Author Topic: Integrity  (Read 36867 times)

blacken700

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 11873
  • Getbig!
Re: Integrity
« Reply #150 on: February 18, 2014, 05:28:47 PM »
What??  This is an "explicit declaration" that citizenship is NOT required. 

"the information provided by individuals for coverage can not be used for purposes other than ensuring the efficient functioning of the insurance market ( Covered California) or administration of the program, or to verify certain eligibility determinations including verification of the immigration status of these people."

LOL!  But that's what happen when you blindly pull crap off of a leftwing website. 
lol that's what happens when you get your news from the onion oh I mean breitbart  :D

The page is assuring applicants that the information they provide will not be shared with immigration agencies. And 2) That verification of immigration status will be a determinant condition of their eligibility.

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63713
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: Integrity
« Reply #151 on: February 18, 2014, 05:35:02 PM »
lol that's what happens when you get your news from the onion oh I mean breitbart  :D

The page is assuring applicants that the information they provide will not be shared with immigration agencies. And 2) That verification of immigration status will be a determinant condition of their eligibility.


And The Daily Caller, Examiner, etc. 

Wait.  Now you're agreeing with me??  Your previous post said this: "It is an explicit declaration that citizenship is required for eligibility."

So which is it? 


blacken700

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 11873
  • Getbig!
Re: Integrity
« Reply #152 on: February 18, 2014, 05:42:42 PM »
go to Covered California website read the whole thing don't just cherry pick things you want to read like the onion did.if you can't  understand it ,god help you :D :D

nasht5

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 2119
  • 903 squat 457bench 735 dead - "RAW" (belt & wraps)
Re: Integrity
« Reply #153 on: February 19, 2014, 06:59:31 AM »
there is no integrity in national politics, just vote for the party you want.
sept 10th APF

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63713
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: Integrity
« Reply #154 on: February 25, 2014, 12:39:16 PM »
Quote
Rep. Joe Wilson was right. The South Carolina Congressman screamed, “You lie!” when Barack Obama told Americans the Affordable Care Act would not cover abortions or illegal immigrants.

[video]

Now we know – Obamacare covers illegal immigrants. 125,000 illegal immigrants will be eligible for free healthcare under Medi-Cal, California’s Medicaid expansion. The LA Times reported:

    A new report shows that as many as 125,000 young California immigrants may qualify for an expansion of Medi-Cal, the state’s Medicaid program.

    The Affordable Care Act bars insurance subsidies and enrollment in the Medicaid expansion for undocumented immigrants, but a wrinkle in California rules does offer coverage for those with “deferred action status.”

    The Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program was created by President Obama in 2012 to grant immigrants who came to the country illegally as children — sometimes called Dreamers — legal status and work authorization for two-year periods.

    Laurel Lucia, a policy analyst at the UC Berkeley Labor Center and author of the report released Tuesday, said California is one of the few states that lets youth with deferred action status enroll in Medicaid.

    “But the word still hasn’t been spread,” she said.

    The report found that 154,000 people in California had been granted the status as of December 2013. About 81%, or 125,000, are eligible for Medi-Cal based on their annual income, which has to be less than $15,850 for an individual.




http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2014/02/125000-immigrants-eligible-for-medi-cal-benefits-under-obamacare/

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63713
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: Integrity
« Reply #155 on: February 26, 2014, 10:14:01 AM »
Quote
Do these libtards even realize that everything they say is recorded?

This moron acts as if she never mentioned repeatedly or never embraced the prediction that in order for crapcare to succeed they needed 7 million by the end of March. She is claiming that she doesn't know where the CBO got that number. Maybe they got it from her.

This is what that retard said yesterday:



This is what she said on the day (Sept. 30, 1013) that crapcare was launched. When did she say that it was a CBO prediction?




Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63713
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: Integrity
« Reply #156 on: March 14, 2014, 11:04:14 AM »
Obama Admits: You May 'End Up Having to Switch Doctors'
Friday, 14 Mar 2014
By Sandy Fitzgerald

Even if you like your doctor, you might not be able to keep him or her, President Barack Obama admitted in an interview Friday — reversing his earlier Obamacare promise.

"For the average person, many folks who don't have health insurance initially, they're going to have to make some choices," Obama said during the wide-ranging interview with WebMD's healthcare reform expert Lisa Zamosky. "And they might end up having to switch doctors, in part, because they're saving money."

Obama's statement was much different from a famous one he made back in 2009, when he was trying to sell his top agenda item to the American public.

At that time, he said in a weekly address, "If you like the plan you have, you can keep it. If you like the doctor you have, you can keep your doctor, too. The only change you’ll see are falling costs as our reforms take hold."

But on Friday, Obama told Zamosky that as part of Obamacare, consumers will need to make some tough choices, especially when it comes to keeping their doctor.

"If your employer suddenly decides we think this network’s going to give a better deal, we think this is going to help keep premiums lower, you've got to use this doctor as opposed to that one, this hospital as opposed to that one," Obama said. "The good news is in most states people have more than one option and what they'll find, I think, is that their doctor or network or hospital that's conveniently located is probably in one of those networks. Now, you may find out that that network's more expensive than another network. And then you've got to make a choice in terms of what's right for your family."

The White House admitted months ago that some Americans wouldn't be able to keep their current health plans under Obamacare, despite Obama's emphatic promise.

White House spokesman Jay Carney said back in October, as Obamacare was struggling to roll out, it's true there are existing healthcare plans on the individual market that do not meet those minimum standards and therefore do not qualify for the Affordable Care Act.

At that time, NBC News also reported some 50 percent — or as many as 80 percent — of those with individual insurance policies could expect to be canceled largely because their policies don't meet Obamacare's minimum standards of coverage. NBC's experts say the costs of new policies will skyrocket.

Republicans, with Rep. Darrell Issa as their chief investigator, have also been hoping for months to prove Obama knew he was lying when he made the promise about keeping doctors. Issa, as chairman of the House Oversight Committee, sent letters to 15 insurance companies demanding key correspondence with Obama's administration that may show the president knew in advance people could lose access to their existing doctors under Obamacare.

Letters have gone out to insurers such as Aetna, Blue Cross/Blue Shield, Humana, Kaiser Permanente, and UnitedHealth Group.

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/keep-doctor-obamacare-promise/2014/03/14/id/559637#ixzz2vxflqiPL

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63713
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: Integrity
« Reply #157 on: April 01, 2014, 12:09:00 PM »
Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz Tells Four Lies in One Sentence, Washington Post Grades Two Pinocchios
By Amy Ridenour | April 1, 2014

"When 99 percent of women used birth control in their lifetime and 60 percent use it for something other than family planning, it's outrageous and I think the Supreme Court will suggest that their case is ridiculous." - Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz on MSNBC's The Ed Show, March 25

Debbie Wasserman Schultz may have gotten two Pinocchios from Washington Post "Fact Checker" Glenn Kessler Monday for that statement above, but she got off easy.

The 60 percent number is a big lie. The real number is 14 percent.

The 60 percent lie wasn't even the first lie of the sentence. 99 percent of all women do not use birth control in their lifetime. In fact, by age 44, only 86.8 percent of women have ever had vaginal intercourse, even once.

Wasserman Schultz's two lies were meant to support a third lie. It doesn't matter to the HHS contraception mandate debate how many women use "the pill" to regulate hormones or for some other medical purpose other than birth control, because the minute the pill is used for something other than birth control, it falls outside the contraception mandate. And since it falls outside the contraception mandate part of ObamaCare, it doesn't matter what happens to that particular mandate in the courts for those who simply want coverage for a drug to regulate hormones, or for some other necessary medical purpose.

Wasserman Schultz wanted the audience to believe a fourth lie. Wasserman Schultz wanted viewers to believe some people (religious conservatives, of course) are trying to block women's access to routine health care. But nobody is. Even the Catholic Church, which famously objects to artificial birth control, does not object to women taking the pill for non-birth control purposes, and does not object to insurance policies covering the pill for non-contraceptive reasons.

It strains credibility to think Wasserman Schultz is, after years of debate in this topic, unaware that the vast majority of women who take the pill use it for birth control. It is very unlikely she truly believes 99 percent of all women use birth control at some time in their lives (are the lesbians using it too, or doesn't Wasserman Schultz believe in the existence of lesbians? How about the devout Catholics? Women who like children? Women who marry late or never? Women who know they can't get pregnant? And so forth.). And Wasserman Schultz has to know that a drug prescribed for something other than birth control does not fall under a birth control regulation, and two minutes on Google would show her that the Catholic Church does not object to the pill, or insurance coverage for same, for non-birth control purposes.

Kessler's Pinocchios grading scale grades two Pinocchios for "significant omissions and/or exaggerations." Kessler said Wasserman Schultz's ten words ("60 percent use it for something other than family planning") qualified as such.

I say Wasserman Schultz should be graded on her entire sentence: four lies. A "whopper" - four Pinocchios.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/amy-ridenour/2014/04/01/rep-debbie-wasserman-schultz-tells-four-lies-one-sentence-washington-p#ixzz2xf9OazZD

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63713
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: Integrity
« Reply #158 on: May 09, 2014, 12:57:15 PM »
Both Reid and the president said millions of jobs were already lost or would be lost.

Harry Reid’s claim that the sequester has ‘already cut 1.6 million jobs’
Posted by Glenn Kessler at 06:00 AM ET, 08/01/2013

Reid’s comment jumped out at us — 1.6 million jobs have already been lost because of the sequester? That seemed rather large.

The sequester, of course, is the automatic across-the-board spending cuts that were imposed March 1 when Republicans and Democrats could not reach agreement on a budget plan. The actual impact of the cuts has been in dispute, and we wrote a number of columns about fishy statistics that appeared to exaggerate the possible impact on the federal government.  A follow-up review in June by The Washington Post found that claims of a breakdown in government services were, in fact, overblown.

Still, the furloughs of federal employees, the cutbacks to contractors and reductions in government services clearly have some sort of ripple effect across the economy. (Indeed, even the Edward Snowden leak case appears to have sprung from the sequester.)

Reid’s spokesman, Adam Jentleson, did not respond to queries, so we had to do a bit of searching to figure out Reid’s logic.
 
The Facts

The most obvious source for Reid’s figure is a Congressional Budget Office estimate that was released July 25, spawning a few news stories. CBO director Douglas W. Elmendorf wrote that if the sequester were canceled, it would boost employment between 300,000 and 1.6 million in the 2014 fiscal year (which ends Sept. 30, 2014).

There’s that 1.6 million figure, which showed in some headlines, such as “Report: Canceling Sequestration Could Add Up to 1.6 million Jobs.” But of course that’s only the maximum range — and we’re talking about an estimate for next year, not this year.

(Note: Though the CBO was making a prediction for canceling the sequester, under its models it is acceptable to reverse the numbers for the opposite action. Thus it would be fine for Reid to interpret the CBO finding as saying that if the sequester continued, it could result in a loss of as many as 1.6 million jobs.)
There’s another possibility for Reid’s math. The midpoint of the CBO estimate is 900,000 jobs in fiscal 2014. Earlier this year, the CBO estimated that 750,000 jobs would be lost in calendar year 2013 because of the sequester.

Did Reid add the two figures to come up with 1.6 million? Maybe, but that wouldn’t be correct either.

First of all, the two figures slightly overlap by one quarter. But more importantly, you can’t simply add the two figures. Each figure is distinct, relating to that time period. It is quite possible that the 750,000 jobs in 2013 would be just a subset of the 900,000 jobs in 2014.

In fact, there’s really no current estimate of how many jobs have been lost because of the sequester. Before the sequester began, there were many estimates, including one that predicted more than 2 million job losses in 2013.

But the size of the sequester was reduced, various functions (such as air traffic controllers) were spared, and many planned furloughs were reduced, so the impact is probably significantly less than many expected before the sequester was implemented.

Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody’s Analytics who is frequently cited by the Obama administration, says the real impact of the sequester may not have been felt yet. Still, he told the Christian Science Monitor that for 2013, the impact on the economy would likely be 25,000 jobs a month, for a total of 250,000 jobs.

“Job growth has come down a notch, but only a notch,” Zandi said.
 
The Pinocchio Test

It is possible that Reid misspoke. We don’t like to play gotcha, but we also get suspicious when a politician’s aides do not respond to queries.
In any case, even if Reid was relying on the CBO estimate, 1.6 million is the high-end of a range for next year, not this year.
A more careful speaker would have chosen the midpoint — 900,000 — which is also the first employment number highlighted in the CBO letter.
While the dust has not settled on the impact of the sequester on employment this year, the available evidence shows that Reid’s claim that 1.6 million jobs already have been cut this year appears wildly off course.

Four Pinocchios



http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/harry-reids-claim-that-the-sequester-has-already-cut-16-million-jobs/2013/07/31/b40b0cfa-fa28-11e2-a369-d1954abcb7e3_blog.html

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63713
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: Integrity
« Reply #159 on: May 09, 2014, 12:58:51 PM »
And now we learn that only one guy lost his job.  I'm sure the media will be all over the president and Reid for the scare tactics and outright lying about this.

Despite doomsday predictions, report finds only 1 layoff from sequester cuts
By Stephanie McNeal
Published May 08, 2014
FoxNews.com

Despite doomsday warnings from the White House and lawmakers on both sides that hundreds of thousands would lose their jobs as a result of the sequester, it turns out the budget cuts have only led to one job being lost among 23 federal agencies.

Now Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., is demanding answers as to why the Obama administration repeatedly warned taxpayers that the $85.3 billion in spending cuts, which went into effect in March 2013, would threaten hundreds of thousands of jobs. The findings were revealed in a government watchdog report.

“Taxpayers expect us to root our predictions in fact, not ideology and spin,” Coburn said Wednesday in a letter to Office of Management and Budget Director Sylvia Matthews Burwell.

In response, OMB spokesman Steve Posner said in a statement to FoxNews.com there is "no question" the sequestration has had an negative impact on Americans, pointing out the report also states that employees had their hours reduced and agencies were forced to curtail hiring as a result of the cuts, among other examples.

The March report by the Government Accountability Office describes how 23 agencies and departments -- which appear to span most of the federal government -- complied with the cuts. Only one, the Department of Justice, decided to lay off a single employee in fiscal year 2013.

A spokeswoman for the GAO told FoxNews.com the DOJ reported that the laid-off worker was from the the U.S. Parole Commission, but they had no other information about the employee. Virtually every other arm of the government turned to tactics like cutting overtime, reducing employee travel and putting workers on furlough to avoid actual firings.

The report is a stark contrast from the dire predictions from the Obama administration and Democratic leadership, who blamed Republicans for the cuts.

In a memo released before the sequester cuts went into effect, the White House claimed they “threaten hundreds of thousands of middle class jobs.” In a speech at the White House that February, President Obama repeated those claims.

"These cuts are not smart, they are not fair, they will hurt our economy, they will add hundreds of thousands of Americans to the unemployment rolls," he said. "This is not an abstraction. People will lose their jobs."

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid upped the doomsday rhetoric in July, according to the Washington Post, saying on the Senate floor over a million jobs were already lost.

“We have learned that the sequestration already has cut 1.6 million jobs. So we need job creation. We need to help the middle class by creating jobs,” he said.

Republicans also warned about the potential job-killing effect of the cuts, with House Speaker John Boehner claiming in a February 2013 Wall Street Journal op-ed “thousands of jobs” would be threatened.

Coburn said he wants Burwell, who has been nominated to lead the health department, to explain why the predictions were so drastically wrong.

“While that’s good news for federal employees and other workers, it is devastating to the credibility of Washington politicians and administration officials who spent months – and millions of dollars – engaging in a coordinated multi-agency cabinet-level public relations campaign to scare the American people,” he said.

Coburn noted two frequently cited government estimates by Goldman Sachs and the Congressional Budget Office, which predicted a loss of anywhere from 99,999 and 1,599,999 jobs, seem to have been way off base.

Posner said that many figures in the GAO report make clear that "sequestration had significant negative effects on services for the public as well as agency operations and federal workers." He said in the future, it may get even worse.

"GAO itself notes that many of the flexibilities used to mitigate the effects of sequestration in 2013 may not be available in future years, suggesting that the impacts would be even worse if sequestration is allowed to occur in future years," he said.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/05/07/despite-doomsday-predictions-sequester-cuts-only-led-to-1-layoff-in-2013/


Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63713
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: Integrity
« Reply #161 on: May 12, 2014, 12:44:40 PM »
Geithner, in memoir, suggests White House asked him to bend truth on deficit
Published May 12, 2014
FoxNews.com

Former Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner claims in his new book that the White House on more than one occasion tried to put words in his mouth or outright asked him to bend the truth.

In his memoir, "Stress Test: Reflections on Financial Crises," Geithner recalls a Sunday talk show prep session in 2011 during which top White House adviser Dan Pfeiffer wanted him to say Social Security "didn't contribute" to the federal deficit. Geithner wrote that he objected.

"It wasn't a main driver of our future deficits, but it did contribute," Geithner wrote, explaining his own reasoning. "Pfeiffer said the line was a 'dog whistle' to the left, a phrase I had never heard before. He had to explain that the phrase was code to the Democratic base, signaling that we intended to protect Social Security."

After the anecdote began to generate attention on Monday, a source close to Geithner clarified to Fox News that the former secretary "does not believe he was encouraged to go out and mislead the public on the Sunday shows."

The source said all the former secretary was trying to get across was that Pfeiffer wanted him to "send a signal" to liberals about the president's commitment to not allowing major cuts to Social Security.

White House Press Secretary Jay Carney also defended Pfeiffer, reiterating the White House position that Social Security is not the "main driver" of the deficit, when compared with health care-related entitlement programs. "That, I'm sure, is the point that Dan was making," Carney said.

Still, the episode and others in the 544-page book, in stores Monday, provide a glimpse into how the White House screens and provides information to the public -- particularly following revelations about White House involvement in a "prep call" for then-U.N. ambassador Susan Rice's controversial appearance on Sunday shows after the 2012 Benghazi attacks.

Geithner also recalled an incident in January 2009, having been on the job as secretary for less than a week, in which he rejected what a Democratic strategist wanted him to say at an Oval Office press event.

"I was supposed to have my first one-on-one meeting with President Obama," Geithner wrote. "As I was about to walk into the Oval Office, Stephanie Cutter, a veteran Democratic operative who was handling our communications strategy, told me we would have a 'pool spray,' a photo opportunity for the White House press.

"The president and I would make brief remarks about executive compensation, responding to a report that Wall Street firms had paid their executives big bonuses while piling up record losses in 2008. 'Here's what you're going to say,' Cutter said."

Geithner wrote that Cutter handed him the text, and he "skimmed the outrage I was expected to express."

He wrote: "I'm not very convincing as an angry populist, and I thought the artifice would look ridiculous."

According to his memoir, he told Cutter he wouldn't do it.

"Instead, I sat uncomfortably next to the president while he expressed outrage. Americans were furious about bailouts for overpaid bankers, and the White House political team wanted us to show we were on the right side of the backlash," he wrote. "The public outrage was appropriate ... but I didn't see how we could ever satisfy it. We had no legal authority to confiscate the bonuses that had been paid during the boom."

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/05/12/geithner-says-in-book-tried-to-put-words-in-his/

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63713
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: Integrity
« Reply #162 on: May 14, 2014, 04:04:05 PM »
Fox News Poll: Obama, Clinton seen as deceitful on Benghazi
By Dana Blanton
Published May 14, 2014
FoxNews.com

A majority thinks the White House has tried to deceive people about the September 11, 2012 terrorist attacks on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya. At the same time, Republicans are seen as politicizing the issue rather than trying to get to the truth.

These are just some of the findings from the latest Fox News poll.

Click here for the poll results.

Fifty-four percent of voters think the Obama administration has been deceitful about the events surrounding the Benghazi attacks. Half say the same about former Sec. of State Hillary Clinton (50 percent).

In addition, by a 51-39 percent margin, voters say the White House knowingly lied about the attacks to help President Obama’s re-election campaign.

Among Democrats, 25 percent say Obama has tried to deceive on Benghazi and 23 percent think the White House lied to help the campaign.

The attacks that killed four Americans took place less than two months before Election Day. Even though the Obama administration had intelligence that the attackers were connected to terrorist groups, the White House pushed the story of a spontaneous protest in response to an online video.

On April 29 a previously unreleased email surfaced from a White House adviser that discussed how to characterize the attacks.

A week later House Republicans voted to establish a new select committee to investigate Benghazi. Voters approve of that decision by a large 67-28 percent margin. That includes a 55-percent majority of Democrats.

Continuing the Benghazi investigation is not without peril for Republicans. Despite their distrust of the White House on this issue, voters doubt Republican motives are pure. The number saying Republicans are investigating Benghazi for political gain is more than double the number who see the GOP as doing it to find the truth (63-30 percent).

Even 38 percent of Republicans think their party is politicizing the issue.

One possible reason the Obama administration hasn’t been hurt more by Benghazi is that most voters don’t place all of the blame on the White House. While a combined 72 percent say at least some of the blame for the security failings at the U.S. consulate falls on the administration, just 36 percent say the White House deserves “a great deal of blame” (and 36 percent “some blame”).

Republicans (60 percent) and independents (41 percent) are much more likely than Democrats (15 percent) to place “a great deal of blame” on the Obama administration for security failings.

Overall views are similar on how much blame the administration deserves for failing to bring the individuals responsible for the attacks to justice: 38 percent say Obama deserves “a great deal of blame” for that, while 30 percent say “some blame.”

Meanwhile, 78 percent of voters consider the issue serious, including 52 percent who see the Obama administration’s handling of Benghazi as “very serious.” For comparison, 53 percent see government surveillance of everyday Americans as “very serious” and 44 percent feel that way about the IRS targeting of conservative groups.

The Fox News poll is based on landline and cell phone interviews with 1,025 randomly chosen registered voters nationwide and was conducted under the joint direction of Anderson Robbins Research (D) and Shaw & Company Research (R) from May 10, 12-13, 2014. The full poll has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus three percentage points.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/05/14/fox-news-poll-obama-clinton-seen-as-deceitful-on-benghazi/

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63713
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63713
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: Integrity
« Reply #164 on: July 08, 2014, 01:06:31 PM »
 :o

Hillary Clinton About Obama: ‘You Can’t Trust the Motherf***er’
June 27, 2014 By Matthew Burke

Former Newsweek editor and best-selling author Edward Klein’s new book about the “Blood Feud” between the Clintons and the Obamas is sure to cause liberal/progressive/communist heads to spin within the Democrat Party.
 
While always acting lovey-dovey on stage and anywhere in public, Klein contends that the leftist quartet actually hate each other.

“Blood Feud,” a follow-up to Klein’s NY Times bestseller “The Amateur,” paints a picture of two two-faced couples filled with political greed, working together only with extreme reluctance and only when political expedience outweighs the couple’s mutual hatred.

According to Klein, two months after Hillary Clinton resigned from her position as Obama’s Secretary of State, Hillary told a group of friends, over one too many glasses of wine, that, in regards to Obama, “You can’t trust the motherf***er,” while claiming that “Obama has turned into a joke.”

The boozed-up rant took place in May of 2013, according to Klein, at Le Jardin Du Roi, a French restaurant near the Clinton mansion in Chappaqua, New York.

Klein says Hillary told her friends that the Clintons made a deal with the Obamas that they would help him get re-elected in 2012, in exchange for Obama’s support in getting Hillary elected to the presidency in 2016.

“He agreed to the arrangement but then he reneged on the deal. His word isn’t worth sh*t,” Hillary reportedly said.

Many have reported, and it’s no great secret, that Bill Clinton and Barack Obama aren’t the best of friends, and even dislike each other. However Klein reported in “Blood Feud” that it goes much deeper than a casual distaste.

“I hate that man Obama more than any man I’ve ever met, more than any man who ever lived,” Klein quotes Bill Clinton as having said about the Democrat president.

Klein claims that Valerie Jarrett, a top Obama adviser and longtime friend, and Michelle Obama nicknamed Hillary Clinton “Hildebeest,” comparing her to the ugly gnu that can be seen wandering the Serengeti region in Tanzania.

http://www.tpnn.com/2014/06/27/hillary-clinton-about-obama-you-cant-trust-the-motherfer/

SOMEPARTS

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 15863
Re: Integrity
« Reply #165 on: July 08, 2014, 01:17:17 PM »
I'd be sweating pretty hard if I was Mr. O....his own party will be blaming him in order to stay in office shortly....and the Clinton machine is no stranger to impeachment proceedings.

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63713
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: Integrity
« Reply #166 on: July 14, 2014, 11:56:25 AM »
 :-\


RRKore

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 2628
Re: Integrity
« Reply #167 on: July 14, 2014, 10:57:54 PM »
I'd be sweating pretty hard if I was Mr. O....his own party will be blaming him in order to stay in office shortly....and the Clinton machine is no stranger to impeachment proceedings.

I agree that it's not unlikely that Dems will be turning on him in order to not be hurt by his unpopularity in future elections but I don't know why he'd be sweating about that.  I mean, like he says, he can't run for re-election.  And because he was the first black president, he'll always be of interest to people and therefore he'll always be able to make money on the lecture circuit -- After all, making speeches is the one thing that even those on the right agree he's great at.

I seriously doubt that any impeachment proceeding will get off the ground; After what happened with Bill Clinton, I'm pretty sure that the right as a whole will be too gun-shy to go that route no matter what the short-sighted Tea Party faction wants.  Obama's people know all this so impeachment is likely not something he's worried about.

So sweating?  I don't think so.  Shoot, I don't think it's beyond the realm of possibility that Obama could willingly be used by the Democrats as a sort of lightning rod to attract barbs of the right that would otherwise be directed at those Dems who CAN run for office......Or maybe he's too selfish for that it it's only my inner conspiritard talking. lol

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63713
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: Integrity
« Reply #168 on: August 11, 2014, 12:46:22 PM »
I guess he changed his mind about vacations after taking office. 


Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39384
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Integrity
« Reply #169 on: August 11, 2014, 12:48:26 PM »
I guess he changed his mind about vacations after taking office. 



LMFAO!!!!!

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63713
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: Integrity
« Reply #170 on: September 09, 2014, 11:55:05 AM »
Quote
What does the NY TIMES say about that JV comment?

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/09/us/politics/a-president-whose-assurances-have-come-back-to-haunt-him.html?_r=0#

But the transcript of the New Yorker interview showed that Mr. Obama made his JV team comment directly after being asked about terrorists in Iraq, Syria and Africa, which would include ISIS. After Mr. Obama’s initial answer, Mr. Remnick pointed out that “that JV team just took over Fallujah,” a city in western Iraq seized by ISIS. Mr. Obama replied that terrorism in many places around the world was not necessarily “a direct threat to us or something that we have to wade into.

Journalistic organizations like PolitiFact, Factcheck.org and The Washington Post’s Fact Checker all rejected the contention that Mr. Obama was not referring to ISIS when he made his comment about JV teams.

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63713
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: Integrity
« Reply #171 on: September 09, 2014, 11:57:17 AM »
Spinning Obama’s reference to Islamic State as a ‘JV’ team
By Glenn Kessler September 3, 2014 

Question: “Did the president underestimate ISIS [the terrorist group Islamic State of Iraq and Syria] when he referred to them in an interview only a couple months ago as a JV squad and making a reference to National Basketball Association basketball teams like the Lakers?”

White House spokesman Josh Earnest: “I thought somebody might ask this question today so I wanted to pull the transcript of the interview because it’s important to understand the context in which this was delivered. So let me just read the full quote and then we can talk about it:

“‘I think there is a distinction between the capacity and reach of a bin Laden and a network that is actively planning major terrorist plots against the homeland versus jihadists who are engaged in various local power struggles and disputes, often sectarian.’

“So the president was not singling out ISIL [Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, another name for the group], he was talking about the very different threat that is posed by a range of extremists around the globe. Many of them do not have designs on attacking the West or attacking the United States, and that is what puts them in stark contrast to the goals and capability of the previously existing al-Qaeda core network that was led by Osama bin Laden.”

– exchange at White House news briefing, Aug. 25, 2014

Several readers asked us to examine this claim from White House spokesman Josh Earnest that President Obama was not singling out the group that now calls itself as Islamic State when, during in an interview with the New Yorker that appeared last January, he appeared to dismiss it as a “JV squad.” Since then, the group has taken over vast segments of Iraqi territory, declared itself a state and has posted videos that appear to show the beheadings of two American journalists.


The Facts

The New Yorker article, written by David Remnick, appeared in the Jan. 27, 2014, issue. It was clearly based on a series of interviews with the president, over a period of months, but the interview in question took place in the Oval Office on Jan. 7, according to the previously unreleased transcript obtained by The Fact Checker.

The date is important because just four days before, newspapers reported that the Islamic State had captured and raised its flag over Fallujah, where Marines in 2004 had fought one of the bloodiest battles of the U.S. invasion. As Liz Sly of The Washington Post reported:

A rejuvenated al-Qaeda-affiliated force asserted control over the western Iraqi city of Fallujah on Friday, raising its flag over government buildings and declaring an Islamic state in one of the most crucial areas that U.S. troops fought to pacify before withdrawing from Iraq two years ago….

The upheaval also affirmed the soaring capabilities of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), the rebranded version of the al-Qaeda in Iraq organization that was formed a decade ago to confront U.S. troops and expanded into Syria last year while escalating its activities in Iraq.

It was in that context that Remnick asked about a possible resurgence of al-Qaeda. Here is what the transcript shows:

   Q:  You know where this is going, though. Even in the period that you’ve been on vacation in the last couple of weeks, in Iraq, in Syria, of course, in Africa, al-Qaeda is resurgent.

THE PRESIDENT:  Yes, but, David, I think the analogy we use around here sometimes, and I think is accurate, is if a JV team puts on Lakers uniforms, that doesn’t make them Kobe Bryant. I think there is a distinction between the capacity and reach of a bin Laden and a network that is actively planning major terrorist plots against the homeland versus jihadists who are engaged in various local power struggles and disputes, often sectarian.

Q: But that JV team jus[t] took over Fallujah.

THE PRESIDENT:  I understand.  But when you say took over Fallujah –

Q:  And I don’t know for how long.

THE PRESIDENT:  But let’s just keep in mind, Fallujah is a profoundly conservative Sunni city in a country that, independent of anything we do, is deeply divided along sectarian lines. And how we think about terrorism has to be defined and specific enough that it doesn’t lead us to think that any horrible actions that take place around the world that are motivated in part by an extremist Islamic ideology is a direct threat to us or something that we have to wade into.

Games - Click Here for More!
 

The president’s “JV” comment was so striking that Remnick, in his article, referred to it as “an uncharacteristically flip analogy.” The New Yorker article does not specifically refer to ISIS, but it is fairly clear in the article — and certainly clear in the transcript — that Remnick was asking about its takeover of Fallujah.

In the White House briefing, Earnest asserted that Obama was referring to groups that “do not have designs on attacking the West or on attacking the United States … they certainly don’t have the capability of attacking the West.” He told reporters that “it’s important that we don’t sort of shorthand the analogy that the president was trying to draw here,” in that the president was referring to “jihadists who are engaged in various local power struggles and disputes.”

But the context of Remnick’s question makes it clear that he was asking about ISIS, as the president acknowledged. Perhaps at the time the president viewed it as a local matter between jihadists, but now, eight months later, the United States is striking Islamic State targets in an effort to turn back its advance across Iraqi territory.

We asked Earnest and White House representatives for a response but over a four-day period did not get a reply.

The Pinocchio Test

With the passage of eight months, the president’s “JV” comment looks increasingly untenable, so we can understand why the White House spokesman would try to suggest that what is now known as the Islamic State was not the subject of the conversation.

But in quoting from the transcript, Earnest provided a selective reading of the discussion. In particular, he failed to provide the context in which Obama made his remarks — the takeover of Fallujah by ISIS. That’s fairly misleading. The interviewer was certainly asking about ISIS when Obama answered with his “JV” remarks.

Four Pinocchios


http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/wp/2014/09/03/spinning-obamas-reference-to-isis-as-a-jv-team/

 

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63713
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: Integrity
« Reply #172 on: October 21, 2014, 08:37:00 AM »
White House Doctors Transcript of Obama Remarks
by KEITH KOFFLER on OCTOBER 21, 2014

The White House Monday left a potentially embarassing phrase out of the official transcript of the president’s remarks, altering what is supposed to be a verbatim rendition and, unless it was a mistake, effectively lying to the American people.

The odds, of course, of something harmful being the one thing left accidentally on the cutting room floor or unheard by the stenographer would seem rather low.

According to the White House pool report by Politico’s Jennifer Epstein:

The White House’s transcript of tonight’s DNC fundraiser omits the president’s reference to unpaid bills being stacked up on his desk at home in Chicago. I included a partial quote in the pool report earlier, but in the interest of transparency, especially since this was a print pool only event, I’m sharing the full quote, as I transcribed and checked just now, and as it was in the transcript. Thanks to AP’s Josh Lederman for pointing out the discrepancy

The quote:

“One of the nice things about being home is actually that it’s a little bit like a time capsule. Because Michelle and I and the kids, we left so quickly that there’s still junk on my desk, including some unpaid bills (laughter) – I think eventually they got paid — but they’re sort of stacked up. And messages, newspapers and all kinds of stuff.”

In the transcript, the quote leaves out the reference to unpaid but probably eventually paid bills: “there’s still junk on my desk, including some — newspapers and all kinds of stuff.​”

The Bush people also tried altering a transcript and were caught, but that was early in the administration, and they learned their lesson and stuck to exact transcriptions from then on. Given Bush’s challenges with regard to verbal expression in public, it couldn’t have been an easy thing.

Obama’s propagandists should know by now not to produce a false transcript.

The omission was included in the transcript that was emailed out to reporters. A copy has not yet appeared on the White House website. We’ll see what it looks like.

UPDATE: THE PLOT THICKENS: The White House is claiming the stenographer did not hear the omitted phrase. It released a new transcript this morning with “(inaudible)” inserted where the missing phrase should be. Somehow, it wasn’t inaudible to the White House pool reporters, who picked up on the discrepancy between what was said and what was in the transcript.

http://www.whitehousedossier.com/2014/10/21/white-house-alters-the-official-obama-transcript/

RRKore

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 2628
Re: Integrity
« Reply #173 on: October 21, 2014, 03:03:58 PM »
What??  This is an "explicit declaration" that citizenship is NOT required. 

"the information provided by individuals for coverage can not be used for purposes other than ensuring the efficient functioning of the insurance market ( Covered California) or administration of the program, or to verify certain eligibility determinations including verification of the immigration status of these people."

LOL!  But that's what happen when you blindly pull crap off of a leftwing website. 

BB, if you think this is an explicit declaration that citizenship is not required, you've got some reading comprehension issues. 

What do you think "not be used for purposes other than..." means in the paragraph you've pasted above?  I'll answer for you:  It means "can only be used".

So this means that they're saying that info provided for coverage will only be used for insurance-related questions or to verify eligibility for insurance including verification of immigration status.

The main purpose of what's written is they're saying that info supplied won't be used for other shit -- whether that shit is reporting illegals to La Migra or selling addresses to spammers.

The part that I've bolded strongly suggests that immigration status will be used to determine eligibility for insurance. 

I realize your post is pretty old so I apologize if you already figured out you that your misreading caused you to take the opposite meaning from what was written.

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63713
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: Integrity
« Reply #174 on: October 21, 2014, 06:30:22 PM »
BB, if you think this is an explicit declaration that citizenship is not required, you've got some reading comprehension issues. 

What do you think "not be used for purposes other than..." means in the paragraph you've pasted above?  I'll answer for you:  It means "can only be used".

So this means that they're saying that info provided for coverage will only be used for insurance-related questions or to verify eligibility for insurance including verification of immigration status.

The main purpose of what's written is they're saying that info supplied won't be used for other shit -- whether that shit is reporting illegals to La Migra or selling addresses to spammers.

The part that I've bolded strongly suggests that immigration status will be used to determine eligibility for insurance. 

I realize your post is pretty old so I apologize if you already figured out you that your misreading caused you to take the opposite meaning from what was written.


Like the article I posted says:  "The website goes on to explain that information shared with Obamacare cannot be shared with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). It does not explicitly warn that illegal aliens are ineligible."

So no, they are not ensuring that the applicants are not illegal aliens.