Please sit down before you read this: NBC reveals shocking news about Michele Bachmann

by editor on July 1, 2011

Please attempt not to recoil in horror when you read this news: Michele Bachmann’s husband, who runs a mental health clinic in Minnesota, has accepted Medicaid payments totaling “$137,000 for the treatment of patients since 2005.” According to our calculator that amounts to $22,000 and change a year.

michele-bachmann-husband

Michele Bachmann and her husband getting all giddy over the big Medicaid bucks they're raking in

Despite that meager total, NBC’s Investigative Reporter – excuse us, National Investigative Correspondent – Michael Isikoff breathlessly reports that the clinic “describes itself on its website as offering ‘quality Christian counseling’ for a large number of mental health problems ranging from ‘anger management’ to addictions and eating disorders.” (Note that Isikoff manages to make “quality Christian counseling” sound akin to “blood letting and leeching.”)

So what’s the problem? Well, Isikoff points out the clinic has been accepting these funds “while Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., has forcefully denounced the Medicaid program for swelling the “welfare rolls.”

Nothing so shocking has been reported regarding the Congresswoman since Joy Behar fecklessly reported that Bachmann,  mother of 5 children and foster mother of 23, “hates children” and is “anti-children”.

But back to Bachmann’s more  recent crimes. “She’s giving hypocrisy a bad name,” said Ron Pollock, executive director of Families USA, a consumer health care advocacy group, when asked about the Medicaid payments to Bachmann & Associates. “It’s clear when it feathers her nest she’s happy for Medicaid expenditures. But people that really need it — folks with disabilities and seniors — she’s turning their backs on them.”

It would have been nice if NBC had provided a little insight into Ron Pollock since he’s quoted in their article as if he speaks with something akin to the voice of God. Apparently, though, NBC could not afford to investigate Mr. Pollock as thoroughly as they investigate those he damns as people “giving hypocrisy a bad name.”

24thState.com asks and answers the question “…who is Ron Pollack? And what is Families USA? Just how big are they and who funds them? Well, you’re not going to get an answer on funding. Families USA is tight-lipped about who gives them money, but it’s no bootstrap organization. The 990’s for 2008, the last year they are available until after the 2010 election, show an organization worth tens of millions of dollars.”

The article also asks the question “Who funds them, and who builds up their assets to such a large degree?” and reveals that “We aren’t allowed to know, but we can guess. Let’s take a look at their board of directors, and who do we see on it, but Mary Kay Henry, the new president of SEIU.”

The article goes on to say that “This group gets favorable media attention, but not one reporter ever stops to ask how they are funded, who they are allied with, or just what exactly $45 million will buy?” and summarizes that “In front of you, you have evidence of a foundation with unknown funding that is clearly allied with the healthcare unions who stand to benefit greatly from Obamacare.”

But apparently these salient facts were not as impressive to NBC as the meager $22,000 and change in income that Bachmann’s clinic averaged from Medicare over the last six years.

It appears that Bachmann’s real crimes are three fold: (1) She is a woman. (2) She is a conservative woman. And (3) She is a conservative woman who opposes the leadership of the most glorious president of the ages.

– Written by Patrick Michael

Source: MSNBC, 24thState.com

93
Leave a Reply

Please Login to comment
18 Comment threads
75 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
27 Comment authors
David Bishopcoolfl33poppajoe49David Bishopwhiskeyriver Recent comment authors

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

  Subscribe  
Notify of
MDLION
Member
MDLION

coolfl33:”I think it is time Michelle gets the same treatment that Michele Bachmann’s husband is getting.”

One of the core tenets of liberalism is that they are so much more COMPASSIONATE than conservatives. Anything the exposes this myth must denied and/or repressed. I’ve been accused of lacking compassion for black people and poor women at times on the threads here.

coolfl33
Guest
coolfl33

We all know anything Obama was off limits during 2008 so of course Michelle’s dirty deeds were never mentioned.
I think it is time Michelle gets the same treatment that Michelle Bachmann’s Husband is getting.

coolfl33
Guest
coolfl33

Does NBC have an update on the Michelle Obama and Patient Dumping Scandal?

poppajoe49
Guest
poppajoe49

Does NBC have an update on the Michelle Obama and Patient Dumping Scandal?

Yea, it will appear right after the NYC farm report!

perlcat
Member

They hired that security guard in ‘Animal House’ — you know, the one that said “Nothing to see here, move along, move along”. They also hired Sgt Schultz’ ignorant grandson, who sees, hears, and knows NOTHING!!

MDLION
Member
MDLION

Thanks for the link, KimmyQueen. I thought Michele Bachmann was going to have more time before the media gave her the Palin treatment, but she is ahead in Iowa and even close in New Hampshire. The media have started a campaign assault against her because of reparative therapy for those with a homosexual orientation.

KimmyQueen
Member

YW. For people that believe in choices, it is interesting how liberals and progressives can’t seem to believe that there are people wanting help in regards to their sexual orientation. It may not work for everyone, but for those that really want a change in their lives it does help. Somehow they think the people that walk in there are somehow forced to go in there in the first place and forced to stay… :-/

KimmyQueen
Member

Andrew Klavan: On the Culture Waiting for Michelle Bachmann to make a gaffe: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R3h1-VdNXw8&feature=feedu

MDLION
Member
MDLION

“those viagara … commercials are just nasty that is something private, it doesn’t need to be on tv.” I was wondering if I was the only one tired of all the ED commercials on television. How are people supposed to answer their kids? “Mommy, Daddy, what’s ED?”

hisham
Guest
hisham

“Not what dear, who. Mr. Ed was a talking horse who was famous for saying silly things, now go play in your room!” Practice it a couple of times until it feels natural and then try it the next time one of the curtain apes asks a question you don’t think they deserve an answer for…yet.

KimmyQueen
Member

I don’t have kids, but those commercials are just disgusting. I am not a prude, but I do have standards. I understand that men need things as they get older and can’t satisfy a woman, but I really don’t need to know all of that. It should be a private situation. I am also as disgusted by the Yaz commercials and all the commercial about ugh… I don’t even want to type it… private female situations… It is just nasty. We, men and women, know what we need for whatever is happening to us, we don’t need commercials to remind us.

perlcat
Member

I think they’re just sad. Most of the time, some guy whose marriage has reached some form of equilibrium feels his youth slipping away, falls for the message in these commercials, goes and orders some of this stuff without talking it over with his wife, tries to surprise her with his new-found capability, and discovers that she has no desire to hump it like a bunny anymore.

Guys, if you’re thinking about taking this kind of stuff, talk it over with the wife first. It still takes two to tango.

hisham
Guest
hisham

If you’re in your fifties you might even want to talk it over with your doctor before you talk it over with your wife.

DB
Guest
DB

A Challenge for those able to do so… If you get it right you win nothing so no taxes need to be paid.
Correct me if I am wrong here but this fuss is over accepting medicare from poor folks. Has anyone checked out hoe much if any MO got from medicare back when she was involved with some clinic. Or has my memory gotten that bad?

perlcat
Member

Well, actually, she saved money by dumping patients.

HTH.

John Studd
Member
John Studd

Oh, I can defend myself just fine…you have crossed the line from commitment to blind faith.
Please answer this question: did The Flake state that she received a one-time medicaid payment of $137K? Yes or no?
Did she in fact receive these payments over the course of five years or more? Yes or no?
The facts are this was no one time payment. Those were payments over the course of years. That’s all. That “one-time payment stuff was a flat-out bald-faced lie. Period.

Just to let you know: I was proud to vote for and serve under Ronald Reagan and George HW Bush as a Naval Spec Ops Officer. I have voted for many, many Republicans such as Pete Wilson and Gerald Ford, even Richard Nixon!!!

But, I’m no lemming or ditto-head or zealot. I call ’em as I see em…if ya can’t handle that–pound sand.

84LD

LA Sunset
Member

Maybe it’s just me, but I don’t believe a damned word you just said.

John Studd
Member
John Studd

you just refuse to answer those two simple questions, don’t you? You tap dance and deflect, but you simply refuse to man-up and answer.. It’s just you, pal. You need to grow a pair. I could give a rats ass about Bachman’s medicaid payments, but she flat-ass lied to Chris Wallace about it being a one-time deal.

LA Sunset
Member

Mitch, you need to grow a brain. If lying is the issue, most politicians lie and Obama lies more than anyone else I know in politics. Every campaign promise he made was a damned lie. And he is still lying every time he opens his dumbass face.

I expect it from him, but you are so naive, you overlook that and split hairs about some Medicaid payment. You overlook and ignore the vast amount of waste of taxpayer money that Michelle and Barry piss away every time they take a vacation. You are too blind with rage over Bachmann to give a damn that Michelle pissed away $242,000 on a trip to Spain, alone.

Before you spout shit you know nothing about, you need to watch that stone throwing so close to your house of glass. You are a hypocrite and a liar.

John Studd
Member
John Studd

I’M a liar and a hypocrite? What is my lie? Where is my hypocrisy? You simply won’t answer the question, will you? Did Bachman lie to Chris Wallace? Was the medicare payment a one-time payment or was it multiple payments over the course of years? That’s all. You live in the warmth of your “I hate the media” cocoon, get lots of thumbs up and deflect to Barry and Michelle. I’m not enraged at the Flake–she’s a pimple on America’s ass..she’ll pop soon enough and ooze back into her House seat.

You are a pussy…you need to change your Kotex, sport. I can smell you from here.

CO2Insanity
Admin

Did Oblivia have a sex-change operation and come back as Mitch? Just asking…..

KimmyQueen
Member

Do you want to be the one to check down there? ewwww…

LA Sunset
Member

//You are a pussy…you need to change your Kotex, sport. I can smell you from here.//

Wow….you seem to be upset there. Did I hit a nerve?

I thought liberals were calm, cool, and clearly superior beings capable of winning arguments based on the ideology. I thought they were intelligent and articulate.

Clearly someone was taken right out of his game, because he is weak, spiritually and mentally, just like his faulty claims. I know one thing, it sure takes a big man to spew angry insults from the safety and security of his own home. Feel like a hero now?

hisham
Guest
hisham

I gave you a thumbs up Mitch, just to keep your post rating level.

LA Sunset
Member

Enabler

hisham
Guest
hisham

LOLOL (chuckle) 🙂 Sticks and stones baby, sticks and stones!

John Studd
Member
John Studd

enabler!

danybhoy
Member
danybhoy

I know you are, but what am I?

whiskeyriver
Member
whiskeyriver

So, what is your problem then? What difference does it make if her husband took a lump sum payment for 6 years of work or 6 yearly payments?

The whole point to the story is the Bachmans have a sucessful business, raised 5 children and, at one time or another, taken care of 23 foster children and did it all without milking the medicaid cow. Does the Lame Stream Media point this out? No, they concentrate instead on a paltry sum collected to help a few folks who could not afford quality care.

Lanny
Member
Lanny

Let’s follow the liberal logic.

Bachmann opposes Medicaid because it’s a wasteful government program.
Therefore liberals insist her husband’s business should not benefit from the program.

So

Liberals consider the Bush tax cuts evil and hurtful to teachers, the poor, the environment, etc.
Therefore, shouldn’t all liberals calculate their taxes using the pre-Bush tax rates?

Where’s the MSNBC investigation of Obama, Pelosi and Reid taking advantage of the Bush tax cuts they opposed?

danybhoy
Member
danybhoy

I shall tell you what should be obvious, the MSM is taking dead aim at my fellow Minnesotan, Michele Bachmann, because she is a threat to Obama & the Dems.

All this talk about Romney & Huntsman should be just that, talk. Those guys are the 2 that the Dems could live with if elected. Which should tell you all you really need to know.

donavandean
Member
donavandean

She’s not a threat. Only the bottom 15% think she’s a threat. Give a simpleton a small amount of power and they think they own the world. Sit down dumb-asses. The country is ahead of your optimism…. See the polls?

danybhoy
Member
danybhoy

Really donovan? Really? Explain to me why the MSM & most Dems(1 in the same, for the most part)they are talking up Romney & Huntsman, but they have been trashing the hell out of Bachmann, as well as Palin?

They attack what they fear, & Bachmann could beat a very weak incumbent.

donavandean
Member
donavandean

Dems would prefer Bachmann gets the primary. You see, unlike the rest of the country, people who support Bachmann are in the extreme minority. That’s because the people who support her are a little bit on the crazy side and the rest of the country and the western world think nothing like the ignorant who support her. Also, her husband is gay. It’s being talked about all over the blogs. Not sure how that sits with the gay hating conservatives…. but…

Alien
Member
Alien

I think a good number of conservatives know, deep in their bones, that they’ve got to give up on the anti-gay thing.. This could get interesting..

When i first heard him speaking a few days ago, I was not expecting that to be her husband. I figured she’d have gone for the manliest man. Can’t say for sure he’s gay, but he did strike me as a bit effeminate.. Not that that’s a bad thing necessarily. Less competetion for the rest of us 🙂

KimmyQueen
Member

I do not believe myself to be anti-gay. I am pro-tradition. There is a difference. I don’t give a crap about gays’ personal lives. What they do in their bedrooms is their business. I have nothing to berate in that score their personal lives and how they are openly gay with whomever they are with.

It is traditional for a man and a woman to be a father and a mother in the home. It is traditional for a man and a woman that seek to be considered legally, emotionally and religiously married to be called man and wife and their union a marriage protected by laws and traditions and recognized as a marriage by all. Whenever one is missing there is a problem for the individual child. Yes two mothers and two fathers are better economically for an individual child than one parent in the home, however studies (and please research for them you shall find them) have shown that the NORM is a father and a mother and it is BETTER for any individual child and for society in general. Conservative homosexuals and lesbians understand this and hence even though they live outside the norm in their PERSONAL lives, they do not use government, courts nor intimidation to change the tradition of the ENTIRE country nor the socio-economic-scientific norms.

If a gay man and another gay man want to get together and call their relationship a marriage I am sure that their closest neighbors, families and friends will oblige. Just because I don’t it doesn’t mean that their relationship is not real or has no real meaning to them and to those that know them and care for them in the end. FORCING me to accept their relationship as a marriage, while I respectfully disagree is not the way to go. FORCING eons of tradition to be removed from the equation is dangerous. If it is very easy to abolish traditional marriage or any other long term (really long term) traditional pattern on a bening culture, tells me that the laws to protect people can be very easily changed with the times and the whims of the few. That is not good. It is not good for anyone.

I accept that they have a relationship and that they are wonderful people and their kids, if they have them, are lucky to have them as parents, however I just disagree that it is not a marriage, just like I disagree that a single mother is as good as a father and a mother combo, it isn’t. If they get a church or a religion to recognize it as such awesome, so their union can be blessed by their deity or else by their community.

If there are issues like inheritance there is something called a will. If families are an issue, get a good lawyer, draft an air tight will and power of attorneys and living wills and so on and so forth as necessary. Be responsible. There was a lady that lost her partner’s (who died on 9/11) estate to the partner’s brother because the partner did not look out for her by doing a will and making sure her estate was appropriately defined before the tragic event. When you have someone and you have responsibilities in your life that is what you do.

Do I believe that perhaps the state can make things easier by allowing for home unions in which the state can recognize that the person was living in the home with the deceased by the time of death, was PRIMARY and therefore he or she should get the bulk of their estate? Sure. It doesn’t need to be called a marriage, after all two sisters or two brothers (cousins, whatever) may live together and share responsibilities, they are not married they have no children, the state should recognize the one left behind as the primary on the deceased’s estate.

hardwurkindaddy
Member
hardwurkindaddy

In my humble opinion, the Government needs to stay out of it altogether. Love and Marriage are not something that needs legislation, and if a guy wants to marry a woman, or a man, or a goat then if he can find a clergy to sign the paper it should just be. The Guv’ment needs to just respect the piece of paper and let it go.

KimmyQueen
Member

There has to be some parameters. A 60 year old kidnapping a little girl and finding someone that can marry him to a… 14 year old and the government stays out of it because he loves her and he got to legally marry her is not good. It happens A LOT in Islamlands. Poor parents of the girls never find them again, if they do they are dead, or so molested and so beat up and so indoctrinated that they may as well be dead.

There has to be parameters set by the law in order to protect minors and innocents (and those that do not want to be involved with someone and do not want to be forced into it). However the least amount of government intervention in consensual relationships yes.

David Bishop
Member
David Bishop

I don’t really think marriage laws are going to encourage or prevent a creepy 60 year old from kidnapping/raping/force-marrying a 14 year old, Kimmy.

KimmyQueen
Member

You did not understand what I typed. If a man “marries” a girl especially after kidnapping her, the government just can’t say “oh well, he married her so now she belongs to him regardless of how he came about her in the first place.” If the government just stays out of marriage all together and let things be, it can create a lot of injustices for a lot of people. The act before the “marriage” even if constitutes a “legal marriage” should not be protected because of the legal marriage. So that is why there has to be parameters. In Islamlands it is not uncommon for men to kidnap young Christian women to the point of it being an epidemic, “marrying” them legally and now they belong to the man so the Father and her family lost ALL rights and her being kidnapped is a misunderstanding on the family’s parts, perhaps they just regretted “her choice”. That is all messed up and having appropriate marriage laws prevents that type of injustice against innocent girls and women and , in the case, where it cannot be prevented* (because the guy is just too evil), it punishes the man for what he did, invalidating any “marriage” that may have taken place.

* I have seen enough footage of child molestors to be or those that have expressed desire to molest children to know that one of the main reasons why they do not molest or just grab a child and have the child live with them as a spouse, is because the thought of prison and being raped themselves is strong adverse thought. The laws in place and the consequences of their actions are a deterrant. Not for all, of course, but I have actually heard a lot of them say pretty much the same thing: “If there were no laws against it, I would marry that girl/boy…” because all they want to do is just love that child, and so on and so forth.

David Bishop
Member
David Bishop

In America, though, a woman does not “belong(as in the case of property)” to the man who marries her, so I still don’t see the point. She is free to leave said marriage at any time.

As for your second point, states already have mandatory age laws for marriage, so once again, I don’t see the point.

KimmyQueen
Member

You don’t see the point because you just don’t want to or else because you don’t understand why I posted what I posted. So I will make another try and then move on. I was posting to the point of ANOTHER POSTER who stated that the government should stay out of marriage altogether. IF such a thing happens (do you understand? IF SUCH A THING HAPPENS) it can open the floodgates to a lot of abuse for women and children. So THERE HAS to be parameters by the government to prevent such abuse.

You are not seeing the point because you don’t understand the purpose for the comment or else you just want to be contrarian, or else because you are not putting yourself in the if that happens then this may happen mindframe. Again, it is not seeing it as it is right now, it is seeing it as it what it could be if government does not stipulate parameters. I hope this was helpful in understanding the purpose of the post. However, if you still don’t get it, then there is really nothing else that I can say to you, I tried to be as clear as I could possibly be. So it is what it is. Have a nice day.

hisham
Guest
hisham

hardwurkindaddy, some of you guys are missing the point altogether, marriage is not simply a contract; contracts deal primarily with property and tangible goods, properties and the like. Marriage is a covenant, a sharing of persons and intangibles, therefore, it is far more than just a simple contract and Christ himself, raised marriage to the level of a sacrament! A justice of the peace can sign a contractual marriage, one that can be credibly recognized by local laws and customs, but he can’t raise it to a covenant, nor can he make it sacramental. Only the Church can do that.

Why sacramental, you ask? I’ll tell you. Marriage is a wearisome endeavor once the lust has worn thin and the kids come and the years drag, etc, etc, etc. To stay the course, one needs much more that just natural goodness and natural graces to put up with the same person day in and day out for the long haul. The sacrament involved with a churched wedding is twofold: one, the couple to be wed stand before God and confess their fidelity to the endeavor and to each other, (here the pastor, priest, deacon acts in persona Christi, as they are his duly consecrated representatives), and two, God, through the sacramental wedding, confers special supernatural graces upon the espoused pair as he seals and blesses their promises to him. That’s why it’s so terrible to divorce, because it’s not just inanimate property that gets divvied up if and when you split the sheets; Lives are involved, children, families, communities, nations!

Oh, BTW, ancient cultures, going back ten, fifteen thousand years and more, have recognized a one man and one woman version of marriage as the best instrument for raising children, not me, not bias…historical fact. Something libtards seem to forget!

David Bishop
Member
David Bishop

Agree. We are biologically engineered to have certain traits that produce better-equipped children when communicably given to them. It’s not even history. It’s just common-sense.

perlcat
Member

Me, I don’t give a damn. He could be as gay as a May basket for all I care. However, just acting that way means nothing — even if it does get hearts palpitating in certain parts of San Francisco.

It really is wrong to spread such rumors, though — because it does the people that *are* gay and do not wish to have their personal life be a subject of idle speculation a disservice. I would think that Donavan would be more caring than that — or does he have a hobby of forcibly “outing” gays against their will? I always thought that was a job for intolerant troglodytes.

Alien
Member
Alien

I agree maliciously passing around the rumor is wrong. Outing someone against their will is wrong. Donavan’s post is the first I’d heard of the rumor and I suppose he’s making mischief. I poked around a bit and he’s right that lotsa Dems are having a gleeful time with it. While KQ earnestly speaks of tolerance in spite of strong traditional beliefs–not an easy stance–I see many of Michelle Bachmann’s partisan foes descending on the matter like jackals. I’m not impressed with the witchhunt, even if its ostensibly meant to expose hypocrisy.

I say it “could be interesting”, because we often see movement on matters from leaders in the erstwhile opposition. A brave Democrat will probably be needed to seriously help lead in an overhaul of entitlement programs. A brave Republican will be involved in gay marriage rights (many are fascinated with NY’s recent action due to some shift in a Republican controlled state senate). I say this because it often helps to quell partisan stand-offs

What I often ask for is for people to chill on social issues for a decade or two, so we can shake up the usual alliances, and perhaps cobble together a more fiscally sound coalition to deal our long term problems. Perhaps its arrogant to even ask such a thing, but I can’t believe all out partisan broadsides will do the trick either

KimmyQueen
Member

Liberals out gay people without their permission all the time. IN order to reinforce their own agenda. Perez Hilton has made a career of outing legitimate gay people or intimating that someone could be gay in order to shame them for fun or profit. There was a gay guest on O’Reilly several years ago, that stuck with me, because he actually admitted that he has been trying to find something on the Mayor of San Francisco. However, he is not gay and never was and if he was gay, the guest assured O’Reilly, he would know (since he had his feelers out there for any and all informatin). It is evil. Sexual orientation is one of those things that should be handled privately, those viagara (et al) commercials are just nasty that is something private, it doesn’t need to be on tv.

PsychoDad
Guest
PsychoDad

What a fu<king looney toon! And they're only gonna get thicker the closer we get to 11/12.

Wonder if this one is an actual paid lackey? I can't imagine any human being with a shred of braincell and self-respect saying this and meaning it!

perlcat
Member

re: “Dems would prefer Bachmann gets the primary.”

“Be careful what you ask for” — Hillary Clinton, 2008.

When she first came on the scene, I was not impressed. However, she has matured quite well since when I first heard of her — and while she has her appeal to some people that are for lack of a better word, “strange”, she has a lot more appeal than some of the RINO’s on stage.

A lot of the bad press she has gotten over the years has backfired. When undecided people hear her speak, it doesn’t jibe with the narrative that has been presented. The question is whether it is her or the narrative that gets tossed. I tossed the narrative, and consequently, have a much harder time believing the negative things reported about her. This isn’t to say I swallow everything — just to show that when media types try to channel public thinking, that things can and do backfire. After all, while they have apparently chosen Romney as the Republican candidate of choice, who in their right mind would believe the media people choosing him would vote for him?

They want their Barry, but if they have to settle for number two, prefer that they choose ol’ number two themselves, too.

KimmyQueen
Member

How nice. Let’s spread a rumor from unconfirmed and phantom sources that are not even real sources they come from other gossipy individual with no true credibility. How lame… If it is true it is his and his wife business. Hopefully he hasn’t hurt her by being with others outside of their marriage. There have been numerous men who are/were gay but chose to not engage in that lifestyle and instead accept and engage in a normative lifestyle and are seemingly happier for it.

If it is not true though the stench from this gossip can disturb her candidancy and it is highly evil and irresponsible for people to do that, but then again as a liberal I am sure this is normal procedure for you.

RockingHorseGuy
Member

So, Donavan. If the Lamestream Media truly wants to see Bachman as the Republican Candidate, why are they trashing her so heavily, and talking up the others? Sounds like a sinister plot gone wrong to me. Either that, or you’re retarded.

danybhoy
Member
danybhoy

My bet, he wears a hockey helmet…& he’s nowhere near a rink.

poppajoe49
Guest
poppajoe49

Dems would prefer Bachmann gets the primary.

That statement just shows how deluded you are.
Dems hate conservative women because they feel that they should own the female vote, that’s why they target their advertising toward emotional and social welfare issues, because those are the hot button topics for women and minorities, the 2 primary liberal voting blocs. Any conservative woman is a threat to them because they’re worried that a female on the Rep ticket will pull a large number of votes from them. This also explains why Herman Cain is being largely ignored by the MSM. If he were to win the nomination, or even make a good showing, it blows the libtard mantra of “conservatives are bigots” out of the water.

MDLION
Member
MDLION

“They only do investigative reporting on conservatives.” How true. It seems like more was known about Joe the Plumber in 24 hours than about Barack Obama in 24 months. I’ll never forget a “TODAY” show graphic:”WAS SARAH PALIN PROPERLY VETTED?” I yelled at my TV:”WAS OBAMA PROPERLY VETTED?”

LA Sunset
Member

Wait a minute.

Are you saying that NBC (National Barack Channel) is quoting sources that receive union money and treating them as gospel? When did this start happening? Well…all I can say is the next thing you know some French woman from Chicago will be running the IMF.

Time for a drink.

CO2Insanity
Admin

The French woman from Chicago makes me wonder if Pepe le Pew was setup and who did he piss off in the White House?

RockingHorseGuy
Member

And so it begins.

Buck O'Fama
Guest
Buck O'Fama

Horrors. What will Obama’s unverified Middle Eastern cash-only bundlers say once they realize what a miserable corrupt country this is? ACORN and the SEIU will be so horrified they will scarcely be able to arrange for an astro-turfed spontaneous demonstration of outrage for a couple of hours until the recover.

MDLION
Member
MDLION

Oh No! The smoking gun! If only she done something more benign, like starting her political career in the front room of an unrepentant terrorist.

John Studd
Member
John Studd

The Flake said the medicare payment was a one-time deal and therein lies the issue. Of course, she lied–she took the dole over the course of six years. I hope she gets the nomination, though; she’ll be perfect

Jim Stewart
Member
Jim Stewart

Flake would be a good label for any dumbass who believes Democrats have the answer to any problem facing the country. Name the problem and Democrats have exactly the wrong solution. Democrats are stuck on a permanent Calvin and Hobbes opposite day.

Alien
Member
Alien

calling her a flake will only make her stronger.. strikes me as sexist in her case. That what you want?

I don’t agree with her on half of what she says, but even I cringed when Chris Wallace asked her that question. I like her warrior queen visage, though (is that sexist?)

LA Sunset
Member

Mitch, let’s do some close examination here. First it’s Medicaid not Medicare, but for the purposes of this class we’ll put that aside. But try to stay with me here

$22,000 a year is not even $1900 a month, which probably doesn’t cover one of the salaries of one of the workers. You want it to sound like he pocketed the entire amount for himself. It was a clinic, which is a business. It paid a bill or two ….maybe….but no one got rich.

But more than this, had he refused to take the patients who paid w/ MEDICAID, people like YOU would demonize him for not providing care for the POOR.

So, keep yapping your trap, because it is demonstrating only one thing. That is… you have no clue about what you are talking about. And you only make yourself look like a fool.

But please know and understand that I appreciate you making my job easier exposing your hypocrisy.

Plainsman
Member
Plainsman

LA, really good points regarding how very little this number ($137K) is and how little it would actually have covered over the span of one fiscal year for the Mr. Bachmann’s clinic. It only goes to show just how clueless most liberals are regarding basic financial concepts of business and/or governmental spending.

This is a no win situation for the Bachmanns. Had he not treated these patients he would have had been castigated. It is a perfect example of how social programs administered by governmental fiat are basically an insidious trap.

LA Sunset
Member

RIM, some people are just plain stupid and think we are stupid, like them. I say that’s a pretty egocentric approach to life.

But hell, what do I know? I still admit to voting for Carter.

hisham
Guest
hisham

Hey, guess what numbnuts, Medicade and/or Medicare would probably have thrown these 137k worth of claims out the window and denied them completely, something they do well over 25% of the time…you need to get a clue Mr. Hoops.

LA Sunset
Member

Mr Poops flew the coops.

Doesn’t have the guts to come back and defend his lunacy. At least Oblivianetta tries to. She fails, but she tries.

RockingHorseGuy
Member

Carter? Really?

LA Sunset
Member

I was 18. When he was governor of Georgia and he lowered the drinking age to 18. I was hopeful.

RockingHorseGuy
Member

Somehow, I knew drinking was part of it.

Alien
Member
Alien

I was 6. We voted in school. He was the Peanut Guy.

When I was 10, Reagan was the jellybean guy so he had my full support

perlcat
Member

I was 12. I voted for Ford, and got beat up for it.

RockingHorseGuy
Member

I was in my early 20’s, working for a living. I voted for Reagan.

LA Sunset
Member

I voted for Reagan in 1980…I voted for Carter in 76. I was stupid in 76, but one term of Carter healed my stupidity.

DefHarryMelon
Member
DefHarryMelon

See, that’s what you get for trying to buck the system. All those fresh faced 18 year old new voters (like me) didn’t think 12 years was old enough to understand those things which, as it turns out, most people don’t clue in until they’re in their 30s. The TV showed us that buffoon Ford tumbling every time he saw stairs! We wanted Jimmy! Then a couple years later, after the gun rights issues began to affect me personally, I saw the error of my ways and now I really miss Ron.

perlcat
Member

It was actually kind of funny. In the primary, I liked Reagan (because of his name and having a thing about science fiction — hey, I was 12., but in the election, Ford was clearly better than the Schmuck, Carter. However, teacher told us how great the Bumbling One was, and the other kids thought that I was a dummy for not following the herd.

That evening, some of them must have thought it’d be a laugh to tell their parents about that geeky kid that liked FORD, of all people, and on the bus the next day, they had all clearly been schooled on who their parents liked. Their cheer:

“Ford, Ford, Ford’s our man;
Let’s put Carter in the garbage can.”

was most satisfying. However, they never did say they were sorry. Not that I cared.

drb
Member
drb

Like they say…If you’re not a liberal by the time you’re 21, you have no heart; and if you’re not a conservative by the time you’re 40, you have no brain.

hisham
Guest
hisham

You beat me to the punch LA…dadgummit!

poppajoe49
Guest
poppajoe49

I was 17 in ’76 when the election was held, couldn’t vote, but would have gone for Carter. I explained this in another thread when I said I was a lib as a kid, but when I was out on my own (yes, I moved out of my parents house at 18) I realized the error of my ways. In ’80, I voted Reagan, in ’81 I went in the Air Force. Everyone thought I was nuts volunteering for the military with Reagan in the oval office, but I didn’t care, I wanted to do my duity.

Pat from Michigan
Guest
Pat from Michigan

So Michelle Bachmann’s husband is ‘gay’ and Michelle Obama’s husband is the manliest of men, is that your verdict there Mitch??

rightinwa
Member
rightinwa

They only do investigative reporting on conservatives.

KimmyQueen
Member

Okay so this is exactly what I am talking about when I say that liberals are insane. IF he had DENIED treatment to people who could only pay with MEDICAID because his wife is politically against it, wouldn’t these same people abuse him and her as uncaring folks for throwing out people who were sick and need of help because they could only pay with Medicaid?

Like I always say Conservatives can’t win. Damn if we do something and damn if we don’t do something. Can’t win.