk to everyone at every opportunity.
            No wonder you are so miserable. Bad attitude.

          25. hicusdicus April 2, 2015

            You are giving me too much credit, I am only rude to liberals. I will try to be a nicer libertarian atheist. The reason I am so miserable is living with 10 dogs and a cat who have no respect for me. I feed them and they are furnished with a 2500 sq ft dog house and still I have to battle to get to sit in my chair. So you see I am not only miserable and have a bad attitude I am also stupid. You already knew that though. Every time you get a new wrinkle it will remind you of me.

          26. Wedge Shot April 1, 2015

            I know you can read so why not try and understand the information provided by Carolyn1520? You see, it show the Paulz doesn’t know what he is talking about.

          27. Carolyn1520 April 1, 2015

            The impression he wants to leave is he’s above it all.

          28. hicusdicus April 1, 2015

            Neither you or the air headed girl have a clue about the real situation. Copy and pasting legal ease does not paint the real picture. At first I thought all the derogatory comments about Obama were just that. Now I am beginning to wonder just how much of it might be true. I don’t trust anything Obama does as being beneficial to the US. Unless you are independently wealthy and have no debt you are going to pay the price For hope and change this man and his group are heaping upon you.

          29. Carolyn1520 April 1, 2015

            BTW I do get Reader’s Digest. I had an aunt who use to babysit all the kids in the family as she had no children of her own. She use to read it to us and used Increase Your Word Power as a game with prizes. We all, also received it every year as gifts. She’s gone now but I have a subscription that won’t run out for another 5-6 years as her gifts were multiple year subscriptions.
            If you intended that to be an insult, it’s just a fond memory for me.
            Try again. 🙂

          30. paulyz April 1, 2015

            Who controlled Congress in 2006 you mean, fully controlled by Democrats. You are not even discussing what I posted, all you did was Google Visa L-1B and copy and paste something that doesn’t pertain to what Obama has done to change it. This is why you Liberals are dangerous, you knee-jerk everything without understanding any repercussions of what you do. But gee, it sure makes you “feel” good doesn’t it.

          31. Carolyn1520 April 1, 2015

            Yada yada yada.
            Your fall back deflection is always attempts at insults. It’s obvious you don’t know what you are talking about and you didn’t even read far enough to see the second part was about Obama’s updates for the visas. The first part is the actual law and I’m betting you’ve never seen that before because facts aren’t on your radar. You’re too deeply mired on what you think you know.
            You probably can’t comprehend any of it. As far as insults, you’re a light weight and as for ignorance you score high.
            Go watch Fox you moron.

          32. paulyz April 3, 2015

            More Liberal deflection techniques. Of course I will listen to FOX News like a huge majority of people now do, after realizing the pure partisan BS of MSNBC. CNN at least has opposing views. Maybe you should start listening to FOX, as they always have Liberals on discussing their viewpoints. But of course, you don’t want views different than those that don’t co-inside with your leftie ideology, do you? As usual, you resort to juvenile name-calling. LMAO!

          33. Carolyn1520 April 3, 2015

            I have watched Foxand it makes me throw up.It would be on my comedy show list but knowing they are reaching so many misguided people it just sickens me.
            You’re a troll or someone I shouldn’t be making fun of, because of a disability. If it’s the latter, I apologize for not recognizing it sooner.

          34. Carolyn1520 April 3, 2015

            BTW Moron is a medical definition.

          35. hicusdicus April 1, 2015

            Democrats with out gloves on! They could then swap arms and gain a stroke.

          36. hicusdicus April 2, 2015

            Do you really think the democrats are going to take off their rubber gloves before they stick it to us again?

    2. Duke March 28, 2015

      My idea of democracy is tax cuts for the rich, voter suppression, gut SS ,Medicare, Medicaid, SNAP,ACA, childcare and wellness, bomb Iran, die if you are poor and sick, Impeach Obama and elect extremist idiots. -Signed – The teapublican party.

      1. paulyz March 29, 2015

        Another gullible Leftie kool-aid drinker. And what will you have when SS & Medicare are not there for you, or much less than you expect? You are what the Royalty call useful idiots.

        1. Wedge Shot March 29, 2015

          And you are what anyone with a first grade education and above calls hopelessly ignorant and not worth debating.
          It is said that never debate an ignorant fool. they will bring you down to their level and beat you with experience. I believe Mark Twain said something to that effect, first

          1. paulyz March 29, 2015

            Wow, your statements are so brilliant that I forbear to detract from their luminosity, by adding any comment of my own.

          2. Insinnergy March 29, 2015

            It’s amazing how you can use polysyllabic words.

          3. paulyz March 30, 2015

            Ewww, such a big word, what a brilliant intellectual you are!

          4. hicusdicus April 1, 2015

            Its the only one one he knows how to spell.

          5. paulyz March 30, 2015

            Someday you may wish you were at my level, but by that time, Liberals like you will be standing there with jaw dropped trying to wonder how you could have been so duped.

          6. hicusdicus April 1, 2015

            It would be nice if they were all lined up against a sand bag wall.

    3. Bren Frowick March 28, 2015

      Wrong on every count. But that is typical of right wing propaganda, which relies entirely on anecdotes, rather than data, while those millions who have benefited remain largely quiet; it is the loud and disgruntled, blinded by ideology, who make the most noise, and thus provide the anecdotes (most all of which dissolve like the morning dew when subjected to the harsh light of investigation) upon which the right builds its misinformation campaigns.

      1. Carolyn1520 March 28, 2015

        You said it in a much nicer way. I’m way past nice now when dealing the mouth breathing right.

        1. Bren Frowick March 28, 2015

          I am making an effort to keep frustration with the utter idiocy that spews like a never-ending tidal wave from the right from making me respond with the sort of well-deserved contempt they really deserve, in the hope that silent observers will recognize which side makes more sense without being put off by a lot of venting. And am always happy to engage in a CIVIL debate with anyone who does the same.

          1. Carolyn1520 March 29, 2015

            I applaud your efforts.

          2. hicusdicus March 30, 2015

            You sure are easily entertained and gullible.

          3. Carolyn1520 March 30, 2015


          4. hicusdicus March 30, 2015


          5. hicusdicus March 30, 2015

            Your idea of a debate is who has read the most articles in NM.

          6. Bren Frowick March 30, 2015

            Yours appears to be a matter of voicing a completely unsubstantiated OPINION and trying to browbeat the world into accepting it, regardless of how absurd it is.

          7. hicusdicus March 30, 2015

            Another copy and paste comment.

          8. Blueberry Hill March 30, 2015

            I have already run out of patience. Kudos to you for taking on that lunatic and try to educate it. It is so sad that there is no way to fix Stupid. So I won’t respond to anything more from that moron. There were so many lies that I responded to just one this time. Knock it out with the truth, they can’t stand that. lol.


          9. hicusdicus April 1, 2015

            You know the truth please enlighten us. Your vast knowledge and insider information sounds really intriguing.

      2. paulyz March 29, 2015

        You are wrong, I am completely correct, your blind socialism & elitist, know it all attitude, so common with Liberal, are hurting Millions. By the time you wake up, the problems will be unstoppable. Of course, there are many of you that want it that way, to satisfy your idiotic ideas of progress.

        1. Bren Frowick March 29, 2015

          I rely on FACTS, supported by DATA. You? Cherry-picked anecdotes that largely turn out to be the result of people being too lazy or biased to figure out their options. Meanwhile, the bulldozer of reality just keeps on flattening all your lies.

          1. paulyz March 29, 2015

            You mean the “facts” from MSNBC? THE proven 80% pure opinion propaganda, er, I mean “news”.

          2. Independent1 March 30, 2015

            And more lies from a total lowlife!! Tell me, do you ever state anything that is true??? I doubt it!! You wouldn’t know what the truth was if it slapped you in the face!!!

            From a Poynter.org article on how bad Faux News is:

            People who watch MSNBC and CNN exclusively can answer more questions about domestic events than people who watch no news at all. People who only watch Fox did much worse. NPR listeners answered more questions correctly than people in any other category.


            Note that MSNBC viewers could answer far more right than Faux News : in Domestic news : 1.26 vs 1.04 In International 1.28 to 1.08. Remember – Faux News listeners did far worse than people who didn’t even make an effort to stay up on the news. And why? Because Faux News lies and broadcasts propaganda not news.

          3. hicusdicus March 30, 2015

            Facts, what a joke. All you know is what you get out of articles that are written to fit your bias.

          4. Independent1 March 30, 2015

            And so speaks another lowlife:

            The NM carries far more accurate facts than any of your RWNJ websites and news outlets ever will. See just how bad FauX News is – Faux News listeners are dumber than people do don’t even make an effort to keep up on the news: because it not only lies incessantly: it censors the news and only broadcasts news favorable to its ideology and when it does broadcast what’s supposed to be news; it reworks the news into propaganda:

            See this from Poynter.org:

            People who watch MSNBC and CNN exclusively can answer more questions about domestic events than people who watch no news at all. People who only watch Fox did much worse. NPR listeners answered more questions correctly than people in any other category.


            Note that MSNBC viewers could answer far more right than Faux News : in Domestic news : 1.26 vs 1.04 In International 1.28 to 1.08. Remember – Faux News listeners did far worse than people who didn’t even make an effort to stay up on the news.


          5. paulyz March 30, 2015

            Isn’t the Poynter Institute a very Liberal organization heavily funded by George Soros? Why would any person seeking truth care what they spew? I listen to news that always have opposing views, not afraid to let the people decide, not be force-fed one-sided, unopposed bias.

          6. Independent1 March 30, 2015

            Boy!! Are you grabbing at straws. Articles about Faux News making people stupid have been carried on numerous websites – this story happened to be from CNN – which has been rated one of the most reliable news sites. And what does the political persuasion of a website have to do about statistics that have been gathered by and published by a nonpartisan university??

            With each post you make you prove just how totally inept you are. You’re nothing more than the typical RWNJ LOSER!!!

          7. hicusdicus April 1, 2015

            More faux from the fact faux. When was the last time you hugged your dog?

    4. Carolyn1520 March 28, 2015

      You don’t know what you are talking about. But that doesn’t stop you or anyone on the right from repeating what amounts to BS to further your agenda.
      The facts are out there but you choose to listen to those who count on the low information voters in their party buying the BS and spreading it.
      At one time I was glad to gather information, complete with references to hopefully educate someone on the right who appeared to be uninformed or misguided. After doing so, so many times and being met with the SOS, I realized facts are not what you seek. You want BS because it confirms what you think and feel. So go ahead and repeat the BS. Don’t expect those who know better to quietly sit by and not remind you of your stupidity.
      Carry on!

      1. paulyz March 29, 2015

        Yes, the truth hurts, doesn’t it? Luckily more people are seeing the truth behind Obama & the Socialist Party. They always need to deceive or outright lie to ram their “sound-good” policies through, but eventually the pain & suffering to ordinary Americans can no longer be hidden.

        1. Carolyn1520 March 29, 2015


          1. paulyz March 29, 2015

            Yes, wedge shot sure is boring, isn’t he, or her.

          2. Insinnergy March 29, 2015

            Your ignorance and ad hominem desperation tactics amuse me.
            Please continue.

          3. Carolyn1520 March 30, 2015

            It wasn’t a response to Wedge Shot.

          4. paulyz March 30, 2015

            DUH, really…..

          5. Carolyn1520 March 30, 2015

            You haven’t exhibited any abilities which led me to believe you comprehend much.
            DUH confirms my first impression.

          6. Carolyn1520 April 1, 2015

            You’ve made it apparent, one has to state the obvious.

        2. Wedge Shot March 29, 2015

          Well Paulyz, you have shown what a fool you are anyway.
          What a shame.

          1. paulyz March 29, 2015

            Spoken like a typical elitist Liberal “intellectual” moron. You are a legend in your own mind.

    5. Wedge Shot March 29, 2015

      Your lack of knowledge about the Affordable Care Law is breathtaking.
      You are completely ignorant about how it is financed but insist on making a fool of yourself. Since you have already done that and have decided that you know something about Medicare, which you don’t ,countering your ridicules assertions would indeed be a waste of time so I will just say; pay your tea party dues and go back to watching Faux News. Comfort yourself that you have only made a slight fool of yourself and can stop posting unless, of course, you have decided to make yourself a complete fool by confirming that you are really uneducated.

      1. paulyz March 29, 2015

        Oh, we know how it was “funded”. By cutting pay to Doctors & Hospitals, fining people that don’t take it, raising premiums so high that most people can’t even afford the Bronze Plan, raising taxes with big i creases every year, especially after the last election. This doesn’t even address the Millions of people that insurance they were happy with through their employers. I guess the only people really liking Obamacare are those getting it for free or almost nothing, off the backs of others. And of course, don’t forget all those Amnestied Illegals that will be eligible, no matter what Obama told you. Remember, if you like your plan, or Doctor, you can keep them, PERIOD! Oh, and how are you all enjoying the $2,500 BO said you would receive, and the last tax increase? Utter Morons!

        1. Independent1 March 30, 2015

          As usual, you don’t know diddly squat about anything related Obamacare. Everyone of your comments is a usual RWNJ response: Fabrications of the truth!! Like so many others here have suggested: Pack it in!! Not one soul here except your RWNJ friends believes one thing you ever post!!! How sad!!!!

          YOU’RE A TOTAL LOSER!!!!

          1. plc97477 March 30, 2015

            He’s not a total loser. He is at the very least an example of how not to be.

          2. paulyz March 30, 2015

            On the contrary, everything I stated is truth, which you can’t face so you choose to ignore, or try to act intellectual, without any actual facts. The obvious lies and deceptions are becoming clearer to “most” people to decide themselves, as we have seen from the mid-term collapse of excessive Socialism.

            Of course this leads Liberals to resort to juvenile name-calling. “Loser”!

          3. Independent1 March 30, 2015

            There was no ‘mid-term collapse’!! Once again you’re grabbing at straws!! Fact is, the only thing that got the GOP those senate seats was their gerrymandering and voter suppression that they could put on in Red States.

            What’s really telling is that, as bad as the 2014 voter turnout was, it was much worse for the Republicans than the Dems!!
            When the total turnout for the election was around 36% of the voting electorate, it really says something when the Democrat senate candidates received 20 million more votes than the Republican candidates, even in losing some very tight races in the red states.

            Keep in mind LOSER, that aside from winning those senate seats in Red States where they had gerrymandered the districts and used voter suppression to cut back on the people who might vote for the Dems: that aside from winning ONLY SENATE SEATS IN RED STATES AND A FEW GOVERNORSHIPS!! THE GOP LOST EVERY THING ELSE IN THE 2014 ELECTION!!







          4. Independent1 March 30, 2015

            You call them as you see them, and if there was ever a total loser – IT’S YOU!!!

            Note that I’m not the only one on the NM that thinks that!! 4 other posters gave a thumbs up to my calling you a LOSER!!!

          5. paulyz March 31, 2015

            DUHHH! Could it be that’s because the National Memo is full of the Leftist of the Left? What an imbecile you are.

      2. hicusdicus March 30, 2015

        The most degrading thing that can happen to you is having independent 1 agree with you. What makes you so educated? So far all I have heard out of you is the liberal party line. Do you ever even try to think for yourself?

    6. Blueberry Hill March 30, 2015

      Well, I’m out of patience myself so I’ll tackle just one of your falsehoods. The $716 Billion dollars was not taken from Medicare. It was the amount of waste, fraud, and abuse in Medicare and was stopped. It was money saved.


  3. anothertoothpick March 28, 2015

    Next time we go to the polls, let us remember that is wasn’t just the T-baggers that voted against this plan.

    It was ALL REPUBLICANS that voted against this plan.

    1. Duke March 28, 2015

      I agree 100% – but we have to get ALL DEMOCRATS to vote in EVERY ELECTION. Not just president elections.- if they would then we wouldn’t have these idiots in congress that we now have- it’s sickening.

      1. Blueberry Hill March 30, 2015

        Absolutely! This should be our #1 priority for until the next election. VOTE BLUE! I believe that by that time that the GOTP will be the most hated political party in the world.


      2. Independent1 March 30, 2015

        I certainly don’t disagree. But be aware that even if Dems turn out, the next election for Congress is going to be a tough one because of the GOP’s gerrymandering and voter suppression. Turnout for the 2014 election was actually much worse for the GOP than the Dems. It was only the GOP gerrymandering that got them many of the Senate seats. The Dems got more than 20 million more votes for the Senate than the GOP in 2014.

        1. Jan123456 March 30, 2015

          Independent…I follow you and admire your posts. I have a question about this one though. How does the gerrymandering get Senate seats for the GOP? I fully understand House seats, but Senate?

          1. Independent1 March 30, 2015

            The GOP will structured the 2 senate districts in their states in a way that either favors the GOP, or at least gives the GOP an almost balance with the Dems; when a logical geographic split wouldn’t. They’ll carve out the two districts such that they’ll either split up the big cities, or in some way match large rural sections of a state with some big cities (which generally get more Democrat votes), in order to boost the GOP votes in that senatorial district. (Votes that can go the GOP way in mid-term elections).

            Let me give you an example: Here in Maine – if you look at a map, virtually anything you’d want to call a big city is in the lower part of Maine south of Bangor which is actually much smaller than the top part because it’s quite narrow compared to the north.

            So currently the two Senate districts are split between the northern part of Maine which is mostly farmland and the southern part which is where the bigger cities are. Not surprisingly Maine has one Republican and one Independent (more often Democrat) senator.

            When the GOP took control of the Maine legislature in 2010 – the first thing they did was lower taxes for the rich and then started working on redistricting the senate districts. What they wanted to do was take the large farmland part of northern Maine, and make one senatorial district that included only the eastern part of northern Maine – called Downeast. While putting all the towns in the western half of northern Maine into the district that has all the big towns in it – thereby boosting the GOP vote quite a bit, so that at least in a mid term election where Republicans usually vote more often than Dems – the GOP stood a good chance of taking away that Democrat/Independent seat.

            Fortunately, the GOP’s carve up of the state was ruled as clearly being done with political bias and was ruled down by a court.

          2. Jan123456 March 31, 2015

            So you’re saying in Maine your two US Senators are not elected statewide? And Susan Collins was only elected by a portion of the citizens in 2014? I thought all states elected US Senators by all the people in the states.

            You’re not talking about STATE Senate districts are you?

          3. Independent1 March 31, 2015

            Susan Collins represents the 2nd district, Why would she be on the ballot of people in the 1st district?? If 1st district residents can vote on a senator who represents the 2nd district and therefore maybe sway the vote, how then is she truly a representative of 2nd district voters???

          4. Independent1 March 31, 2015

            After posting my first reply, I looked it up and find that I’m wrong. I guess I never kept track of the fact that over time I had voted for Senators that represented both districts. It still doesn’t make sense to me that all voters are allowed to vote on each senator, because it seems to me to defeat the purpose of having 2 senators, if their both representing the same group of voters within a state. I see then no reason to have senatorial districts as we do in Maine.

          5. Jan123456 March 31, 2015

            In reply to your first post, where I live, US Senators have overlapping terms. We never vote for the two senators in the same election. And we do not have senatorial districts at all…at least on the Federal level.

            I tried looking up Maine and the rationale for federal Senatorial districts but came up with squat Do you have a link? This is just really curious to me.

          6. Jan123456 March 31, 2015

            Ok, I did find something. It looks like you are the same as my state. No districts for Senate, but two for the house.


          7. Independent1 March 31, 2015

            Sorry I’ve led you on a wild goose chase. My apologies. As an excuse I’ll have to rack this temporary mental insanity to my advancing age. As you approach 80, the wiring in the brain sometimes gets short-circuited. I have been clearly confusing the situation with Maine’s two representative Districts for the House; as Maine only has 2 representatives as well as 2 senators; so there is a District 1 and District 2 related to the House of Reps. You’re correct that Maine does not have 2 senate districts.

            So getting back to the 2014 elections, it was the GOP’s voter suppression which must have won them the GOP senate seats because t he GOP turnout, at least in non Red States, was clearly worse than the Dems as I pointed out: 20 million more Americans ended up voting for the Democrat Senators that won than the Republic Senators who ended up winning most of the elections garnered. So the GOP voter suppression tactics must have really discouraged Dems in the Red States – because look at Oregon where more than 60% of voters turned out and the Dems won big!!

          8. Jan123456 March 31, 2015

            I agree with you. While the GOP is big on voter suppression, part of the problem is the dems that came out big time to re-elect Obama did not turn out in the midterms. Had they done so, we wouldn’t have goofballs like Cotton and Joni Ernst. Maybe we wouldn’t even have McConnell.

            I found a very well researched paper on voter fraud. I am going to give you a link, but my two big points is that having ID only prevents impersonation fraud and even the SCOTUS case over Indiana’s law, they said…there ain’t none! Still the law was upheld. And the conservatives complain about SCOTUS!

            Anyway, if you ever can’t fall asleep at night, give this a glance.


          9. Independent1 March 31, 2015

            So given that all voters vote for senators, then in 2014, the GOP must have relied mostly on their voter suppression tactics in what would be the stronger Democrat voting districts of red states to influence the vote rather than their gerrrymandering.

  4. Miss Terr March 29, 2015

    Are not Obama’s acts to upset the Constitutional order of the United States, acts of treason?

    1. Carolyn1520 March 29, 2015

      It’s so early in the day for such ignorance. Give examples of how our president’s acts have “upset the Constitutional order of the United States” and what you perceive as treasonous acts. Perhaps some kind person who isn’t fed up with sheer stupidity will educate you. I apologize for not being able to do so. I’ve encountered so much of it for so long, I’m all out of patience.

      1. CrankyToo March 29, 2015

        Don’t be so hard on yourself… you can’t fix “stupid” anyhow.

        1. Carolyn1520 March 29, 2015

          🙂 Ah, truth.

    2. Wedge Shot March 29, 2015

      Are your comments not the result of not getting a proper education?
      If you knew anything about the Constitution you would specify something, anything, that backs up your statement. Absent that I have to assume that you are just spouting political nonsense and have to disregard any future posts from you as being not worthy to read.

    3. Independent1 March 29, 2015

      Where in the world are you getting such nonsense?? Obama has done far less outside the Constitution than any of the last 5 GOP presidents:

      One of which (Nixon) actually committed treason by sabotaging the Vietnam peace talks at the end of Johnson’s presidency, which kept the war going for almost 5 more years with more American soldiers being killed than might have been otherwise. And then as you may be aware, he stepped down from the presidency in lieu of being impeached after being proven to be a crook.

      And one, Reagan, actually had more people in his administration tried and convicted of crimes than all the presidents in office since 1900 combined, with a number of them actually being sent to prison. And Reagan actually made a treasonous deal with the Iranian Ayatollahs to not release the American prisoners they were holding hostage until after the 1980 election so he could paint Carter as weak on foreign policy. And as if that wasn’t nefarious enough, Reagan actually approved of supporting Saddam Hussein in the use of chemical weapons when he was fighting a war against Iran – a practice banned by international law. No president was as outright devious and evil as Ronald Reagan that you nitwit Conservatives think is a saint!!! How dumb!!

      And one president and his crooked help mate named Cheney, actually outright lied to start a war with Iraq just so they could give out no-bid contracts to their buddies in the defense industry – so that those buddies could rip off you, me and every other taxpayer of trillions of dollars by fraudulently overcharging for all their services and in many cases not even doing the work in Iraq that they charged our government for and were actually paid to do.

      So when you throw around your right-wing clueless nonsense about Obama – you don’t really have a leg to stand on. Because at least 3 of the last 5 Republican presidents have been three of the most evil people to have ever sat in the oval office – from committing treason, to being outright crooks, to sanctioning torture and the use of chemical weapons in warfare, to deliberately lying to start a war where more than 4,000 american soldiers died, to deliberately allowing an attack on America to happen where 3,000 more Americans died.

      1. paulyz March 31, 2015

        Wow, are you ever thouroug

    4. Blueberry Hill March 30, 2015



    5. Independent1 March 30, 2015

      And if you consider something Obama has done treason, which you seem to be unable to identify, what are you calling what Republicans in states across America are doing by refusing to expand Medicaid to their citizens all because it may cost their state a little money (the Federal government initially picks up all the costs).

      So far, as many as 20,000 Americans have died prematurely because of the lack of healthcare since these states had the opportunity to cover them with Medicaid. That’s 20,000 people who could be alive today. A senator from my state, Angus King has a name for what they’re doing MURDER!!! Are you really happy about that???

      1. paulyz March 31, 2015

        Isn’t it nice that the “Federal Government” picks up the costs. Gee, FREE money, wonder where it comes from? As for people that could be alive today, perhaps you forgot the Millions that never had a say about their lives. And not just the early term that you feel are not human. You also failed to mention the large numbers of people murdered, raped, or harmed by Illegal aliens that are not supposed to be in our Country. Oh yes, and the more people in poverty & on food-stamps since Obama became Emperor, err, I mean President.

        1. johninPCFL April 1, 2015

          Would you rather those tax dollars (that are already collected) go ONLY to the weapons makers? I’m happy they’re sending some of my tax money back to me.

          1. paulyz April 1, 2015

            We ALL pay for the Federal Government & their excessive spending. They basically bribe States to do what the Fed. wants by offering to pay for most of the costs. They do this to ALL the States so ALL the costs are born by ALL of us. The main function of our Federal Government is National Security, which we have by having a strong Defense, and we spend much more on Social Programs than Defense anyway, why you have the freedom to say what you choose. Without it, you would not have this freedom.

    6. Jan123456 March 30, 2015

      No. Here is the Constitutional definition of treason. You will see that none of Obama’s actions meet Constitutional requirements.

      Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

      The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no
      attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted.

    7. paulyz March 31, 2015

      Well judges had ruled that Obama exceeded his Constitutional authority by bypassing the Legislative Branch, which even Obama admitted about 30 times. He seems to mis-understand our governments separation of powers, the checks & balances, so basic to our Liberty, but if it fits into the Lefts Socialist ideology, they gladly ignore it.

  5. ronnie raygun March 29, 2015

    is there anyone here that thinks we are not in a ‘cold’ civil war? if the aca is killed by the kochs scotus, no matter what side your on, its going to be bad. expect real upheaval if its stopped. why does the gop hate children?

    1. Independent1 March 29, 2015

      ” why does the gop hate children?”
      Good question. They’re adamant about banning abortion – yet they deny women who are expecting and can’t afford to go see a doctor, the healthcare the woman needs because they refuse to expand Medicaid. So 13 of the 15 states that have the highest infant mortality rates (and even women dying in child birth); are all Republican run states. And even if a baby lives to its first birthday; they pass laws that cut food stamps and the support the new mother needs, demonstrating clearly that aside from their banning abortion idiocy – they really don’t care about anyone’s life beyond their own. The vast majority of Republicans are godless – despite their pretense of being Christians.

      1. plc97477 March 30, 2015

        Obviously they don’t like children but they are fixated on zygotes.

        1. paulyz March 31, 2015

          The zygotes that never were allowed to be born, that hadn’t a say.

          1. johninPCFL April 1, 2015

            Yep – the GOP thinks of children like snakes. Once they’re born, cut ’em lose and don’t think anything more about them.

          2. paulyz April 1, 2015

            Did that bit of nonsense just materialize in your mind? Everyone knows that a much larger % of Democrat voters are in broken homes, single-parent families, do not get married, etc. Most Conservatives have traditional family values which you Liberals usually criticize. Where do you get these ideas?

          3. Carolyn1520 April 2, 2015

            Wrong again Sparky.

            Among your bible thumpers, Baptists are on top, so speak.

            They aren’t , as a rule, what you’d call your traditional democrat.:-)

            Here ya go, those dirty dirty stats and facts on the so called traditional family values crowd. Just add divorce as a family value and you’d be right for a change.

            I included non partisan sources so you couldn’t say it was from lib sources, That well known deflection doesn’t change the stats
            among all of them.
            I also included a couple snippets from each article because I’m pretty sure you won’t be reading any of the links.
            Facts to the right are likes salt to slugs.






            blogs.vancouversun.com › …

            “The data showed that the highest divorce rates were found in the Bible Belt.* “Tennessee, Arkansas, Alabama and Oklahoma round out the Top Five in frequency of divorce…the divorce rates in these conservative states are roughly 50 percent above the national average” of 4.2/1000 people.
            * Note: Divorce rates were still higher in the Bible Belt as of 2009 according to a US Census report.”

            “27% of people in the South and Midwest have been divorced
            26% of people in the West have been divorced
            19% of people in the Northwest and Northeast have been divorced”
            Where is the Bible Belt again? 🙂

            “Indeed, Evangelical Protestants are more likely to be divorced than Americans who claim no religion.
            Thus the common conservative argument that strong religion leads to strong families does not hold up.”

            Read it and weep.

          4. hicusdicus April 2, 2015

            Have you read Freakenomics? There are a few snippets in it you might like.

  6. howa4x March 29, 2015

    It never became the apocalypse that republican predicted because it is their plan. The ACA was originally thought up by that right wing think tank the heritage foundation, and is really the republican vision of what health care delivery should be, that is market based. If it were a Democratic plan it would be based on single payer like Medicare/Medicaid where you would pay into it based on income. So the fact that we have to buy insurance is a marketing dream. No longer do insurance companies have to pitch their plans to healthy people, trying to entice them to sign up, now everyone has to buy them. This is about as capitalist as you can get.
    The reason republicans can spread so much hatred of the plan and get people to think it is a communist plan from hell is that we have a cognitive gap. One group has the intelligence to understand the law, and the other lacks the critical thinking skill to comprehend it so, can be easily led to vote against their own self interest and that of their children and grand children

  7. 4sanity4all March 30, 2015

    Your grandma called. She said to stop lying.

  8. Blueberry Hill April 1, 2015

    People have died from LACK of care, not because they got care unless they already had a fatal disease. The sign doesn’t even make sense, and is an obvious lie by an obvious Tbagger.


Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.