Its a long way to Nov. 2016...
Democratic operative, Media Matters founder Brock resigns from pro-Clinton super PAC Priorities USA Action
Published February 09, 2015 – Politico
Democratic operative David Brock reportedly resigned Monday from the board of the super PAC Priorities USA Action, a move that appears to show cracks in the financial power base created to help Hillary Clinton become president in 2016.
The resignation by Brock, who founded the liberal group Media Matters, was reported first by Politico.
Brock is accusing Priorities officials of helping plant a recent story in The New York Times that questions the fundraising practices of his pro-Clinton groups, American Bridge and Media Matters, and the super PAC Ready for Hillary, according to his resignation letter obtained by Politico.
Media Matters principle financier George Soros has been pushing for the liberal PACs to support Elizabeth Warren.
The Times story in part points out that veteran fundraiser Mary Pat Bonner gets a 12.5 percent commission for money raised for Brock’s groups and a smaller percentage for Ready for Hillary.
Clinton has not said yet whether she will seek the Democratic nomination and the presidency next year.
Keep wishing upon that star mule. Hillary has 60% of the vote with her nearest challenger less than 20% in recent polls and an early poll shows she would crush early GOP leader Jeb Bush if the election was held today.
I can smell your fear.
___________________________________________________________
60% of a vote that doesn't happen for another 20 months?
Lying to prop up you political ideology is pathetic. Typical but pathetic.
Right and her standings in the polls have not changed or slumped since you started your dreams that she was losing support. You can wish all you want mule unless she has a major health issue Hillary is not going away. She is your worst nightmare.
__________________________________________________________________
Again, 60% of what vote?
The last national vote had The Republicans kick the democrats out of power in The Senate, put even more representatives in The House and gained even more state houses.
All major independent polls show hillary in a virtual tie with Romney and now with Jeb Bush.
Or are you taking you own polls or fake elections?
I hope to God the person operating on my brain is focused on improving his skills and keeping up with advances in medicine, not the administration of health insurance.
The Affordable Care Act has nothing to do with the study of medicine.
Dr. Carson's alternative to the ACA...
So the government gives every man, woman and child $2000 to go into a health savings account. Because everyone now has $2000, that can be transferred from one family member to another, basic health insurance costs will plummet?
I don't see how he is reaching that conclusion. I certainly don't see $2000 a year covering my basic health costs. The out of pocket costs for my wife and I last year were more than $3000.
I didn't get a plan from that presentation Alloak. Can you explain it so I better understand the actual plan?
This is a good starting point IMO and a plan like this is on the right track. It introduces some competition into the system and folks would see a balance in their own account and be compelled to shop around for the best price. There is no incentive for either of the above presently.
Although there are exceptions, $8,000 a year (that continues to roll over) for a family of four will normally cover basic health care needs. Plus unlike with the ACA, every citizen's basic care would actually be covered.
The main reason prices spiraled out of control was the "middle man" removed natural market forces from the industry. Carson's plan starts to restore those forces.
[Edited on 2/10/2015 by alloak41]
Plus unlike with the ACA, every citizen's basic care would actually be covered.
That's exactly what the ACA does now. Although I guess that could depend on what you call "basic care".
Its a long way to Nov. 2016...
Democratic operative, Media Matters founder Brock resigns from pro-Clinton super PAC Priorities USA Action
Published February 09, 2015 – Politico
Democratic operative David Brock reportedly resigned Monday from the board of the super PAC Priorities USA Action, a move that appears to show cracks in the financial power base created to help Hillary Clinton become president in 2016.
The resignation by Brock, who founded the liberal group Media Matters, was reported first by Politico.
Brock is accusing Priorities officials of helping plant a recent story in The New York Times that questions the fundraising practices of his pro-Clinton groups, American Bridge and Media Matters, and the super PAC Ready for Hillary, according to his resignation letter obtained by Politico.
Media Matters principle financier George Soros has been pushing for the liberal PACs to support Elizabeth Warren.
The Times story in part points out that veteran fundraiser Mary Pat Bonner gets a 12.5 percent commission for money raised for Brock’s groups and a smaller percentage for Ready for Hillary.
Clinton has not said yet whether she will seek the Democratic nomination and the presidency next year.
Keep wishing upon that star mule. Hillary has 60% of the vote with her nearest challenger less than 20% in recent polls and an early poll shows she would crush early GOP leader Jeb Bush if the election was held today.
I can smell your fear.
___________________________________________________________
60% of a vote that doesn't happen for another 20 months?
Lying to prop up you political ideology is pathetic. Typical but pathetic.
Right and her standings in the polls have not changed or slumped since you started your dreams that she was losing support. You can wish all you want mule unless she has a major health issue Hillary is not going away. She is your worst nightmare.
__________________________________________________________________
Again, 60% of what vote?
The last national vote had The Republicans kick the democrats out of power in The Senate, put even more representatives in The House and gained even more state houses.All major independent polls show hillary in a virtual tie with Romney and now with Jeb Bush.
Or are you taking you own polls or fake elections?
And please tell me what you gained winning Congress? You will never understand that this is cyclical and happens to just about every sitting President. It happened to Bush. The power is in the Whitehouse Mule not Congress. You want to know why? one word VETO.
Really please provide the links to "all major polls as the only ones I found that claim that is the GOP propaganda organ Fox News that claims they are tied. Funny how that works huh?
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/president/
http://www.270towin.com/2016-polls/2016-general-election-matchups/
Hillary is kicking ass and has not even declared yet. I can't wait to hear your whinning for 8 more years after she is elected.
All over the morning news briefings: Trouble in the Clintondom:
DRAMA ERUPTS ON PLANET HILLARY
On the eve of one of the high holidays on Planet Hillary, the winter meeting of the Clinton Global Initiative in New York, the bitter feuding long rumored to be simmering within Democratic 2016 frontrunner’s campaign erupted. One of Hillary Clinton’s top lieutenants, David Brock, fired off a letter resigning from the board of Priorities USA Action, the main super PAC funding what is expected to be a more-than $2 billion effort to return the Clintons to the White House. WaPo reports that Brock quit in an angry letter denouncing “an orchestrated political hit job” by his rivals inside the campaign that came in the form of a brutal NYT story on Brock’s fundraising efforts and huge commissions paid to a professional buckraker. Hours later, though, Brock offered to rejoin the 12-member board and board members promised they were “working to address” Brock’s concerns. As the Clinton campaign ponders when to make it official, keeping the team together looks like a major concern.
[“The hacks think Hillary is entitled to be president. I think she is one of those people who has lost the sense of why they are in politics.” – Iowa Democratic activist Anne Kinzel talking to the WaPo.]
More money, more problems - The problem, of course, is the amount of money involved. While Hillary will not there today, her husband and daughter will be backscratching with leaders from big business and big labor in New York. And while the hundreds of millions of dollars the Clintons have raised for their foundation isn’t campaign cash, it’s all part of an empire built around the celebrity and potential return to power of the former first couple. And as the campaign prepares to file paperwork and the PACs prepare to start making larger payouts, the fight for control is evidently intensifying. Brock’s allegations read like he believes the many members of Team Obama and rival Clintonites were looking to elbow him out with allegations of impropriety right before the starting pistol fired. So ask yourself this: Do you expect these problems to get better or worse as time goes on? And here we see one of the major dangers to Clinton being without a real rival for her party’s nomination. If there is no common threat, the animosity will be directed inward.
Feel the momentum! - WashEx: “As Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., inches closer to a 2016 presidential bid, he is targeting key positions of Hillary Clinton that put him on the side of working-class Americans and anti-war advocates…‘I am giving thought to running for president of the United States,’ Sanders said at a Brookings Institution event. What’s more, he said, if he got in, he would be running ‘to win,’ not influence Clinton’s positions in a general election…”
Plus unlike with the ACA, every citizen's basic care would actually be covered.
That's exactly what the ACA does now.
Bravo sierra. I personally know individuals that have no coverage.
All over the morning news briefings: Trouble in the Clintondom:
DRAMA ERUPTS ON PLANET HILLARY
On the eve of one of the high holidays on Planet Hillary, the winter meeting of the Clinton Global Initiative in New York, the bitter feuding long rumored to be simmering within Democratic 2016 frontrunner’s campaign erupted. One of Hillary Clinton’s top lieutenants, David Brock, fired off a letter resigning from the board of Priorities USA Action, the main super PAC funding what is expected to be a more-than $2 billion effort to return the Clintons to the White House. WaPo reports that Brock quit in an angry letter denouncing “an orchestrated political hit job” by his rivals inside the campaign that came in the form of a brutal NYT story on Brock’s fundraising efforts and huge commissions paid to a professional buckraker. Hours later, though, Brock offered to rejoin the 12-member board and board members promised they were “working to address” Brock’s concerns. As the Clinton campaign ponders when to make it official, keeping the team together looks like a major concern.[“The hacks think Hillary is entitled to be president. I think she is one of those people who has lost the sense of why they are in politics.” – Iowa Democratic activist Anne Kinzel talking to the WaPo.]
More money, more problems - The problem, of course, is the amount of money involved. While Hillary will not there today, her husband and daughter will be backscratching with leaders from big business and big labor in New York. And while the hundreds of millions of dollars the Clintons have raised for their foundation isn’t campaign cash, it’s all part of an empire built around the celebrity and potential return to power of the former first couple. And as the campaign prepares to file paperwork and the PACs prepare to start making larger payouts, the fight for control is evidently intensifying. Brock’s allegations read like he believes the many members of Team Obama and rival Clintonites were looking to elbow him out with allegations of impropriety right before the starting pistol fired. So ask yourself this: Do you expect these problems to get better or worse as time goes on? And here we see one of the major dangers to Clinton being without a real rival for her party’s nomination. If there is no common threat, the animosity will be directed inward.
Feel the momentum! - WashEx: “As Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., inches closer to a 2016 presidential bid, he is targeting key positions of Hillary Clinton that put him on the side of working-class Americans and anti-war advocates…‘I am giving thought to running for president of the United States,’ Sanders said at a Brookings Institution event. What’s more, he said, if he got in, he would be running ‘to win,’ not influence Clinton’s positions in a general election…”
So where are the links to "all the national polls" that shows her support is slipping? Didn't think so.
Poor Mule, he is having nightmares of Hillary 2 years before she is elected. 😛
Her sniper fire tale is bound to play well if she runs.
So, the same people that complained about not being able to keep their doctor will now happily shop around? I don't think so......
So, the same people that complained about not being able to keep their doctor will now happily shop around? I don't think so......
If it's money coming out of their own savings account you bet they will, or much more likely to as with any other good or service. Why wouldn't they comparison shop for a checkup or flu shots for their family?
This is a good starting point IMO and a plan like this is on the right track. It introduces some competition into the system and folks would see a balance in their own account and be compelled to shop around for the best price. There is no incentive for either of the above presently.
Although there are exceptions, $8,000 a year (that continues to roll over) for a family of four will normally cover basic health care needs. Plus unlike with the ACA, every citizen's basic care would actually be covered.
The main reason prices spiraled out of control was the "middle man" removed natural market forces from the industry. Carson's plan starts to restore those forces.
How does this plan remove the "middle man"? Sure, the good Doctor says it will but he says nothing about getting rid of insurance companies. They are still going to be there for the stuff that costs more than the paltry savings plans. Is the Doc going to allow insurance companies to go back to denying claims because they are pre-existing conditions? Is he going to allow insurance companies to change the percentage of their revenue that goes to administration versus the revenue that goes to actual care? All that will be lost with the repeal of Obamacare. Then what happens to the people who get sick during the window of time Carson's "plan" gets implemented.
All he is spouting is words. His plan is "pie in the sky". It ignores the reality of the American political system. It won't work. Not today, not tomorrow, not ever. It isn't even flushed out.
Bravo sierra. I personally know individuals that have no coverage.
They are breaking the law and need to go to prison.
So, the same people that complained about not being able to keep their doctor will now happily shop around? I don't think so......
If it's money coming out of their own savings account you bet they will, or much more likely to as with any other good or service. Why wouldn't they comparison shop for a checkup or flu shots for their family?
People with a family doctor don't "comparison shop". People in need of medical care don't comparison shop. If your kid has a fever you go to your doctor or to the med stop. Criminals without insurance go to the emergency room. You can't bet on anything in regard to the American public.
Sang,
Why do you suppose there is price competition for medical services not covered
by insurance plans (such as lasik and hair transplants?) Do you think consumers
automatically choose the most expensive option, or do they shop around?
Amazing what happens when natural market forces are in the picture.
I've got a buddy, had a heart attack, he was able to get two quotes before he died.
I've got a buddy, had a heart attack, he was able to get two quotes before he died.
My sympathies. What part of Canada was he from?
Hillary and Warren are better candidates then anything the GOP has to offer. Just the fact that you and the other conservatives are afraid to even propose a possible GOP presidential candidate pretty much proves that.
Possible GOP candidates have been mentioned, but whether they have or haven't doesn't prove anything.
You and the other conservatives seem afraid to take a position on any of the GOP candidates which says to me you have little confidence in any of them.
I've mentioned Carson perhaps a dozen times or more on these threads going back months. I would love to see him either at the top of the ticket or as a VP candidate.
Shaking in my boots here.
Fair enough Alloak, so what about him makes you think he is a good candidate and can beat Hillary?
Real world common sense coupled with superior intellect and his approach to problem solving.
Very generic statement, what are his ideas to solve our national current challenges that make him a superior candidate in your opinion?
There is no question that Dr. Carson is a very intelligent man. So, how can conservatives support a candidate with no political experience after attacking Obama for his perceived lack of experience?
C'mon, keller.
It's because...because he's not Obama and that's the only reason. None of Carson's supposed admirers is going to be able to delineate that one for you. Good question.
I don't think you can compare the two. They have a totally different set of accomplishments prior to entering politics. Start by asking yourself this. Who do you think is more qualified to address problems with the health care system, a lawyer or a neurosurgeon?
And please tell us what political experience Carson has had that makes him qualified to run for President? Obama was a Civil Rights attorney, taught constitutional law, served 3 terms in the Illinois senate and was a U.S. senator.
That's part of his appeal for many of us. A non-politician might be just what the Doctor ordered.
Obama was NOT a civil rights attorney. He did virtually nothing in the Illinois State senate and was a U.S. Senator for two years where he did virtually nothing before he ran for president. By contrast, John F. Kennedy (who was deried as unqualified and not experienced enough) Served 12 years in Congress with six of those years being in the Senate. Let's get real. No one who has never held elective office is going to be elected president ever again. The question is what is the quality of their experience. It was obvious and is even more obvious now that Barak Obama had no relevant experience that could possibly serve him in the office of the presidency.
Sang,
Why do you suppose there is price competition for medical services not covered
by insurance plans (such as lasik and hair transplants?) Do you think consumers
automatically choose the most expensive option, or do they shop around?Amazing what happens when natural market forces are in the picture.
Equating elective, cosmetic "products" with anything that is medically necessary is naive and unrealistic. When people shop for medicine based on price like it is a some sort of commodity, the quality of care will suffer. Carson's "plan" (more like an idea at this point) is a pie in the sky theoretical exercise that doesn't have any possible chance at implementation.
quote:
I've got a buddy, had a heart attack, he was able to get two quotes before he died.My sympathies. What part of Canada was he from?
You don't have to shop in Canada. "Quote" is a business and sales term meaning "price for goods or services". You see, a person who is shopping for the cheapest medical care would obviously need to research prices from different doctors, hospitals, ambulance services, drug stores, to get the lowest price for those goods.
My point - when folks need medical care they often do not have the luxury of price shopping.
Sang,
Why do you suppose there is price competition for medical services not covered
by insurance plans (such as lasik and hair transplants?) Do you think consumers
automatically choose the most expensive option, or do they shop around?Amazing what happens when natural market forces are in the picture.
Equating elective, cosmetic "products" with anything that is medically necessary is naive and unrealistic.
Obviously, but the illustration of decreasing the overall cost of health care still stands. Isn't that a good thing? It goes without saying that someone in need of emergency surgery doesn't have the luxury of shopping around, however that's not the case with any number of other medical procedures. The list is long.
Hillary and Warren are better candidates then anything the GOP has to offer. Just the fact that you and the other conservatives are afraid to even propose a possible GOP presidential candidate pretty much proves that.
Possible GOP candidates have been mentioned, but whether they have or haven't doesn't prove anything.
You and the other conservatives seem afraid to take a position on any of the GOP candidates which says to me you have little confidence in any of them.
I've mentioned Carson perhaps a dozen times or more on these threads going back months. I would love to see him either at the top of the ticket or as a VP candidate.
Shaking in my boots here.
Fair enough Alloak, so what about him makes you think he is a good candidate and can beat Hillary?
Real world common sense coupled with superior intellect and his approach to problem solving.
Very generic statement, what are his ideas to solve our national current challenges that make him a superior candidate in your opinion?
There is no question that Dr. Carson is a very intelligent man. So, how can conservatives support a candidate with no political experience after attacking Obama for his perceived lack of experience?
C'mon, keller.
It's because...because he's not Obama and that's the only reason. None of Carson's supposed admirers is going to be able to delineate that one for you. Good question.
I don't think you can compare the two. They have a totally different set of accomplishments prior to entering politics. Start by asking yourself this. Who do you think is more qualified to address problems with the health care system, a lawyer or a neurosurgeon?
And please tell us what political experience Carson has had that makes him qualified to run for President? Obama was a Civil Rights attorney, taught constitutional law, served 3 terms in the Illinois senate and was a U.S. senator.
That's part of his appeal for many of us. A non-politician might be just what the Doctor ordered.
Obama was NOT a civil rights attorney. He did virtually nothing in the Illinois State senate and was a U.S. Senator for two years where he did virtually nothing before he ran for president. By contrast, John F. Kennedy (who was deried as unqualified and not experienced enough) Served 12 years in Congress with six of those years being in the Senate. Let's get real. No one who has never held elective office is going to be elected president ever again. The question is what is the quality of their experience. It was obvious and is even more obvious now that Barak Obama had no relevant experience that could possibly serve him in the office of the presidency.
In your minority opinion.
Hillary and Warren are better candidates then anything the GOP has to offer. Just the fact that you and the other conservatives are afraid to even propose a possible GOP presidential candidate pretty much proves that.
Possible GOP candidates have been mentioned, but whether they have or haven't doesn't prove anything.
You and the other conservatives seem afraid to take a position on any of the GOP candidates which says to me you have little confidence in any of them.
I've mentioned Carson perhaps a dozen times or more on these threads going back months. I would love to see him either at the top of the ticket or as a VP candidate.
Shaking in my boots here.
Fair enough Alloak, so what about him makes you think he is a good candidate and can beat Hillary?
Real world common sense coupled with superior intellect and his approach to problem solving.
Very generic statement, what are his ideas to solve our national current challenges that make him a superior candidate in your opinion?
There is no question that Dr. Carson is a very intelligent man. So, how can conservatives support a candidate with no political experience after attacking Obama for his perceived lack of experience?
C'mon, keller.
It's because...because he's not Obama and that's the only reason. None of Carson's supposed admirers is going to be able to delineate that one for you. Good question.
I don't think you can compare the two. They have a totally different set of accomplishments prior to entering politics. Start by asking yourself this. Who do you think is more qualified to address problems with the health care system, a lawyer or a neurosurgeon?
And please tell us what political experience Carson has had that makes him qualified to run for President? Obama was a Civil Rights attorney, taught constitutional law, served 3 terms in the Illinois senate and was a U.S. senator.
That's part of his appeal for many of us. A non-politician might be just what the Doctor ordered.
Obama was NOT a civil rights attorney. He did virtually nothing in the Illinois State senate and was a U.S. Senator for two years where he did virtually nothing before he ran for president. By contrast, John F. Kennedy (who was deried as unqualified and not experienced enough) Served 12 years in Congress with six of those years being in the Senate. Let's get real. No one who has never held elective office is going to be elected president ever again. The question is what is the quality of their experience. It was obvious and is even more obvious now that Barak Obama had no relevant experience that could possibly serve him in the office of the presidency.
Actually he was a civil rights attorney after he graduated Harvard Law unless he lied about his resume and all of the news outlets bought this lie without fact checking.
And if you read this article it shows he accomplished quite a bit in that job
And since your first sentence was factually incorrect I did not waste my time reading the rest of your hate rant opinion without supporting facts.
Sang,
Why do you suppose there is price competition for medical services not covered
by insurance plans (such as lasik and hair transplants?) Do you think consumers
automatically choose the most expensive option, or do they shop around?Amazing what happens when natural market forces are in the picture.
Equating elective, cosmetic "products" with anything that is medically necessary is naive and unrealistic.
Obviously, but the illustration of decreasing the overall cost of health care still stands. Isn't that a good thing? It goes without saying that someone in need of emergency surgery doesn't have the luxury of shopping around, however that's not the case with any number of other medical procedures. The list is long.
And where are these prices posted for comparison shopping? I'm sure there will be an app for that........
Hillary and Warren are better candidates then anything the GOP has to offer. Just the fact that you and the other conservatives are afraid to even propose a possible GOP presidential candidate pretty much proves that.
Possible GOP candidates have been mentioned, but whether they have or haven't doesn't prove anything.
You and the other conservatives seem afraid to take a position on any of the GOP candidates which says to me you have little confidence in any of them.
I've mentioned Carson perhaps a dozen times or more on these threads going back months. I would love to see him either at the top of the ticket or as a VP candidate.
Shaking in my boots here.
Fair enough Alloak, so what about him makes you think he is a good candidate and can beat Hillary?
Real world common sense coupled with superior intellect and his approach to problem solving.
Very generic statement, what are his ideas to solve our national current challenges that make him a superior candidate in your opinion?
There is no question that Dr. Carson is a very intelligent man. So, how can conservatives support a candidate with no political experience after attacking Obama for his perceived lack of experience?
C'mon, keller.
It's because...because he's not Obama and that's the only reason. None of Carson's supposed admirers is going to be able to delineate that one for you. Good question.
I don't think you can compare the two. They have a totally different set of accomplishments prior to entering politics. Start by asking yourself this. Who do you think is more qualified to address problems with the health care system, a lawyer or a neurosurgeon?
And please tell us what political experience Carson has had that makes him qualified to run for President? Obama was a Civil Rights attorney, taught constitutional law, served 3 terms in the Illinois senate and was a U.S. senator.
That's part of his appeal for many of us. A non-politician might be just what the Doctor ordered.
Obama was NOT a civil rights attorney. He did virtually nothing in the Illinois State senate and was a U.S. Senator for two years where he did virtually nothing before he ran for president. By contrast, John F. Kennedy (who was deried as unqualified and not experienced enough) Served 12 years in Congress with six of those years being in the Senate. Let's get real. No one who has never held elective office is going to be elected president ever again. The question is what is the quality of their experience. It was obvious and is even more obvious now that Barak Obama had no relevant experience that could possibly serve him in the office of the presidency.
Actually he was a civil rights attorney after he graduated Harvard Law unless he lied about his resume and all of the news outlets bought this lie without fact checking.
And if you read this article it shows he accomplished quite a bit in that job
And since your first sentence was factually incorrect I did not waste my time reading the rest of your hate rant opinion without supporting facts.
____________________________________________
Your reference is NBC News?
The discredited NBC News?
Man, the liberals are really sinking low.
Obama litigated one "civil rights" case in court and lost.
Obama also claims to be a "constitutional professor" which is another lie. He was hired as an instructor and only lasted one semester. After that fiasco he went "on leave" and never returned.
You can't put lipstick n that pig.
Hillary and Warren are better candidates then anything the GOP has to offer. Just the fact that you and the other conservatives are afraid to even propose a possible GOP presidential candidate pretty much proves that.
Possible GOP candidates have been mentioned, but whether they have or haven't doesn't prove anything.
You and the other conservatives seem afraid to take a position on any of the GOP candidates which says to me you have little confidence in any of them.
I've mentioned Carson perhaps a dozen times or more on these threads going back months. I would love to see him either at the top of the ticket or as a VP candidate.
Shaking in my boots here.
Fair enough Alloak, so what about him makes you think he is a good candidate and can beat Hillary?
Real world common sense coupled with superior intellect and his approach to problem solving.
Very generic statement, what are his ideas to solve our national current challenges that make him a superior candidate in your opinion?
There is no question that Dr. Carson is a very intelligent man. So, how can conservatives support a candidate with no political experience after attacking Obama for his perceived lack of experience?
C'mon, keller.
It's because...because he's not Obama and that's the only reason. None of Carson's supposed admirers is going to be able to delineate that one for you. Good question.
I don't think you can compare the two. They have a totally different set of accomplishments prior to entering politics. Start by asking yourself this. Who do you think is more qualified to address problems with the health care system, a lawyer or a neurosurgeon?
And please tell us what political experience Carson has had that makes him qualified to run for President? Obama was a Civil Rights attorney, taught constitutional law, served 3 terms in the Illinois senate and was a U.S. senator.
That's part of his appeal for many of us. A non-politician might be just what the Doctor ordered.
Obama was NOT a civil rights attorney. He did virtually nothing in the Illinois State senate and was a U.S. Senator for two years where he did virtually nothing before he ran for president. By contrast, John F. Kennedy (who was deried as unqualified and not experienced enough) Served 12 years in Congress with six of those years being in the Senate. Let's get real. No one who has never held elective office is going to be elected president ever again. The question is what is the quality of their experience. It was obvious and is even more obvious now that Barak Obama had no relevant experience that could possibly serve him in the office of the presidency.
Actually he was a civil rights attorney after he graduated Harvard Law unless he lied about his resume and all of the news outlets bought this lie without fact checking.
And if you read this article it shows he accomplished quite a bit in that job
And since your first sentence was factually incorrect I did not waste my time reading the rest of your hate rant opinion without supporting facts.
____________________________________________
Your reference is NBC News?
The discredited NBC News?Man, the liberals are really sinking low.
Obama litigated one "civil rights" case in court and lost.
Obama also claims to be a "constitutional professor" which is another lie. He was hired as an instructor and only lasted one semester. After that fiasco he went "on leave" and never returned.You can't put lipstick n that pig.
Oh that's right you only get you news from Fox News so every other news source is unreliable.
So you think the NBC news article is false? Where is your proof? He was hired by a law firm that specialized in Constitutional Law. He worked on cases involving Constitutional law. He was a Constitutional lawyer for 9 years.
And you do realize that only a small percentage of lawyers actually work in the courtroom right? That does not mean they are not lawyers in a particular specialty. I can't believe I have to explain this to you Mule.
I can't believe I have to explain this to you Mule.
Really? I can.
Sang,
Why do you suppose there is price competition for medical services not covered
by insurance plans (such as lasik and hair transplants?) Do you think consumers
automatically choose the most expensive option, or do they shop around?Amazing what happens when natural market forces are in the picture.
Equating elective, cosmetic "products" with anything that is medically necessary is naive and unrealistic.
Obviously, but the illustration of decreasing the overall cost of health care still stands. Isn't that a good thing? It goes without saying that someone in need of emergency surgery doesn't have the luxury of shopping around, however that's not the case with any number of other medical procedures. The list is long.
Actually, it doesn't stand if it is based on a flawed/false premise. But whatever.
Hillary and Warren are better candidates then anything the GOP has to offer. Just the fact that you and the other conservatives are afraid to even propose a possible GOP presidential candidate pretty much proves that.
Possible GOP candidates have been mentioned, but whether they have or haven't doesn't prove anything.
You and the other conservatives seem afraid to take a position on any of the GOP candidates which says to me you have little confidence in any of them.
I've mentioned Carson perhaps a dozen times or more on these threads going back months. I would love to see him either at the top of the ticket or as a VP candidate.
Shaking in my boots here.
Fair enough Alloak, so what about him makes you think he is a good candidate and can beat Hillary?
Real world common sense coupled with superior intellect and his approach to problem solving.
Very generic statement, what are his ideas to solve our national current challenges that make him a superior candidate in your opinion?
There is no question that Dr. Carson is a very intelligent man. So, how can conservatives support a candidate with no political experience after attacking Obama for his perceived lack of experience?
C'mon, keller.
It's because...because he's not Obama and that's the only reason. None of Carson's supposed admirers is going to be able to delineate that one for you. Good question.
I don't think you can compare the two. They have a totally different set of accomplishments prior to entering politics. Start by asking yourself this. Who do you think is more qualified to address problems with the health care system, a lawyer or a neurosurgeon?
And please tell us what political experience Carson has had that makes him qualified to run for President? Obama was a Civil Rights attorney, taught constitutional law, served 3 terms in the Illinois senate and was a U.S. senator.
That's part of his appeal for many of us. A non-politician might be just what the Doctor ordered.
Obama was NOT a civil rights attorney. He did virtually nothing in the Illinois State senate and was a U.S. Senator for two years where he did virtually nothing before he ran for president. By contrast, John F. Kennedy (who was deried as unqualified and not experienced enough) Served 12 years in Congress with six of those years being in the Senate. Let's get real. No one who has never held elective office is going to be elected president ever again. The question is what is the quality of their experience. It was obvious and is even more obvious now that Barak Obama had no relevant experience that could possibly serve him in the office of the presidency.
Actually he was a civil rights attorney after he graduated Harvard Law unless he lied about his resume and all of the news outlets bought this lie without fact checking.
And if you read this article it shows he accomplished quite a bit in that job
And since your first sentence was factually incorrect I did not waste my time reading the rest of your hate rant opinion without supporting facts.
____________________________________________
Your reference is NBC News?
The discredited NBC News?Man, the liberals are really sinking low.
Obama litigated one "civil rights" case in court and lost.
Obama also claims to be a "constitutional professor" which is another lie. He was hired as an instructor and only lasted one semester. After that fiasco he went "on leave" and never returned.You can't put lipstick n that pig.
NBC is discredited because of one guy lying? How much credibility does Fox News have?
http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/tv/fox/
Hillary and Warren are better candidates then anything the GOP has to offer. Just the fact that you and the other conservatives are afraid to even propose a possible GOP presidential candidate pretty much proves that.
Possible GOP candidates have been mentioned, but whether they have or haven't doesn't prove anything.
You and the other conservatives seem afraid to take a position on any of the GOP candidates which says to me you have little confidence in any of them.
I've mentioned Carson perhaps a dozen times or more on these threads going back months. I would love to see him either at the top of the ticket or as a VP candidate.
Shaking in my boots here.
Fair enough Alloak, so what about him makes you think he is a good candidate and can beat Hillary?
Real world common sense coupled with superior intellect and his approach to problem solving.
Very generic statement, what are his ideas to solve our national current challenges that make him a superior candidate in your opinion?
There is no question that Dr. Carson is a very intelligent man. So, how can conservatives support a candidate with no political experience after attacking Obama for his perceived lack of experience?
C'mon, keller.
It's because...because he's not Obama and that's the only reason. None of Carson's supposed admirers is going to be able to delineate that one for you. Good question.
I don't think you can compare the two. They have a totally different set of accomplishments prior to entering politics. Start by asking yourself this. Who do you think is more qualified to address problems with the health care system, a lawyer or a neurosurgeon?
And please tell us what political experience Carson has had that makes him qualified to run for President? Obama was a Civil Rights attorney, taught constitutional law, served 3 terms in the Illinois senate and was a U.S. senator.
That's part of his appeal for many of us. A non-politician might be just what the Doctor ordered.
Obama was NOT a civil rights attorney. He did virtually nothing in the Illinois State senate and was a U.S. Senator for two years where he did virtually nothing before he ran for president. By contrast, John F. Kennedy (who was deried as unqualified and not experienced enough) Served 12 years in Congress with six of those years being in the Senate. Let's get real. No one who has never held elective office is going to be elected president ever again. The question is what is the quality of their experience. It was obvious and is even more obvious now that Barak Obama had no relevant experience that could possibly serve him in the office of the presidency.
Actually he was a civil rights attorney after he graduated Harvard Law unless he lied about his resume and all of the news outlets bought this lie without fact checking.
And if you read this article it shows he accomplished quite a bit in that job
And since your first sentence was factually incorrect I did not waste my time reading the rest of your hate rant opinion without supporting facts.
____________________________________________
Your reference is NBC News?
The discredited NBC News?Man, the liberals are really sinking low.
Obama litigated one "civil rights" case in court and lost.
Obama also claims to be a "constitutional professor" which is another lie. He was hired as an instructor and only lasted one semester. After that fiasco he went "on leave" and never returned.You can't put lipstick n that pig.
NBC is discredited because of one guy lying? How much credibility does Fox News have?
http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/tv/fox//blockquote >
_____-______________________________________________Not one, many.
NBC News has a long history of misrepresenting the facts, outright lying and using the standard of omission to run a political ideology.No one has ever presented a fact of Fox News misrepresenting the news or lying.
No one has ever presented a fact of Fox News misrepresenting the news or lying.
Dude? Did you not click on the link Keller provided?
You are hopeless. Completely blinded by whatever poisoned kool aide you keep swallowing.
No one has ever presented a fact of Fox News misrepresenting the news or lying.
Dude? Did you not click on the link Keller provided?
You are hopeless. Completely blinded by whatever poisoned kool aide you keep swallowing.
________________________________________________________________
I did read the entire link.
Nothing there but a liberal political groups attack on Fox News that includes not one fact or example.
Nothing there.
Where is any proof?
Don't look too hand son. You won't find any.
For the liberal’s edification, there really are principles, standards and a code of ethics for journalism. The news media has a duty to report the news to the citizens and hold the government responsible while following their own principles.
Principles of Journalism
http://www.journalism.org/resources/principles-of-journalism/
The first three years of the Project’s work involved listening and talking with journalists and others around the country about what defines the work. What emerged out of those conversations are the following nine core principles of journalism:
1. Journalism’s first obligation is to the truth
Democracy depends on citizens having reliable, accurate facts put in a meaningful context. Journalism does not pursue truth in an absolute or philosophical sense, but it can–and must–pursue it in a practical sense. This “journalistic truth” is a process that begins with the professional discipline of assembling and verifying facts. Then journalists try to convey a fair and reliable account of their meaning, valid for now, subject to further investigation. Journalists should be as transparent as possible about sources and methods so audiences can make their own assessment of the information. Even in a world of expanding voices, accuracy is the foundation upon which everything else is built–context, interpretation, comment, criticism, analysis and debate. The truth, over time, emerges from this forum. As citizens encounter an ever greater flow of data, they have more need–not less–for identifiable sources dedicated to verifying that information and putting it in context.
2. Its first loyalty is to citizens
While news organizations answer to many constituencies, including advertisers and shareholders, the journalists in those organizations must maintain allegiance to citizens and the larger public interest above any other if they are to provide the news without fear or favor. This commitment to citizens first is the basis of a news organization’s credibility, the implied covenant that tells the audience the coverage is not slanted for friends or advertisers. Commitment to citizens also means journalism should present a representative picture of all constituent groups in society. Ignoring certain citizens has the effect of disenfranchising them. The theory underlying the modern news industry has been the belief that credibility builds a broad and loyal audience, and that economic success follows in turn. In that regard, the business people in a news organization also must nurture–not exploit–their allegiance to the audience ahead of other considerations.
3. Its essence is a discipline of verification
Journalists rely on a professional discipline for verifying information. When the concept of objectivity originally evolved, it did not imply that journalists are free of bias. It called, rather, for a consistent method of testing information–a transparent approach to evidence–precisely so that personal and cultural biases would not undermine the accuracy of their work. The method is objective, not the journalist. Seeking out multiple witnesses, disclosing as much as possible about sources, or asking various sides for comment, all signal such standards. This discipline of verification is what separates journalism from other modes of communication, such as propaganda, fiction or entertainment. But the need for professional method is not always fully recognized or refined. While journalism has developed various techniques for determining facts, for instance, it has done less to develop a system for testing the reliability of journalistic interpretation.
4. Its practitioners must maintain an independence from those they cover
Independence is an underlying requirement of journalism, a cornerstone of its reliability. Independence of spirit and mind, rather than neutrality, is the principle journalists must keep in focus. While editorialists and commentators are not neutral, the source of their credibility is still their accuracy, intellectual fairness and ability to inform–not their devotion to a certain group or outcome. In our independence, however, we must avoid any tendency to stray into arrogance, elitism, isolation or nihilism.
5. It must serve as an independent monitor of power
Journalism has an unusual capacity to serve as watchdog over those whose power and position most affect citizens. The Founders recognized this to be a rampart against despotism when they ensured an independent press; courts have affirmed it; citizens rely on it. As journalists, we have an obligation to protect this watchdog freedom by not demeaning it in frivolous use or exploiting it for commercial gain.
6. It must provide a forum for public criticism and compromise
The news media are the common carriers of public discussion, and this responsibility forms a basis for our special privileges. This discussion serves society best when it is informed by facts rather than prejudice and supposition. It also should strive to fairly represent the varied viewpoints and interests in society, and to place them in context rather than highlight only the conflicting fringes of debate. Accuracy and truthfulness require that as framers of the public discussion we not neglect the points of common ground where problem solving occurs.
7. It must strive to make the significant interesting and relevant
Journalism is storytelling with a purpose. It should do more than gather an audience or catalogue the important. For its own survival, it must balance what readers know they want with what they cannot anticipate but need. In short, it must strive to make the significant interesting and relevant. The effectiveness of a piece of journalism is measured both by how much a work engages its audience and enlightens it. This means journalists must continually ask what information has most value to citizens and in what form. While journalism should reach beyond such topics as government and public safety, a journalism overwhelmed by trivia and false significance ultimately engenders a trivial society.
8. It must keep the news comprehensive and proportional
Keeping news in proportion and not leaving important things out are also cornerstones of truthfulness. Journalism is a form of cartography: it creates a map for citizens to navigate society. Inflating events for sensation, neglecting others, stereotyping or being disproportionately negative all make a less reliable map. The map also should include news of all our communities, not just those with attractive demographics. This is best achieved by newsrooms with a diversity of backgrounds and perspectives. The map is only an analogy; proportion and comprehensiveness are subjective, yet their elusiveness does not lessen their significance.
9. Its practitioners must be allowed to exercise their personal conscience
Every journalist must have a personal sense of ethics and responsibility–a moral compass. Each of us must be willing, if fairness and accuracy require, to voice differences with our colleagues, whether in the newsroom or the executive suite. News organizations do well to nurture this independence by encouraging individuals to speak their minds. This stimulates the intellectual diversity necessary to understand and accurately cover an increasingly diverse society. It is this diversity of minds and voices, not just numbers, that matters.
