• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Buckwheat's Perks Cost Us $1.4 Billion

A

Anonymous

Guest
Whitewing said:
Oldtimer said:
Steve said:
fixed,.. sarcasm removed,..



:agree: :clap:

Probably the same reason some farmers and ranchers take the government handouts when offered to them- and then either deny it- or when caught say they will give it back or never sin again :roll: :wink: :lol:

If you're trying to insult Soap, maybe he deserved and needed the drought-relief funds?

I'd certainly rather see someone take advantage of an insurance program they helped fund with their tax dollars than see a coroner help a family possibly commit insurance fraud by ruling that a victim's death was accidental when there were strong suspicions otherwise.

And you LIE- because you know that was never said...
 

Whitewing

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Whitewing said:
Oldtimer said:
Probably the same reason some farmers and ranchers take the government handouts when offered to them- and then either deny it- or when caught say they will give it back or never sin again :roll: :wink: :lol:

If you're trying to insult Soap, maybe he deserved and needed the drought-relief funds?

I'd certainly rather see someone take advantage of an insurance program they helped fund with their tax dollars than see a coroner help a family possibly commit insurance fraud by ruling that a victim's death was accidental when there were strong suspicions otherwise.

And you LIE- because you know that was never said...

Show me where I lied then.
 

Whitewing

Well-known member
OldCan'tRememberWhatISaid said:
In our area- during the years I was a Coroner- probably the major suicide cause (especially with mature individuals) was folks that were diagnosed with cancer or a major disease- but that did not have any health care insurance- or not have the major medical insurance it would take to treat the disease----- which would have meant the family would have had to bare the the costs/and the family savings and farm/ranch would have been lost....
They chose the way out for their family....

I have no idea-- but under the old Coroner that I worked with/for for years- I'm sure many suicides were ruled accidentals to spare the families both guilt and anquish...

OldDigsHisHoleDeeper said:
I have no idea-- but under the old Coroner that I worked with/for for years- I'm sure many suicides were ruled accidentals to spare the families both guilt and anquish...

I saw some (gunshot, vehicle into bridges/semis, drowning ) that in my opinion were suicide (and had chronic medical reasons/depression history)- but we presented the evidence- he made the call... He signed off on it...

Yep-- unless there was a note or something- he would rule on the side of the family...

Now you tell me Fatlock, if ruling on the side of the family is Default No. 1(as opposed to looking for the truth and ruling as such) with the coroner, does that not make it easier for said family to commit insurance fraud, given that many policies have suicide clauses in them?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Whitewing said:
Oldtimer said:
Whitewing said:
If you're trying to insult Soap, maybe he deserved and needed the drought-relief funds?

I'd certainly rather see someone take advantage of an insurance program they helped fund with their tax dollars than see a coroner help a family possibly commit insurance fraud by ruling that a victim's death was accidental when there were strong suspicions otherwise.

And you LIE- because you know that was never said...

Show me where I lied then.

Because that was never said...Nobody ever said anything about any coroner helping commit insurance fraud.... Fraud was never the issue...
I said I saw coroners rule accidental on cases where often it could easily be suicide (gun deaths, motor vehicle deaths, a couple of carbon monoxide)- and even many friends/relatives thought it possible- but there was no evidence to prove it... Many times these deaths were forensic autopsied and investigated by the State Medical Examiner- who also was unable to find any solid evidence to go either which way.... And suspicions don't hold up in court....

A drunk driver who has been suffering from depression for sometime takes on a bridge- or a semi head on--- its pretty hard to tell what they were thinking unless they left a note or told someone that's what they were going to do.. (And I saw those type too- that were ruled suicide. )

I know of only one or two where suicide/accident cause of death mattered as for insurance- and in both those the insurance companies investigated- and had the option of challenging the final decision- but did not...
 

Whitewing

Well-known member
I'm sure many suicides were ruled accidentals to spare the families both guilt and anquish...

So you were sure then, but not now? Again, I ask, if many suicides were ruled accidentals to spare the families both guilt and anguish .... YOUR WORDS, NOT MINE....would that not help a family collect insurance benefits where possibly none were legally owed?

Just answer the question.
 

loomixguy

Well-known member
Don't hold yer breath waiting for OD to answer. He needs to get the feeling back in his face after that latest bitchslap! 8) :!:
 

Steve

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Steve said:
fixed,.. sarcasm removed,..

Whitewing said:
Just because Congress authorizes an expenditure, the King has to spend the money? One would think he could show some leadership and in these tough times cut back on such un-important trips as golfing with Tiger Woods.....but then, that would require ethics and a sense of humility.

Fat chance of something like that happening, in other words.

:agree: :clap:

Probably the same reason some farmers and ranchers take the government handouts when offered to them- and then either deny it- or when caught say they will give it back or never sin again :roll: :wink: :lol:

While some use ag programs like a piggy bank.. most don't.. to compare them to Obama's lavish spending habits is twisted..

so Obama maxing out the federal budget and going on million dollar golf trips is "equal" to saving the family farm...

how can you equate Michelle and entourage going to a pricey resort costing millions to a farmer getting crop insurance?

seems one is an extravagant luxury,.. the other is an insurance that most bought just in case...

if I was given the choice of defunding one,.. the Obama's would be taking a taxi *... before someone was losing the family farm or ranch over one bad year...







* I would have said bus,.. but some liberal might construe that as racist..
 

Traveler

Well-known member
I think Obama is sort of getting the short end of the stick. He is the chosen one, the messiah, and you all are supposed to tythe to him. Get your priorities in line. :wink:
 

Steve

Well-known member
I was taught tithing is ten percent.. and you giving started above that...

Traveler said:
I think Obama is sort of getting the short end of the stick. He is the chosen one, the messiah, and you all are supposed to tythe to him. Get your priorities in line. :wink:



if that is the case..then most of US working are already giving to much...
 

Traveler

Well-known member
Steve said:
I was taught tithing is ten percent.. and you giving started above that...

Traveler said:
I think Obama is sort of getting the short end of the stick. He is the chosen one, the messiah, and you all are supposed to tythe to him. Get your priorities in line. :wink:



if that is the case..then most of US working are already giving to much...

Oh hell, shouldn't 10% go for just his extravagance? I didn't mean the whole government. :lol:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
O'Reilly slams Bachmann for 'trivial' criticisms of President Obama


By DYLAN BYERS |
3/20/13 10:13 PM EDT


In a rare attack on a fellow conservative, Fox News host Bill O'Reilly tonight criticized Rep. Michelle Bachmann for "playing small ball" in her recent attack on the perks President Barack Obama enjoyed in the White House.


At last week's Conservative Political Action Conference, Bachmann had criticized Obama for using tax payer money to fund "a lifestyle of excess" -- including "five chefs on Air Force One... two projectionists who operate the White House movie theater... and someone to walk the President's dog." When asked about those criticisms by CNN's Dana Bash -- who pointed out that President Obama did not have a dog-walker -- Rep. Bachmann dodged the questions and spoke instead about the attacks in Benghazi, Libya.

O'Reilly said Obama was "entitled to protection, convenience and comfort" and that Bachmann was engaged in "a trivial pursuit."

"We wanted to ask Congresswoman Bachmann about the fracas, but she didn't want to talk about it, even though this program has been fair to her always. So we did ask her spokesman, Da Kotman, if we could call him about questions, the congressman's analysis, after we checked it out. He said, 'Don't.' Don't call him," O'Reilly said on tonight's program. "He referred us to a book called 'Presidential Perks Gone Royal.' Apparently that's a book Ms. Bachmann used for her comments about the president's lifestyle."

"Now, this would be much ado about nothing, if not for the fact that trivial attacks on President Obama are obscuring serious problems in this country," O'Reilly continued. "Does the president live well in the White House? Yes he does. Is there money wasted there? You bet there is. But every other president in history has lived in comfort, and it looks like President Bush the younger had a bigger White House budget than Barack Obama does."

"This is a trivial pursuit, and Michelle Bachmann made a mistake pursuing it," O'Reilly said. "With the nation now owing close to $17 trillion, I wish the president were more like Pope Francis, who as a cardinal in Argentina rejected all the lavish perks. But Mr. Obama is entitled to protection, convenience, and comfort as he runs the nation."

"Congresswoman Bachmann and all opponents of Mr. Obama should zero-in on what's really important: the president's failure to deal with out of control spending, and his core belief that America's not a fair country," he continued. "That's what's important, not who is walking the presidential dog. By the way, that's the gardener who walks the dog -- the gardener has always walked the dogs -- and how many movies the Obama watched. Jimmy Carter watched 300 movies -- well, that might have been why things were so out of control back then."

"Now, it's long past time for partisans on both the right and the left to cut the nonsense and look at things clearly," he continued. "We've got huge problems in America, and the president is directly responsible for some of those problems. He's not willing to compromise, he doesn't see the big economic picture, and he's way too far left for a commander-in-chief. That's what we should be focusing on."

In conclusion, O'Reilly said that "Michelle Bachmann is playing small ball with the president, can't back up her criticism, and actually trivializes a huge problem: irresponsible spending by the federal government. Two words: Not good."

This sounds like our own Tammy Faye with her normal being wrong during her whining about Obama...I wonder what old O'Reilly would think of this bunch of trivial pursuiters ... :???:
 

Steve

Well-known member
If you don't start cutting somewhere nothing will ever get cut...



and waste should be cut first in every program... once that is eliminated,

then it is only fair that cuts are made and "everyone" should end up getting less...

we are all seeing the effect of the cuts in one form or another.. some more then others.. but over all most cuts seem to be effecting the poor and middle class workers ... and most are willing to share those cuts.. and make those sacrifices..

but in Obama's world.. there are no cuts,.. no sacrifice..

is that really fair?
 

Tam

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
O'Reilly slams Bachmann for 'trivial' criticisms of President Obama


By DYLAN BYERS |
3/20/13 10:13 PM EDT


In a rare attack on a fellow conservative, Fox News host Bill O'Reilly tonight criticized Rep. Michelle Bachmann for "playing small ball" in her recent attack on the perks President Barack Obama enjoyed in the White House.


At last week's Conservative Political Action Conference, Bachmann had criticized Obama for using tax payer money to fund "a lifestyle of excess" -- including "five chefs on Air Force One... two projectionists who operate the White House movie theater... and someone to walk the President's dog." When asked about those criticisms by CNN's Dana Bash -- who pointed out that President Obama did not have a dog-walker -- Rep. Bachmann dodged the questions and spoke instead about the attacks in Benghazi, Libya.

O'Reilly said Obama was "entitled to protection, convenience and comfort" and that Bachmann was engaged in "a trivial pursuit."

"We wanted to ask Congresswoman Bachmann about the fracas, but she didn't want to talk about it, even though this program has been fair to her always. So we did ask her spokesman, Da Kotman, if we could call him about questions, the congressman's analysis, after we checked it out. He said, 'Don't.' Don't call him," O'Reilly said on tonight's program. "He referred us to a book called 'Presidential Perks Gone Royal.' Apparently that's a book Ms. Bachmann used for her comments about the president's lifestyle."

"Now, this would be much ado about nothing, if not for the fact that trivial attacks on President Obama are obscuring serious problems in this country," O'Reilly continued. "Does the president live well in the White House? Yes he does. Is there money wasted there? You bet there is. But every other president in history has lived in comfort, and it looks like President Bush the younger had a bigger White House budget than Barack Obama does."

"This is a trivial pursuit, and Michelle Bachmann made a mistake pursuing it," O'Reilly said. "With the nation now owing close to $17 trillion, I wish the president were more like Pope Francis, who as a cardinal in Argentina rejected all the lavish perks. But Mr. Obama is entitled to protection, convenience, and comfort as he runs the nation."

"Congresswoman Bachmann and all opponents of Mr. Obama should zero-in on what's really important: the president's failure to deal with out of control spending, and his core belief that America's not a fair country," he continued. "That's what's important, not who is walking the presidential dog. By the way, that's the gardener who walks the dog -- the gardener has always walked the dogs -- and how many movies the Obama watched. Jimmy Carter watched 300 movies -- well, that might have been why things were so out of control back then."

"Now, it's long past time for partisans on both the right and the left to cut the nonsense and look at things clearly," he continued. "We've got huge problems in America, and the president is directly responsible for some of those problems. He's not willing to compromise, he doesn't see the big economic picture, and he's way too far left for a commander-in-chief. That's what we should be focusing on."

In conclusion, O'Reilly said that "Michelle Bachmann is playing small ball with the president, can't back up her criticism, and actually trivializes a huge problem: irresponsible spending by the federal government. Two words: Not good."

This sounds like our own Tammy Faye with her normal being wrong during her whining about Obama...I wonder what old O'Reilly would think of this bunch of trivial pursuiters ... :???:

The archives will show the only one on here that whines and can't back up their claims is YOU OLDTIMER. There are very few that still look to you for anything considered CREDIBLE, as OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN you are asked to provide proof of your claims and nothing. If you are asked for proof, you post a typical attack then hide out on another thread hoping your latest comment disappears. So climb back in that bottle you hold so dear and listen to the little voices in your head as they are the only ones still taking you seriously. :roll:
 

backhoeboogie

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
O'Reilly slams Bachmann for 'trivial' criticisms of President Obama


By DYLAN BYERS |
3/20/13 10:13 PM EDT


In a rare attack on a fellow conservative, Fox News host Bill O'Reilly tonight criticized Rep. Michelle Bachmann for "playing small ball" in her recent attack on the perks President Barack Obama enjoyed in the White House.


At last week's Conservative Political Action Conference, Bachmann had criticized Obama for using tax payer money to fund "a lifestyle of excess" -- including "five chefs on Air Force One... two projectionists who operate the White House movie theater... and someone to walk the President's dog." When asked about those criticisms by CNN's Dana Bash -- who pointed out that President Obama did not have a dog-walker -- Rep. Bachmann dodged the questions and spoke instead about the attacks in Benghazi, Libya.

O'Reilly said Obama was "entitled to protection, convenience and comfort" and that Bachmann was engaged in "a trivial pursuit."

"We wanted to ask Congresswoman Bachmann about the fracas, but she didn't want to talk about it, even though this program has been fair to her always. So we did ask her spokesman, Da Kotman, if we could call him about questions, the congressman's analysis, after we checked it out. He said, 'Don't.' Don't call him," O'Reilly said on tonight's program. "He referred us to a book called 'Presidential Perks Gone Royal.' Apparently that's a book Ms. Bachmann used for her comments about the president's lifestyle."

"Now, this would be much ado about nothing, if not for the fact that trivial attacks on President Obama are obscuring serious problems in this country," O'Reilly continued. "Does the president live well in the White House? Yes he does. Is there money wasted there? You bet there is. But every other president in history has lived in comfort, and it looks like President Bush the younger had a bigger White House budget than Barack Obama does."

"This is a trivial pursuit, and Michelle Bachmann made a mistake pursuing it," O'Reilly said. "With the nation now owing close to $17 trillion, I wish the president were more like Pope Francis, who as a cardinal in Argentina rejected all the lavish perks. But Mr. Obama is entitled to protection, convenience, and comfort as he runs the nation."

"Congresswoman Bachmann and all opponents of Mr. Obama should zero-in on what's really important: the president's failure to deal with out of control spending, and his core belief that America's not a fair country," he continued. "That's what's important, not who is walking the presidential dog. By the way, that's the gardener who walks the dog -- the gardener has always walked the dogs -- and how many movies the Obama watched. Jimmy Carter watched 300 movies -- well, that might have been why things were so out of control back then."

"Now, it's long past time for partisans on both the right and the left to cut the nonsense and look at things clearly," he continued. "We've got huge problems in America, and the president is directly responsible for some of those problems. He's not willing to compromise, he doesn't see the big economic picture, and he's way too far left for a commander-in-chief. That's what we should be focusing on."

In conclusion, O'Reilly said that "Michelle Bachmann is playing small ball with the president, can't back up her criticism, and actually trivializes a huge problem: irresponsible spending by the federal government. Two words: Not good."

This sounds like our own Tammy Faye with her normal being wrong during her whining about Obama...I wonder what old O'Reilly would think of this bunch of trivial pursuiters ... :???:

time to put on the hip boots. It has gone from getting deep in here to getting really deep.
 

Latest posts

Top