Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Off Topic  > Why can't we get our politician's to act in OUR best interest?      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 GreenThumbz18
Joined: 4/25/2012
Msg: 26
Why can't we get our politician's to act in OUR best interest?Page 2 of 4    (1, 2, 3, 4)
I guess our president really despises those awful one-percenters who are ripping off everybody else. Or does he? Does anybody think Obama acts in the best interest of the "other" three hundred millions of Americans?
They always say "Follow the money", and here's where it leads:
" President Obama has held 393 fundraisers in his six years in office
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/07/16/president-obama-has-held-393-fundraisers-in-his-six-years-in-office/

On Thursday morning, President Obama is off to a party fundraiser in New York. Next week, he’s flying to the west coast for another fundraiser with the Hollywood glitterati. When Obama was in Denver last week, he attended no less than four cash-gathering events in the space of 24 hours.

In his first term, Obama attended more fundraising events than any other president in recent history. According to author Brendan J. Doherty, from 2008 to 2012 Obama went to 321 events, compared to just 80 for Ronald Reagan. And, as the chart below shows, he’s done 72 events in his second term – 34 this year alone. So far, he’s ahead of the pace of George W. Bush, who had been to 30 events at this point in 2006. In his two presidential terms combined, Bush hosted 318 fundraisers. Obama has already smashed that number with 393 events to date.

Bill Clinton holds the record, however, having held 638 fundraising events in two terms. By this point in his second term, Clinton had hosted 127 fundraisers, meaning Obama has a ways to go to take the title as fundraiser-in-chief."

Yes, for only $32,000 and change, you can shake the President's hand, or maybe kiss his ring.
"President Obama’s Fundraising Scandal

In exchange for a check of up to $32,400, Hollywood Democrats will be able to hear President Obama speak later today at the Los Angeles home of Shonda Rhimes, the producer of the ABC show “Scandal.”

For Republicans, that constitutes an actual scandal. How dare he raise money instead of projecting American strength to Vladimir Putin?

“The last thing Americans want, with all that is going on in the world, is a president whose priority seems to be political fundraising,” said Kirsten Kukowski, the press secretary for the Republican National Committee.

As usual, though, they’ve latched on to the wrong scandal. The problem isn’t that the president is neglecting his duties, any more than are the many Republicans who spend every night courting big givers over cabernet and steak. It’s that the president has become an avid member of the money-at-all-costs club, abandoning a position he once held that unlimited money is poisoning the political system.

Last night Mr. Obama attended an event in Seattle for the Senate Majority PAC, a super PAC for Senate Democrats that is allowed to raise unlimited contributions. The dinner, at the home of the former chief executive of Costco, was listed on the president’s schedule as a “Senate Majority PAC roundtable,” but that’s just part of the silly farce that the White House employs when pretending that Mr. Obama isn’t really raising money.

When he appeared last week at a similar event for the House Majority PAC, at a private home on the Upper West Side of Manhattan, the group insisted that the event wasn’t a fundraiser because there were no tickets or cost of admission.

“The president is appearing at the event only as a featured speaker and special guest, and is not asking for funds or donations,” a PAC official said in a statement to the White House press pool.

But the PACs do ask the guests for money after the president leaves. Everyone understands how it works: You get to mingle with the president, and shake his hand, and then a bit later you bring out your checkbook and write some very big numbers. The Seattle dinner cost $25,000 a person, but no one was prevented from giving ten times as much.

Mr. Obama promised in early 2012 that he would not attend super PAC events, having earlier denounced the cascade of big money loosed by Citizens United and related court decisions. But later that year, he was persuaded that his presence was necessary to keep Democrats competitive with the far greater reserves of money on the Republican side. Now it’s becoming routine.

While on the West Coast, Mr. Obama will also raise money for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, and the fundraiser at Ms. Rhimes’s house will benefit the Democratic National Committee. (The latter group needs more money this year because the president recently signed an unfortunate bill ending public financing for the two conventions.) A $10,000 check will get you into Ms. Rhimes’s house and a photo with the president, according to an early version of the invitation obtained by the Sunlight Foundation; $20,000 gets all of the above plus dinner; and $32,400 gets name recognition on the final invitation.

Clearly, it’s now too much to expect Mr. Obama or any other Democrat to unilaterally end the abuse of big money in American politics. But there are several good bills pending in Congress that would reduce the influence of money on both parties. If Mr. Obama forcefully advocated their passage every time he raised money, he might have to do less of it."
http://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/07/23/president-obamas-fundraising-scandal/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0
 cotter
Joined: 10/17/2005
Msg: 27
view profile
History
Why can't we get our politician's to act in OUR best interest?
Posted: 7/25/2014 1:07:48 PM

In his two presidential terms combined, Bush hosted 318 fundraisers. Obama has already smashed that number with 393 events to date.
ROTFLMAO ...

Oh dear ... the things people come up with to complain about!

President Obama has to do more fundraising than the GOP folks ... it's not that easy to raise money when folks only have a few dollars to give. Democrats don't have millions to give in one big chunk like the Teabaggers and their brethren.

I wonder what the data shows on presidential time spent on vacations. I'm willing to bet Bush takes that cake.

At least while the president is out fundraising, he's also enlightening folks. What did Bush do for the people while he was on all his paid vacations?
 NotGorshkovAgain
Joined: 4/29/2009
Msg: 28
view profile
History
Why can't we get our politician's to act in OUR best interest?
Posted: 7/27/2014 10:56:22 AM

I wonder what the data shows on presidential time spent on vacations. I'm willing to bet Bush takes that cake.

I doubt it. I bet he doesn't even come in a close second to Reagan.
 kcycrs
Joined: 11/23/2006
Msg: 29
view profile
History
Why can't we get our politician's to act in OUR best interest?
Posted: 7/27/2014 11:16:02 AM
My question is why do you people spend so much time bashing the "other" party and playing the blame game rather than seeking a correct course of action? As long as the goal remains to get a candidate elected because he or she is a member of your party of choice very little true change will happen. And those changes will likely be repealed (or watered down) when the party in power is "overturned". I can't emphasis this enough: Stop kowtowing to political parties and THEIR interest. Because their true interest in just getting re-elected.
 Strings6
Joined: 7/14/2007
Msg: 30
view profile
History
Why can't we get our politician's to act in OUR best interest?
Posted: 8/2/2014 8:43:02 AM
Politicians act in the best intrest of themselves first and those like them second,people who work and play by the rules no longer matter,we are here to provide the labor and finances to support the lifestyles of the non productive and non contributing,we work they play,they want we pay.
 gtomustang
Joined: 6/16/2007
Msg: 31
Why can't we get our politician's to act in OUR best interest?
Posted: 8/2/2014 1:07:00 PM
according to factcheck.org:

Q: Has President Obama taken more vacation time than his predecessors?

A: According to one count, Presidents Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush spent more time on "vacation" during their first year than President Obama did. Presidents Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton spent less time on "vacation."



FULL ANSWER

President Obama has spent all or part of 26 days "on vacation" during his first year as president, according to CBS News White House Correspondent Mark Knoller.

Knoller, who has covered every president since Gerald Ford and is known for keeping detailed records on presidential travel, counts the following among President Obama’s "vacations" in 2009:

■A four-day holiday weekend in Chicago in February where the president played some basketball and treated First Lady Michelle Obama to a Valentine’s Day dinner date.
■An eight-day stay with his family at a rented house on Martha’s Vineyard in August.
■ A trip out west to the U.S. states of Montana, Wyoming, Colorado and Arizona that combined both business and pleasure. The president held town hall meetings on health care during the trip. And he went fly fishing and took trips to Yellowstone National Park and the Grand Canyon with his wife and two daughters.
■An 11-day stay in Hawaii where the president and his family celebrated Christmas and New Year’s Eve.
Some of the president’s recent predecessors, however, have spent more days — either entirely or partially — away from the White House "on vacation" during their first year in office.

President Reagan, in 1981, spent all or part of 42 days away from the White House "on vacation" at his home in Santa Barbara, Calif, according to Knoller. President Reagan and his wife, Nancy, also spent three or four days around New Year’s Day each year in Palm Springs, Calif., at the home of philanthropist Walter Annenberg. (In 1993 the late Mr. Annenberg founded the nonpartisan Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania, which is FactCheck.org’s parent organization.)

President George W. Bush spent even more time away from the presidential mansion in the nation’s capital than Reagan. Of the 77 total "vacation" trips the former president made to his Texas ranch while in office, nine of them — all or part of 69 days — came during his first year as president in 2001, according to Knoller.

Bush’s father, President George H.W. Bush, spent less time "on vacation" during his first year than his son, but spent more days than President Obama. According to travel records provided to FactCheck.org by the George Bush Presidential Library and Museum, the former president took six trips — spanning all or part of 40 days — to the Bush family compound in Kennebunkport, Maine, in 1989. The archivist at Bush’s presidential library told us she didn’t have a list of all vacations but did have the Kennebunkport visits.

But at least two recent presidents — by Knoller’s count — took less "vacation" time during their first year than President Obama — Presidents Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton.

According to Knoller, Carter spent just 19 days "on vacation" in 1977. Most of that time, Knoller says, the former president spent at his home in Plains, Ga. President Clinton took all or part of 174 days of vacation during his eight years as president — most of that "vacation" time was during the summer, according to Knoller. But Knoller says Clinton only took 21 "vacation" days during his first year.

It’s worth mentioning that President Obama has also made 11 trips — all or part of 27 days — to Camp David, the presidential retreat in Frederick County, Md. Knoller, however, says he doesn’t count trips to Camp David as part of any presidents’ "vacation" time. But for the sake of comparison, President George W. Bush, made more trips to that country residence than Obama. According to Knoller, Bush made 25 trips — a total of 78 days — to Camp David in 2001.

But no matter how much time a president actually spends away from the official residence at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave., Knoller says that the commander in chief is never really off the clock. "I have long held the view that a US president is never really on vacation," Knoller told FactCheck.org in an e-mail. "The job – and its awesome powers and responsibilities – is his wherever he is and whatever he’s doing."

–D’Angelo Gore

Sources
Knoller, Mark. CBS News White House Correspondent, Radio. E-mail sent to FactCheck.org. 6 Jan 2010.

Knoller, Mark. "Can a President Really Take a Vacation?" CBS News "Political HotSheet" Blog. 24 Dec 2009.

Knoller, Mark. "Obama Seeks Rest on Foray Out West." CBS News "Political HotSheet" Blog. 14 Aug 2009.

Hendler, Clint. "Mark Knoller Knows." Columbia Journalism Review. 9 Dec 2009.

Elliott, Phillip. "Obama Returns Home for First Time as President." Associated Press. 13 Feb 2009.

Associated Press. "Obama family vacationing in Martha’s Vineyard." MSNBC.com. 23 Aug 2009.

Nakaso, Dan. "President Obama and his family leave Isles after Hawaii vacation." Honolulu Advertiser. 4 Jan 2010.
 John255317
Joined: 12/28/2012
Msg: 32
Why can't we get our politician's to act in OUR best interest?
Posted: 8/2/2014 4:02:44 PM
OP, there are people that, before they get elected, are sincere and really want to better our society. This is Democrats, Republicans, Independents etc. The problem is they change once they are elected. Their "beliefs" are not theirs for the most part. With lobbyists and other powerful voices, they are easily brainwashed and tow that line of thinking. For so many, they do not represent us anymore. We are the "little people", what was once important to many of them is now only important if it is in line with the powerful people above them. We are insignificant so many times. We have proof right now with our current leader in the White House and we have others also who are proving this true every day. This is not only pertaining to one political party. One example is the one below that really shows how we are not "significant", how this leader(Pelosi) demonstrated on Friday. It's true and very sad.
__________________________________________________________________________________
Pelosi confronts GOP congressman in rancorous House debate


Published August 02, 2014
·FoxNews.com

A heated debate late Friday over security at the southern U.S. border led to a rancorous confrontation on the House floor between House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and Rep. Tom Marino, R-Pa.

The dustup began when Marino accused Democrats of neglecting the immigration issue when they controlled the White House and Congress in 2009 and 2010, when Pelosi was House speaker, saying that the party is now exploiting the issue for political gains.
“Under the leadership of the former speaker … in 2009 and 2010, they had the House, the Senate and the White House, and they knew this problem existed,” Marino said. “They didn’t have the strength to go after it back then. But now are trying to make a political issue out of it now.”

Soon after he made the remarks, Pelosi, in full view of House cameras, walked across the chamber to the GOP side of the aisle -- a rarity in the House -- to challenge Marino.

It was not clear what Pelosi said, but Marino responded immediately.

"It's true, madam leader, I did the research on it," Marino said. "You might want to try it. You might want to try it, madam leader. Do the research on it. Do the research. I did it. That's one thing that you don't do."

Reps. Ted Poe, R-Texas, Joe Barton, R-Texas, and Kay Granger, R-Texas, seated behind Marino, looked stunned at Pelosi's actions. The presiding officer, Rep. Randy Hultgren, R-Ill., told Marino to direct his comments through the chair and not at a fellow member.

"Well, it works both ways," Marino said.

After things seemed to calm down, Marino said, "Apparently, I hit the right nerve."

Pelosi then walked briskly across the chamber, making a beeline for Marino and shaking her finger at the congressman.

Rep. Nita Lowey, D-N.Y., could be heard saying off-camera, "What is she doing?"

After he was done speaking, Pelosi then pursued Marino through the chamber, and House chamber security was seen walking through the chamber.

The House then voted 223-189 in favor of a $694 million border supplemental bill.

Marino and Pelosi apparently spoke afterwards.

Pelosi spokeswoman Evangeline George told The Hill that Pelosi "just wanted to remind the congressman that House Democrats had the courage to pass the DREAM Act -- and have the courage to stand up for what the American people want: bipartisan, comprehensive immigration reform."

She said that Pelosi accepted Marino's apology.

Marino told reporters afterward that he told Pelosi that his remarks were not meant to be personal or directed specifically toward her, The Hill reported. And a staffer said Marino did not apologize and does not intend to apologize.

Marino later took to Twitter to comment on the confrontation.

“Rep. Pelosi called me an 'insignificant person' on the Floor of the House. I'll ponder that for a while driving to Williamsport tonight. Of course I'll be driving myself, with no staff or security. And I'm just a country lawyer who worked in a bakery until he was 30,” he said in three separate tweets
 blartfast
Joined: 2/21/2014
Msg: 33
Why can't we get our politician's to act in OUR best interest?
Posted: 8/2/2014 6:58:18 PM
One example is the one below that really shows how we are not "significant"

How in heck does Pelosi's comments to one loudmouth congressman amount to "we"?

This is not only pertaining to one political party.

Really? "not only ... to one political party"? And yet you have offered only specious accounts of one party as your evidence, not even examples that actually support what you say.

Seems to me that this is like self-declared, so-called "democrats" who supposedly voted for Obama, twice, but only ever seem to offer support for republican talking points and never seem to find anything correct with democrats. In short, a specious claim.
 John255317
Joined: 12/28/2012
Msg: 34
Why can't we get our politician's to act in OUR best interest?
Posted: 8/2/2014 7:40:37 PM
"How in heck does Pelosi's comments to one loudmouth congressman amount to "we"?"
__________________________________________________________________________________
So your reply to Pelosi's unprofessionalism is ^^^^^^^^^^^^?...That the congressman is a loudmouth? The congressman has as much right to speak as Pelosi and you have Pelosi disrupting a speaker on the floor? And a video shows Pelosi chasing the man down to continue her rant that hit too close to home for her?

She also called the congressman insignificant, would you agree with that statement?

Are you ok with Pelosi in this instance?_____________________________________________________________

"not even examples that actually support what you say"
_____________________________________________________________
The example I gave is absolutely directed at what I said in my post to the OP as far as politicians not acting in our best interests. The example with Pelosi saying a congressman is insignificant to me is saying people that disagree with her are insignificant. You know, us citizens of the USA.
 blartfast
Joined: 2/21/2014
Msg: 35
Why can't we get our politician's to act in OUR best interest?
Posted: 8/2/2014 8:11:20 PM

"How in heck does Pelosi's comments to one loudmouth congressman amount to "we"?"
__________________________________________________________________________________
So your reply to Pelosi's unprofessionalism is ^^^^^^^^^^^^?...That the congressman is a loudmouth? The congressman has as much right to speak as Pelosi and you have Pelosi disrupting a speaker on the floor? And a video shows Pelosi chasing the man down to continue her rant that hit too close to home for her?

She also called the congressman insignificant, would you agree with that statement?

Are you ok with Pelosi in this instance?

Mmm, yes, much ado about nothing. That does not address either your comment or how "we" is derived from that. Once again, absolutely no support for the point made and no answer to the question so I will ask again:

How in heck does Pelosi's comments to one loudmouth congressman amount to "we"?

The example I gave is absolutely directed at what I said in my post to the OP as far as politicians not acting in our best interests.

No they aren't. You've offered absolutely nothing in support of that claim.

The example with Pelosi saying a congressman is insignificant to me is saying people that disagree with her are insignificant.

No it isn't. It is Pelosi saying that particular person is 'insignificant'. She said nothing about anyone else or about "agreeing with her". Those words and references simply don't exist in what she said and you haven't shown that they do.

You know, us citizens of the USA.

I wasn't aware that a single congressman amounted to an "us". I'm pretty sure that "us" is collective and that the congressman is singular.

So, in the same vein as my "we" question I will ask:

How the heck does that amount to "us"?

This is not only pertaining to one political party.

Really? "not only ... to one political party"? And yet you have offered only specious accounts of one party .
 John255317
Joined: 12/28/2012
Msg: 36
Why can't we get our politician's to act in OUR best interest?
Posted: 8/2/2014 8:29:41 PM
I think you need to read my post again where right in the beginning I talk about how many politicians mean well going into office and then are "steered" to people with more power then them. When Pelosi calls this congressman insignificant, she is saying a lot more then she disagrees with him. You don't use the word "insignificant" with the words "I disagree with you". Her words to me mean that anyone who disagrees with her is insignificant, that she has power. The congressman directed his words at the democratic controlled congress and white house a few years ago and they didn't take care of the issue. That is what set her off and because of that, anyone who dares speak like that is "insignificant". And yes, she is talking to us when she says it to one person she is upset that how dare they call them on the carpet and not agree with their failures.

You also continue to use the word "loudmouth" for this congressman. Because he called her out and the democratic party, you are calling him a loudmouth? You make sure to continue your posts with that word, how is that useful in talking????
 Br8NuDay
Joined: 6/8/2014
Msg: 37
Why can't we get our politician's to act in OUR best interest?
Posted: 8/2/2014 8:39:43 PM
If you look at the YouTube clip Marino had the floor (meaning he was the one authorized to speak at that point and time) and it was Pelosi who was interrupting and walking over to disagree with Marino. So if you going to call someone “loudmouth” evidence points to Pelosi (inconvenient I know) ;)
 blartfast
Joined: 2/21/2014
Msg: 38
Why can't we get our politician's to act in OUR best interest?
Posted: 8/2/2014 8:59:11 PM
You don't use the word "insignificant" with the words "I disagree with you"

Of course not, because she isn't saying it because he disagrees with her. Referring to someone as "insignificant" is a common and well understood way of telling someone they are petty and unworthy of respect. A rather more polite way of saying "loudmouth c0ckroach".

And yes, she is talking to us when she says it to one person

Again, how is one person an "us"?

It simply isn't possible under either the current use of the word or the laws of physics as they are understood. A single human simply cannot be more than one human and "us" is, by definition, necessarily more than one human.

Because he called her out and the democratic party, you are calling him a loudmouth?

No, because that is what he is. He even acknowledges this when he admits he told her that his remarks "were not meant to be personal or directed specifically toward her" afterward.

how is that useful in talking????

Because it is necessary to accept him for what he is in order to further the discussion.
 John255317
Joined: 12/28/2012
Msg: 39
Why can't we get our politician's to act in OUR best interest?
Posted: 8/2/2014 9:23:59 PM
"Because it is necessary to accept him for what he is in order to further the discussion."

I think it should read: Because it is necessary to accept her for what she is in order to further the discussion. The only loudmouth during Marino's speech was Pelosi embarrassing herself, her supporters and our process of free speech.
 blartfast
Joined: 2/21/2014
Msg: 40
Why can't we get our politician's to act in OUR best interest?
Posted: 8/3/2014 8:28:00 AM
embarrassing ... our process of free speech.

A "process" cannot logically be "embarrassed" any more than can a rock.

This and the references to a singular person as a collective group still bear explaining.

How does someone "embarrass" a "process"? How is one person an "us"?

I suspect that politicians not always acting in "our" best interests can, in many cases, be accounted for above. Not everyone seems to want politicians to act in "our" best interests, they only seem to want politicians to act in "their" individual personal interests and screw everybody else.

When they (politicians) find themselves elected primarily by a support base that has this agenda why would they believe the job involves more than that?
 BigBadNIrish
Joined: 1/31/2011
Msg: 41
Why can't we get our politician's to act in OUR best interest?
Posted: 8/4/2014 3:09:17 AM
We must forget what Joe Wilson shouted during the State of the Union Address by the President...was that "an embarrassment to the process"??? and was that shouting in joint session and indication of "us"??
 cotter
Joined: 10/17/2005
Msg: 42
view profile
History
Why can't we get our politician's to act in OUR best interest?
Posted: 8/4/2014 1:41:03 PM
Seems David Cicilline made his point adamantly clear today ... he was so rabidly pro-Israel that he might as well just go on over there and live. Cicilline is Jewish and needs to keep his mouth shut when it comes to Middle East issues because it's clear he's favoring Israel based on his religious background.

When my representatives get all religiously rabid like that on TV about things I do not agree with, I write to them and let them know that there's more than just people who follow their religious beliefs in their district. In Cicilline's case, I'm sure there are more than just Jews living in his district! People in public office do not have the right to just get out there and represent only their views.

Just like how those so religiously opposed to abortion or birth control do not have the right to impose that on those of their constituents who want the right to choose. They need to leave their religious beliefs at home and vote for the good of their constituents.
 theforumfiend
Joined: 10/21/2007
Msg: 43
Why can't we get our politician's to act in OUR best interest?
Posted: 8/4/2014 4:49:23 PM
Are you saying that politicians with strong views and opinions should just shut up or just those you don't agree with? I'm sure the majority vote that got that politician elected knew that politician's beliefs. If not then people need to take responsibility for who they elect.
 cotter
Joined: 10/17/2005
Msg: 44
view profile
History
Why can't we get our politician's to act in OUR best interest?
Posted: 8/4/2014 6:00:40 PM

Are you saying that politicians with strong views and opinions should just shut up or just those you don't agree with?
I'm not in favor of any politician ... no matter who ... who can't remain neutral about their own feelings on things. They need to work for the good of the people ... not the good of those who can stuff their pockets. Certainly they have no right to force their religious beliefs down anyone's throat.

I keep a close watch on the people I vote for ... watch that they leave their religious views at home.


I'm sure the majority vote that got that politician elected knew that politician's beliefs.
That would be ideal, but sadly it's not. Often it's a matter of what someone has told them at work or at some dinner party or garden party. I've experienced that in my own family. Only when I can show them how what they've "heard" isn't exactly kosher, then it opens their eyes.

So many people say that just one vote can't matter, but it can when people take the responsibility to get the information out.

If not then people need to take responsibility for who they elect.
I wish they would. I know so many people who just shrug it all off and vote their party lines without giving any further thought.

In my opinion, they do not have a right to represent me religiously and I wish they'd stop it. I can make my own religious decisions and so can my family ... my daughters too! I don't need them to tell me how to make my personal decisions when it comes to my means of birth control.
 etourdi65
Joined: 1/23/2014
Msg: 45
Why can't we get our politician's to act in OUR best interest?
Posted: 8/5/2014 9:15:31 AM

my daughters too! I don't need them to tell me how to make my personal decisions when it comes to my means of birth control.
Who is stopping you from buying the birth control of your choice? No One..the issue you have is that some people expect you to pay for it yourself...
 cotter
Joined: 10/17/2005
Msg: 46
view profile
History
Why can't we get our politician's to act in OUR best interest?
Posted: 8/5/2014 10:49:02 AM
I do not elect anyone to make those decisions for me ... I'm more than capable of deciding those issues for myself.

I can make my own religious decisions and so can my family ... my daughters too! I don't need them to tell me how to make my personal decisions when it comes to my means of birth control.
Who is stopping you from buying the birth control of your choice?
If it is a prescription ... it should be covered under my health plan just like other prescriptions.

If the ED medication is covered, why not the birth control?

If we can enable men to chemically get an erection and ejaculate, shouldn't we also be willing to help the women with birth control so that they don't get unexpectedly pregnant from the ejaculate that was created by a fake erection that was paid for by medical coverage?

No One..the issue you have is that some people expect you to pay for it yourself...
We shouldn't have to pay for a prescription that should be covered like all our other prescriptions on a medical plan we have purchased. We purchase medical plans to help us ... no matter what our problems may be.

What's next ... we won't cover cervical or uterine or ovarian cancer but we WILL cover prostate and testicular cancer?

 blartfast
Joined: 2/21/2014
Msg: 47
Why can't we get our politician's to act in OUR best interest?
Posted: 8/5/2014 1:23:01 PM

Who is stopping you from buying the birth control of your choice? No One..the issue you have is that some people expect you to pay for it yourself...

And another example of what I was referring to in post 44. Again, it has nothing to do with what is "best for us" but is all about "individual personal interests".

How can anyone ever expect the politicians they elect to act in the "our best interests" when the support base which elects them doesn't give a rat's a$$ about anything other than "their individual personal interests".

As long as selfish people are voting in candidates to promote selfish self-interest at the expense of the "interests of us" it will never change. These politicians elected with a mandate of selfishness cannot be expected to act in any other way.
 John255317
Joined: 12/28/2012
Msg: 48
Why can't we get our politician's to act in OUR best interest?
Posted: 8/5/2014 3:32:18 PM
msg45, Wilson was wrong in what he did. He also apologized to Obama for what he did.

theforumfiend, you are correct, if someone is elected, those who can vote for that person, either do or they don't. It's called freedom of choice. If someone doesn't like their views, obviously they will not vote for them. If that person does get in, then the majority liked the majority of the candidates views and feels the difference with that candidate and the one they are running against are enough to want him in.
 theforumfiend
Joined: 10/21/2007
Msg: 49
Why can't we get our politician's to act in OUR best interest?
Posted: 8/5/2014 10:01:45 PM

If it is a prescription... it should be covered under my health plan like other prescriptions.

If the ED medication is covered, why not the birth control?



What's next ... we won't cover cervical or uterine or ovarian cancer but we WILL cover prostate and testicular cancer?


It is a myth that all insurance covers ED drugs, or even vasectomies, for men. It is a myth that all prescriptions are covered by insurance. While I do believe birth control should be covered I don't believe it's wise to exaggerate.
 DameWrite
Joined: 2/27/2010
Msg: 50
view profile
History
Why can't we get our politician's to act in OUR best interest?
Posted: 8/5/2014 11:54:58 PM
There is "move to amend".

Until the issue of corporate control of gov't is dealt with...you can pretty much kiss the idea of democracy goodbye.

http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/legalize-democracy/
Show ALL Forums  > Off Topic  > Why can't we get our politician's to act in OUR best interest?