created by: Rick | Jun 8, 2010

Arkansas

5,828 votes

Did you vote today?

Click on an option to vote

  • Yes
  • No
  • Other (explain below)
Comments
18,181 - 18,200 of 29,088 Comments Last updated 1 hr ago
Richard Dickenson

West Helena, AR

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#19269
Dec 12, 2012
 
BARNEYII wrote:
<quoted text>
Read it again D.A, that said it was printed in the WSJ, I did not say it came from The WSJ.
I wish yall would stop this dumb azz thread!!! Azz Holes!! Read your bibles instead or come to my church at the corner of 5th. and Baldwin!!!!!!
guest

Blytheville, AR

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#19270
Dec 12, 2012
 

Judged:

4

4

4

BARNEYII wrote:
<quoted text>
Read it again D.A, that said it was printed in the WSJ, I did not say it came from The WSJ.
The WSJ article didn't say anything about FOX news. Your newscorpse article is the one that is falsely trying to connect the two. It's what liberals have to do since the truth always destroys your argument. Just look at the coverage of the violence at the Michigan state capitol from the main stream outlets who left out all of the violence perpetrated by the union thugs. For every contributor on the network that has said Rice misled the nation, they have had a contributor say she didn't. Wow, imagine that, reporting two sides of the story. It's a method that is completely foreign you and others on the far left. Again, you can either watch what FOX News actually reports or you can believe what liberal hate sites claim is said on the network. Thanks again for proving my point.
tex

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#19272
Dec 12, 2012
 
No

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#19273
Dec 12, 2012
 
guest wrote:
<quoted text> http://www.newscorpse.com/ncWP/...
Like I said, you can either watch FOX or listen to lies that liberal hate sites say is on FOX.
You have proven once again that you are both a sucker and a liar.
However if you would care to read that piece in the WSJ he was referring to, you will find it in the December 4, 2012, U.S. version titled,

Bureaucratic Battle Blunted Libya Attack 'Talking Points'

By SIOBHAN GORMAN and ADAM ENTOUS


Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#19274
Dec 12, 2012
 
guest wrote:
<quoted text>The WSJ article didn't say anything about FOX news. Your newscorpse article is the one that is falsely trying to connect the two. It's what liberals have to do since the truth always destroys your argument. Just look at the coverage of the violence at the Michigan state capitol from the main stream outlets who left out all of the violence perpetrated by the union thugs. For every contributor on the network that has said Rice misled the nation, they have had a contributor say she didn't. Wow, imagine that, reporting two sides of the story. It's a method that is completely foreign you and others on the far left. Again, you can either watch what FOX News actually reports or you can believe what liberal hate sites claim is said on the network. Thanks again for proving my point.
"The WSJ article didn't say anything about FOX news"

At a boy, you got that part correct, neither the article nor I said they did.

Now I will explain to you what it did mean.

The WSJ run a piece that completely discredits what another Murdoch company (Fox News) had been reporting.

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#19275
Dec 12, 2012
 
guest wrote:
<quoted text>The WSJ article didn't say anything about FOX news. Your newscorpse article is the one that is falsely trying to connect the two. It's what liberals have to do since the truth always destroys your argument. Just look at the coverage of the violence at the Michigan state capitol from the main stream outlets who left out all of the violence perpetrated by the union thugs. For every contributor on the network that has said Rice misled the nation, they have had a contributor say she didn't. Wow, imagine that, reporting two sides of the story. It's a method that is completely foreign you and others on the far left. Again, you can either watch what FOX News actually reports or you can believe what liberal hate sites claim is said on the network. Thanks again for proving my point.
"For every contributor on the network that has said Rice misled the nation, they have had a contributor say she didn't. Wow, imagine that, reporting two sides of the story"

What you had was two sides expressing their opinions''''''


WTF has the opinion from either side have to do with facts on the matter?

According to the WSJ, Fox did not let facts stand in their way on reporting on Benghazi.

dont know nothin

Medford, OR

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#19276
Dec 12, 2012
 
guest wrote:
<quoted text>The WSJ article didn't say anything about FOX news. Your newscorpse article is the one that is falsely trying to connect the two. It's what liberals have to do since the truth always destroys your argument. Just look at the coverage of the violence at the Michigan state capitol from the main stream outlets who left out all of the violence perpetrated by the union thugs. For every contributor on the network that has said Rice misled the nation, they have had a contributor say she didn't. Wow, imagine that, reporting two sides of the story. It's a method that is completely foreign you and others on the far left. Again, you can either watch what FOX News actually reports or you can believe what liberal hate sites claim is said on the network. Thanks again for proving my point.
lol "Media watchdog Media Matters for America has cataloged what it called the ten most "egregious examples" of "distortion" by both Fox News and its TV personalities.[64] Criticism includes several examples of cropping quotes from President Obama, Vice President Biden and Vice President Gore so they appear out of context, using image-manipulation software to edit the appearance of reporters from The New York Times and using footage from other events during a report on the November 5 Tea Party rally in Washington, D.C.; Media Matters said the intention of Fox News was to make it appear as if a larger number of protesters attended the event.[65] The group also called attention to the December 4 edition of Fox and Friends, accusing the program of misleading its viewers with a "questionable graphic" showing the result of a Rasmussen Reports climate-change poll totaling 120 percent.[66]
In November 2009 Fox News anchor Gregg Jarrett told viewers that a Sarah Palin book signing in Grand Rapids, Michigan had a massive turnout, showing footage of Palin with a large crowd. Jarrett stated that the former Republican vice-presidential candidate is "continuing to draw huge crowds while she's promoting her brand-new book", adding that the images being shown were "some of the pictures just coming in to us.... The lines earlier had formed this morning".[67] The video was actually taken from a 2008 McCain-Palin campaign rally. Fox senior vice president for news Michael Clemente issued a statement saying, "This was a production error in which the copy editor changed a script and didn't alert the control room to update the video".[67] Fox offered an on-air apology the following day during the same "Happening Now" segment, expressing regrets for what it described as a "video error" with no intent to mislead.[68] Fox also apologized for fabricated quotes attributed to John Kerry in an article on its website during the 2004 presidential campaign,[69] stating that the piece was a joke which accidentally appeared on the website.[70]"
is this the news you watch? lol the same one that went to court? yah that's a good source of information..and you say violence at michigan state capitol?... yah more like corrupt politicians.. the state voted down a bill that contained the same union busting tactics... now the republican controlled governor and legislature is running through a bill and are going to court for countradicting the state sunshine law... with gerrymandered districts picked by republicans after the census.. a vast majority of the state does not want right to work but that's what their gonna shove through spite the popular vote..i saw people losing rights today and what you saw were union thugs ..what kind of person are you...
Reality Check

Sherwood, AR

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#19277
Dec 12, 2012
 
dont know nothin wrote:
<quoted text>um prove it in factual evidence what you are saying .. it's easy to say somethig.. it'sanother to back it up... nothing you say or have pposted on here has had any factual credability... i have posted links or quotes from my position..there is nothing in the bill that says pre existing conditions will have to pay extra to have health insurance ... NOWHERE.... Discrimination is the prejudicial or distinguishing treatment of an individual based on their actual or perceived membership in a certain group or category, such as their race, gender, sexual orientation, ethnicity, national origin, or religion... so yah i know wat discrimination is i do not need your definition... and if you work for a company and decide not to use their insurance because you can find it cheaper somewhere else then how are they gonna "tax" your check?..anyways ... what you have said is not going to happen so there is actually no argument to be made here... taking what fox and friends and your coworkers tell you is not a good way to recieve information on politics...yah at least or the next year i don't now how long their gonna come to an agreement on the taxes .. i hope it's the standard for at least the next 4 but i'm not the one involved in the negotiations... so i see you also .. even though this is not going to happen ... stated that the companies would pass the fees on.. well guess what blame the company you work for .. if thy can't take a hit after all the money they made before the crash and continued tomake after we bailed some of them out and are continuing to make due to the tax breaks.. they should feel ashamed of themselves for passing these so called taxs onto the employee instead of taking initiative to give alittle and reinvest... but it's not going to happen and as for me healthcare exchange starts in 13 not 14 so i gueesss i get an early start... lol get real and get facts or get out
Not my definition of discrimination. It was wikipedia's. I found a host of sites that reported the $63 tax/fee. The one you probably consider "credible" is The Huffington Post's website. If you go to healthcare.gov you can read the entire bill. Go down to page 226 and read the section REINSURANCE AND RISK ADJUSTMENT. It outlines this tax/fee and says the tax is to be determined. The section tells how people will have to pay for reinsurance which is insurance that is purchased by an insurance company (the "ceding company" or "cedant" or "cedent" under the arrangement) from one or more other insurance companies (the "reinsurer") as a means of risk management, sometimes in practice including tax mitigation and other reasons. Maybe you should rethink the fact that you would be more than happy to have an argument on the content of Obamacare. Or at least don't be so careless in making claims of your knowledge in a given subject which you clearly don't have in this case. I told you before I own the company I work for. Are you really making the argument that if you blame the company you work for that the tax/fee doesn't exist? Your argumet that a company should be able to eat that kind of tax shows how very little you know about business.
Baseball

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#19278
Dec 12, 2012
 
Fox News is the worst example of onesided broadcasting in journalism history! MSNBC goes to the extreme on the other side.
Curmudgeon

Horseshoe Bend, AR

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#19279
Dec 12, 2012
 

Judged:

1

George Bush, Queen Elizabeth, and Vladimir Putin all die and go to hell. While there, they spy a red phone and ask what the phone is for.
The devil tells them it is for calling back to Earth.
Putin asks to call Russia and talks for 5 minutes. When he is finished the devil informs him that the cost is a million dollars, so Putin writes him a check.
Next Queen Elizabeth calls England and talks for 30 minutes. When she is finished the devil informs her that the cost is 6 million dollars, so she writes him a check.
Finally George Bush gets his turn and talks for 4 hours. When he is finished the devil informs him that the cost is $5.00.
When Putin hears this he goes ballistic and asks the devil why Bush got to call the USA so cheaply.
The devil smiles and replies, " Since Obama took over, the USA has gone to hell, so it's a local call."
dont know nothin

Medford, OR

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#19280
Dec 13, 2012
 
Baseball wrote:
Fox News is the worst example of onesided broadcasting in journalism history! MSNBC goes to the extreme on the other side.
lol at least msnbc has not went to court for broadcasting lies!
dont know nothin

Medford, OR

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#19281
Dec 13, 2012
 
Reality Check wrote:
<quoted text>
Not my definition of discrimination. It was wikipedia's. I found a host of sites that reported the $63 tax/fee. The one you probably consider "credible" is The Huffington Post's website. If you go to healthcare.gov you can read the entire bill. Go down to page 226 and read the section REINSURANCE AND RISK ADJUSTMENT. It outlines this tax/fee and says the tax is to be determined. The section tells how people will have to pay for reinsurance which is insurance that is purchased by an insurance company (the "ceding company" or "cedant" or "cedent" under the arrangement) from one or more other insurance companies (the "reinsurer") as a means of risk management, sometimes in practice including tax mitigation and other reasons. Maybe you should rethink the fact that you would be more than happy to have an argument on the content of Obamacare. Or at least don't be so careless in making claims of your knowledge in a given subject which you clearly don't have in this case. I told you before I own the company I work for. Are you really making the argument that if you blame the company you work for that the tax/fee doesn't exist? Your argumet that a company should be able to eat that kind of tax shows how very little you know about business.
PART V—REINSURANCE AND RISK ADJUSTMENT
11 SEC. 1341. TRANSITIONAL REINSURANCE PROGRAM FOR IN12
DIVIDUAL AND SMALL GROUP MARKETS IN
13 EACH STATE.
14 (a) IN GENERAL.—Each State shall, not later than
15 January 1, 2014—
16 (1) include in the Federal standards or State
17 law or regulation the State adopts and has in effect
18 under section 1321(b) the provisions described in sub19
section (b); and
20 (2) establish (or enter into a contract with) 1 or
21 more applicable reinsurance entities to carry out the
22 reinsurance program under this section.
23 (b) MODEL REGULATION.—
24 (1) IN GENERAL.—In establishing the Federal
25 standards under section 1321(a), the Secretary, in
227
HR 3590 EAS/PP
1 consultation with the National Association of Insur2
ance Commissioners (the ‘‘NAIC’’), shall include pro3
visions that enable States to establish and maintain
4 a program under which—
5 (A) health insurance issuers, and third
6 party administrators on behalf of group health
7 plans, are required to make payments to an ap8
plicable reinsurance entity for any plan year be9
ginning in the 3-year period beginning January
10 1, 2014 (as specified in paragraph (3); and
11 (B) the applicable reinsurance entity col12
lects payments under subparagraph (A) and uses
13 amounts so collected to make reinsurance pay14
ments to health insurance issuers described in
15 subparagraph (A) that cover high risk individ16
uals in the individual market (excluding grand17
fathered health plans) for any plan year begin18
ning in such 3-year period.
19 (2) HIGH-RISK INDIVIDUAL; PAYMENT
20 AMOUNTS.—The Secretary shall include the following
21 in the provisions under paragraph (1):
22 (A) DETERMINATION OF HIGH-RISK INDI23
VIDUALS.—The method by which individuals will
24 be identified as high risk individuals for pur25
poses of the reinsurance program established
228
HR 3590 EAS/PP
1 under this section. Such method shall provide for
2 identification of individuals as high-risk indi3
viduals on the basis of—
4 (i) a list of at least 50 but not more
5 than 100 medical conditions that are iden6
tified as high-risk conditions and that may
7 be based on the identification of diagnostic
8 and procedure codes that are indicative of
9 individuals with pre-existing, high-risk con10
ditions; or
11 (ii) any other comparable objective
12 method of identification recommended by
13 the American Academy of Actuaries.
14 (B) PAYMENT AMOUNT.—The formula for
15 determining the amount of payments that will be
16 paid to health insurance issuers described in
17 paragraph (1)(A) that insure high-risk individ18
uals.
there is no fee...don't care if you own your own business and your definition is not wikipedias
dont know nothin

Medford, OR

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#19282
Dec 13, 2012
 
Reality Check wrote:
<quoted text>
Not my definition of discrimination. It was wikipedia's. I found a host of sites that reported the $63 tax/fee. The one you probably consider "credible" is The Huffington Post's website. If you go to healthcare.gov you can read the entire bill. Go down to page 226 and read the section REINSURANCE AND RISK ADJUSTMENT. It outlines this tax/fee and says the tax is to be determined. The section tells how people will have to pay for reinsurance which is insurance that is purchased by an insurance company (the "ceding company" or "cedant" or "cedent" under the arrangement) from one or more other insurance companies (the "reinsurer") as a means of risk management, sometimes in practice including tax mitigation and other reasons. Maybe you should rethink the fact that you would be more than happy to have an argument on the content of Obamacare. Or at least don't be so careless in making claims of your knowledge in a given subject which you clearly don't have in this case. I told you before I own the company I work for. Are you really making the argument that if you blame the company you work for that the tax/fee doesn't exist? Your argumet that a company should be able to eat that kind of tax shows how very little you know about business.
your definition does not look like mine and that is my source for this definition so do not degrade wikipedias credibility with conservapedias... i've read the law and i've read that section and nowhere does it say a fee is paid by indviduals .. i've tried posting the law o nhere and it would not take but it is on healthcare.gov as you have stated like i posted 10 posts back..i do know that it does not take a genius to own and run a business so please don't act like one when you cannot understand the concept of the law which is going to be implemented and i do know enough about business to know that if you keep thinking the way you do .. you will not be in business very long .. and you are still trying to prove a one sided fear mongoring storry produced by fox news and right wing media.. so do not continue to say i am biased in my posts.. i posts only the facts...and did you read the whole law? did you see where small businesses will be recieving tax credits when such law is implemented?... and i do know what i am talking about far more than some ignorant so called independant who continues to try and prove lies with facts and comes back to bite them .. "please continue governor" LOL if you want to openly make yourself look as bad as your so called "factual" evidence then go ahead be my guest... your knowledge in business is why some companies file for bankruptcy and have to be bailed out... because it's owners like you that THINK they know what their talking about when in all reality couldn't be further from truth...so maybe you should comprehend what you read and your business i'm sure would be far more successful than it currently is.
Redd

Little Rock, AR

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#19284
Dec 13, 2012
 
Captain Obvious wrote:
<quoted text>Barney is a confirmed LIAR. She has absolutely zero credibility.
And of course you do?

I love it how some of you think by referring to a opposing poster as feminine somehow belittles them. Says a lot.
Redd

Little Rock, AR

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#19285
Dec 13, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

Curmudgeon wrote:
George Bush, Queen Elizabeth, and Vladimir Putin all die and go to hell. While there, they spy a red phone and ask what the phone is for.
The devil tells them it is for calling back to Earth.
Putin asks to call Russia and talks for 5 minutes. When he is finished the devil informs him that the cost is a million dollars, so Putin writes him a check.
Next Queen Elizabeth calls England and talks for 30 minutes. When she is finished the devil informs her that the cost is 6 million dollars, so she writes him a check.
Finally George Bush gets his turn and talks for 4 hours. When he is finished the devil informs him that the cost is $5.00.
When Putin hears this he goes ballistic and asks the devil why Bush got to call the USA so cheaply.
The devil smiles and replies, " Since Obama took over, the USA has gone to hell, so it's a local call."
Yep, England and Russia are much better places to raise a family and make a living than the US...and I hear there's transportation available to each of those countries every day....for those interested.
Greene

Blytheville, AR

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#19286
Dec 13, 2012
 
Redd wrote:
<quoted text>
And of course you do?
I love it how some of you think by referring to a opposing poster as feminine somehow belittles them. Says a lot.
I know what you mean, it doesn't belittle Barney, he likes to be referred to as a woman.
Redd

Little Rock, AR

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#19287
Dec 13, 2012
 
Greene wrote:
<quoted text>
I know what you mean, it doesn't belittle Barney, he likes to be referred to as a woman.
Get used to this, Hillary will be your President come 2016, shoulda been in 2008.
Greene

Blytheville, AR

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#19288
Dec 13, 2012
 
Redd wrote:
<quoted text>
Get used to this, Hillary will be your President come 2016, shoulda been in 2008.
I would have voted for her in'08
Reality Check

Sherwood, AR

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#19289
Dec 13, 2012
 
dont know nothin wrote:
<quoted text>PART V—REINSURANCE AND RISK ADJUSTMENT
11 SEC. 1341. TRANSITIONAL REINSURANCE PROGRAM FOR IN12
DIVIDUAL AND SMALL GROUP MARKETS IN
13 EACH STATE.
14 (a) IN GENERAL.—Each State shall, not later than
15 January 1, 2014—
16 (1) include in the Federal standards or State
17 law or regulation the State adopts and has in effect
18 under section 1321(b) the provisions described in sub19
section (b); and
20 (2) establish (or enter into a contract with) 1 or
21 more applicable reinsurance entities to carry out the
22 reinsurance program under this section.
23 (b) MODEL REGULATION.—
24 (1) IN GENERAL.—In establishing the Federal
25 standards under section 1321(a), the Secretary, in
227
HR 3590 EAS/PP
1 consultation with the National Association of Insur2
ance Commissioners (the ‘‘NAIC’’), shall include pro3
visions that enable States to establish and maintain
4 a program under which—
5 (A) health insurance issuers, and third
6 party administrators on behalf of group health
7 plans, are required to make payments to an ap8
plicable reinsurance entity for any plan year be9
ginning in the 3-year period beginning January
10 1, 2014 (as specified in paragraph (3); and
11 (B) the applicable reinsurance entity col12
lects payments under subparagraph (A) and uses
13 amounts so collected to make reinsurance pay14
ments to health insurance issuers described in
15 subparagraph (A) that cover high risk individ16
uals in the individual market (excluding grand17
fathered health plans) for any plan year begin18
ning in such 3-year period.
19 (2) HIGH-RISK INDIVIDUAL; PAYMENT
20 AMOUNTS.—The Secretary shall include the following
21 in the provisions under paragraph (1):
22 (A) DETERMINATION OF HIGH-RISK INDI23
VIDUALS.—The method by which individuals will
24 be identified as high risk individuals for pur25
poses of the reinsurance program established
228
HR 3590 EAS/PP
1 under this section. Such method shall provide for
2 identification of individuals as high-risk indi3
viduals on the basis of—
4 (i) a list of at least 50 but not more
5 than 100 medical conditions that are iden6
tified as high-risk conditions and that may
7 be based on the identification of diagnostic
8 and procedure codes that are indicative of
9 individuals with pre-existing, high-risk con10
ditions; or
11 (ii) any other comparable objective
12 method of identification recommended by
13 the American Academy of Actuaries.
14 (B) PAYMENT AMOUNT.—The formula for
15 determining the amount of payments that will be
16 paid to health insurance issuers described in
17 paragraph (1)(A) that insure high-risk individ18
uals.
there is no fee...don't care if you own your own business and your definition is not wikipedias
14 (B) PAYMENT AMOUNT.—The formula for
15 determining the amount of payments that will be
16 paid to health insurance issuers described in
17 paragraph (1)(A) that insure high-risk individ18
uals.
This came from the very post I am comenting on. The reinsurance is the fee. I know you don't care if I own my own company but at least post the facts when making an argument. You seem to be proud about your posts being factual and accurate. I was just pointing out another flaw in a long line of flaws your posts contain. Maybe you should quit saying that you are always factual. That way you will lose your credebility a little slower.
Doesnt know anytheither e

Jonesboro, AR

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#19290
Dec 13, 2012
 
Reality Check wrote:
<quoted text>
14 (B) PAYMENT AMOUNT.—The formula for
15 determining the amount of payments that will be
16 paid to health insurance issuers described in
17 paragraph (1)(A) that insure high-risk individ18
uals.
This came from the very post I am comenting on. The reinsurance is the fee. I know you don't care if I own my own company but at least post the facts when making an argument. You seem to be proud about your posts being factual and accurate. I was just pointing out another flaw in a long line of flaws your posts contain. Maybe you should quit saying that you are always factual. That way you will lose your credebility a little slower.
If he were to print facts, he couldn't make his point. Just wait til he starts using statistics.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Other Recent Pine Bluff Discussions

Search the Pine Bluff Forum:
Title Updated Last By Comments
AR More than 1,000 dead birds fall from sky in Ark (Jan '11) 3 hr whiskers 9,795
Needing friends 6 hr New girl in town 1
Adam Watson 6 hr Not surprised 5
Snitch Sun Duece 9
Arkansas Act 746 (Jan '14) Sun Rick 5
AR Exit polls: Boozman defeats 2-term incumbent Li... (Nov '10) Jul 26 Linda 828
Sheridan High School (Nov '11) Jul 26 16yrold 4
•••
•••
•••
•••

Pine Bluff Jobs

•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••

Pine Bluff People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Pine Bluff News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Pine Bluff
•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••