Obama mentions Medical Records, Hasn't Disclosed His Own.. His Life is an "open book"

Originally posted by NavyDoc


Nonsense. I posted several links to several sources above, including ABC news.

And yet failed to acknowledge that ABC news discussed "Loan Guarantees" not actual money given...and went on to claim that 500+ Million was given? Only 193M was given and future "loans" are contingent on outcome.

Originally posted by NavyDoc
You posted one that does not even say what you think it says.

Two sources...check my posts.

www.theblaze.com... www.factcheck.org...

Want more???...Difficulty reading fact checks?...how about video? Fisker got involved in the loan program under BUSH!!

Originally posted by NavyDoc
, and this is funny, the same website that you suggest states that the Obama issue was BS also says your Romney issue is BS...

No...the Romney issue you CHOSE is not the same. That was about whether or not he was still head of Bain Capital in 2000...I am discussing the Foriegn Holdings that are as plain as day on the single partial tax return that he has chosen to grace the American public with...

Originally posted by tothetenthpower
reply to post by jibeho

 

You are running for the most important political office in the country, some could argue the world.

Yes, your entire life should be open to scrutiny. You should have cameras and microphones attached to your person from the moment you leave the house, to the moment you arrive home in the evening. All phones calls, emails and any other communications open to the public and available online.

Politicians should receive 0 privacy. They work for us, it's a sacrifice they should make.

~Tenth

I dont need the bedroom, or the toilet, but everything else, is fair game.

Originally posted by Indigo5

Originally posted by NavyDoc


Nonsense. I posted several links to several sources above, including ABC news.

And yet failed to acknowledge that ABC news discussed "Loan Guarantees" not actual money given...and went on to claim that 500+ Million was given? Only 163M was given and future "loans" are contingent on outcome.

Originally posted by NavyDoc
You posted one that does not even say what you think it says.

Two sources...check my posts.

Originally posted by NavyDoc
, and this is funny, the same website that you suggest states that the Obama issue was BS also says your Romney issue is BS...

No...the Romney issue you CHOSE is not the same. That was about whether or not he was still head of Bain Capital in 2000...I am discussing the Foriegn Holdings that are as plain as day on the single partial tax return that he has chosen to grace the American public with...

Okay, let's take your number for a second. You, yourself admitted that the adminstration gave $163 million dollars to a foreign company to create foreign, not American jobs. That's $163 million taxpayer dollars to create jobs someplace OTHER than the US. So, by your own admission, Obama is sending American jobs overseas.

Romney uses his own money for foreign investment but Obama uses our money for foreign investment. Who has the bigger issue when it comes to supporting American jobs?

Originally posted by sonnny1

Originally posted by tothetenthpower
reply to post by jibeho

 

You are running for the most important political office in the country, some could argue the world.

Yes, your entire life should be open to scrutiny. You should have cameras and microphones attached to your person from the moment you leave the house, to the moment you arrive home in the evening. All phones calls, emails and any other communications open to the public and available online.

Politicians should receive 0 privacy. They work for us, it's a sacrifice they should make.

~Tenth

I dont need the bedroom, or the toilet, but everything else, is fair game.

I would agree with that. However, unfortunately, those are not the rules in place. Both Obama and Romney have not released information. Neither have to. We need to change the rules.

reply to post by spoor


Had you read my comment, you'd see that I clearly stated I did not need anything like that, only when it came to the office they actually hold and the dealings of people they have within those office duties.

I wonder who is the silly one? Considering my comments were clearly explained and you somehow mananged to cherry pick the ones that suited you.

~Tenth

Originally posted by tothetenthpower
Had you read my comment, you'd see that I clearly stated I did not need anything like that, only when it came to the office they actually hold and the dealings of people they have within those office duties.

Actually you stated...

Yes, your entire life should be open to scrutiny. You should have cameras and microphones attached to your person from the moment you leave the house, to the moment you arrive home in the evening. All phones calls, emails and any other communications open to the public and available online.

Politicians should receive 0 privacy.

So from the time they leave their house to the time they arrive home.... no privacy at all!

After you realised how silly that was you changed your story.

Funny how no previous President had to live under those rules, but as soon as Obama comes along - new rules!

Originally posted by spoor

Originally posted by tothetenthpower
Had you read my comment, you'd see that I clearly stated I did not need anything like that, only when it came to the office they actually hold and the dealings of people they have within those office duties.

Actually you stated...

Yes, your entire life should be open to scrutiny. You should have cameras and microphones attached to your person from the moment you leave the house, to the moment you arrive home in the evening. All phones calls, emails and any other communications open to the public and available online.

Politicians should receive 0 privacy.

So from the time they leave their house to the time they arrive home.... no privacy at all!

After you realised how silly that was you changed your story.

Funny how no previous President had to live under those rules, but as soon as Obama comes along - new rules!

edit on 22-8-2012 by spoor because: (no reason given)

Hmmmm.

It might have been silly, years ago, to scrutinize those in office, but now ?

I believe its justified.

Why?

These men and woman have no morals or principles. Hell, Clinton and Bush should have been held to the same scrutinization, as TTTP has stated. We have let it go too long, as a Nation. THESE PEOPLE WORK FOR US.

Not the other way around. The laws need to be changed, and the vetting of those who want to serve, should be changed also. Im tired of scumbags in office.

Originally posted by sonnny1

Originally posted by spoor

Originally posted by tothetenthpower
Had you read my comment, you'd see that I clearly stated I did not need anything like that, only when it came to the office they actually hold and the dealings of people they have within those office duties.

Actually you stated...

Yes, your entire life should be open to scrutiny. You should have cameras and microphones attached to your person from the moment you leave the house, to the moment you arrive home in the evening. All phones calls, emails and any other communications open to the public and available online.

Politicians should receive 0 privacy.

So from the time they leave their house to the time they arrive home.... no privacy at all!

After you realised how silly that was you changed your story.

Funny how no previous President had to live under those rules, but as soon as Obama comes along - new rules!

edit on 22-8-2012 by spoor because: (no reason given)

Hmmmm.

It might have been silly, years ago, to scrutinize those in office, but now ?

I believe its justified.

Why?

These men and woman have no morals or principles. Hell, Clinton and Bush should have been held to the same scrutinization, as TTTP has stated. We have let it go too long, as a Nation. THESE PEOPLE WORK FOR US.

Not the other way around. The laws need to be changed, and the vetting of those who want to serve, should be changed also. Im tired of scumbags in office.

I can swing with your entire post. I gave you a star because that was well said.

Originally posted by NavyDoc

Okay, let's take your number for a second. You, yourself admitted that the adminstration gave $163 million dollars to a foreign company to create foreign, not American jobs. That's $163 million taxpayer dollars to create jobs someplace OTHER than the US. So, by your own admission, Obama is sending American jobs overseas.

Please..Please READ.

Fisker is headquartered and based in ANAHEIM CALIFORNIA

en.wikipedia.org...
onward.fiskerautomotive.com...

Fisker was accepted into the Government Loan program UNDER THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION

Recieved about 170M of about a 500M loan guarantee.

Fisker’s loan has two parts. In the first part, Fisker used $169 million to support the engineers who developed the tools, equipment and manufacturing processes for Fisker’s first vehicle, the Fisker Karma. That work was done Fisker’s U.S. facilities, including its headquarters in Irvine, California which has 700 employees and plans to continue hiring. While the vehicles themselves are being assembled in Fisker’s existing overseas facility, the Department’s funding was only used for the U.S. operations. The money could not be, and was not, spent on overseas operations. The Karma also relies on an extensive network of hundreds of suppliers in more than a dozen U.S. states.

The larger portion of the loan -- $359 million – is supporting the production of Fisker’s Nina vehicles. Fisker is using this funding to bring a shuttered General Motors plant in Delaware back to life and employing more than 2,500 workers. Fisker was attracted to this site in part by the opportunity to rehire some of the trained, dedicated workers who lost their jobs when that plant closed.

energy.gov...

You don't want me to be insulting, but when you simply repeat facts that are not true...facts that I have shown through several links both written and video....at what point does it cross from confusion to dishonesty?

Fisker is a US Company, They recieved less than 200M...the remainder was withheld awaiting them to meet requirements and milestones for creating US jobs. The initial payment went toward design, development, manufacturing of parts in the USA...None of it went to Finland. Fisker looked to have the cars assembled in the USA, but USA factories have been stripped and moved to Mexico and those remaining are competitors, so Fisker had the cars ASSEMBLED in Finland, but not with any of the US loan funds that had already been spend in developing the parts.

It has been estimated that the devopment of those parts created about 2100 US jobs.

See here..FEB 2012
Fisker Stops Work on Car Factory After U.S. Blocks Loan
www.bloomberg.com...

And here

Fisker borrowed $193 million of the $528 million allocated by the federal government before its loans were suspended last May

www.nytimes.com...

I COULD SHOW YOU A THOUSAND LINKS...The facts remain the same.

First loan disbursement...went toward development HERE IN THE USA
The rest of the money has been suspended until they can show that they have enough private money to manufacture here in the USA in DELAWARE.

NO...BY ANY SCENARIO...the money did not go to create jobs in Finland...Fitzker has almost a Billion in PRIVATE equity and only spent the initial (less than 200M) in early development here in the USA.

reply to post by NavyDoc


Also here...

[Fisker received a loan guarantee from] the Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing program through the Energy Department. And it's not funded by Obama's stimulus bill -- otherwise known as the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. It is, in fact, a program signed into existence by President George W. Bush in 2007 and first funded by legislation Bush signed in 2008.
The program was designed to support development of advanced technology vehicles.
The Bush administration was in charge when the automaker filed its application. The Obama administration was in charge when the company's loan was approved. The stimulus bill had nothing to do with it. [Politifact, 4/26/12]

Much of the ad wase FALSE...

The ad's claim that stimulus money went to "electric cars from Finland" is false, according to the car's manufacturer and the Energy Department. The struggling company, Fisker Automotive, received approval from Obama administration officials for $529 million in government loans under a George W. Bush-era program, not the stimulus. Most of that loan, intended for a plant in Delaware, has been suspended. The $193 million actually lent to Fisker was spent in the United States, not at its plant in Finland, according to Fisker and the Energy Department. Fisker's investors include firms whose executives have donated to both parties. [New York Times, 7/18/12]

www.nytimes.com...

This concerns a loan guarantee to Fisker Automotive, which The Washington Post has identified as troubled. But the company disputes the RNC's claim that $500 billion in U.S. money (via two loans) is being spent to produce cars overseas. Instead, the company says the money has been spent on design and engineering activities in the United States, and the expenditures have been reviewed by PricewaterhouseCoopers. Ultimately, the company plans to build a lower-priced version of its car in Delaware, using a $359 million loan, but less than $25 million that has been disbursed so far. [Washington Post, 7/12/12]

www.washingtonpost.com...

Again...at what point does confusion cross to dishonesty when I have provided an endless stream of factual evidence directly contradicting every part of your initial claim???

Originally posted by NavyDoc

You talk about moving jobs overseas? I assume then that you are upset with Obama [Under a Bush era Loan Agreement] for giving over five hundred million taxpayer dollars [Less than 200M] to Fisker [An American Company] to build cars in NORWAY [to design and manufacture parts in the USA]?

reply to post by Indigo5


How about a Fisker thread??

Thanks!!

Obama Releases Medical Records - 2008

Obama's Medical Records - 2010

Obama's Medical Records 2011

Below and attached is a letter from Senator Obama’s physician detailing a summary of his health records.

DAVID L. SCHEINER, M.D.
Hyde Park Associates in Medicine, Ltd.
1515 East 52nd Place, Chicago, IL 60615

To Whom It May Concern:

I am David L. Scheiner, a board certified general internist licensed to practice in the State of Illinois. I am on staff at the University of Chicago Hospitals and Rush University Medical Center. I have been Senator Barack Obama’s primary care physician since March 23, 1987. The following is a summary of his medical records for the past 21 years.

During that period of time, Senator Obama has been in excellent health. He has been seen regularly for medical checkups and various minor problems such as upper respiratory infections, skin rashes and minor injuries.

His family history is pertinent for his mother’s death from ovarian cancer and grandfather who died of prostate cancer. His own history included intermittent cigarette smoking. He has quit this practice on several occasions and is currently using Nicorette gum with success.

Senator Obama’s last medical checkup was on January 15, 2007; he had no complaints. He exercised regularly often jogging three miles. His diet was balanced with good intake of roughage and fluids. A complete review of systems was unremarkable. On physical examination, his blood pressure was 90/60 and pulse 60/minute. His build was lean and muscular with no excess body fat. His physical examination was completely normal.

Laboratory studies included triglycerides of 44(normal under 150), cholesterol 173 (normal under 200), HDL 68 (normal over 40), and LDL 96 (normal under 130). Chem 24, urinalysis and CBC were normal, PSA was 0.6, very good. An EKG was normal.

In short, his examination showed him to be in excellent health. Senator Barack Obama is in overall good physical and mental health needed to maintain the resiliency required in the Office of President.

Sincerely,
David L. Scheiner, M.D.

Well, OP? Proof that Obama released his medical records, and has a statement from his medical doctor.

Your post is a blatant affront to the truth. You lied. You made up crap, to push your political agenda.

Worse, Brietbart.com has become a site full of buffoons, incapable of recognizing the truth. They lie and distort, and their brain-dead minions flock to sites like ATS to repost their claptrap.

Does that make you proud?

Still want to claim Obama "Hasn't disclosed his own..."?

Now with the proof in front of you, we can expect you to return to Brietbart and inform them of their error, correct? No? You mean you intend to continue pushing their lies and claptrap for your partisan agenda? Okay, whatever.

reply to post by oxykerfluffle


Maybe you need to go back and actually read through this thread instead of posting information that I already shot down. Including a full medical report from then candidate John McCain which contrasts heavily to the summary report submitted by Obama's doctor. (who has since been betrayed by Obama)

Remember, he said Presidents normally release detailed medical records. Of which he has NOT... Just the ritual "fit for duty" annual check up that is par for the course for every President...

"I’m not asking to disclose every detail of his medical records, although we normally do that as well." - Obama

Read and learn!!!

Obama smoked cigarettes and other things ever since High School and yet there was no detailed information regarding such use and its effects on his health. How many packs a day etc.... He smoked for 30 years!!!! and nothing but a single sentence in his summary.

Barack Obama has quit his 30-year cigarette habit after numerous failed attempts because he wants to be able to tell daughters he does not smoke, according to his wife Michelle.

www.telegraph.co.uk...

Its been fun...

Originally posted by jibeho
reply to post by Indigo5

 

How about a Fisker thread??

Thanks!!

Understood. Was just looking to make good use of the discussion since your claim was debunked on page one.

reply to post by Indigo5


Debunked? and Refuted without any rebuttal other than reposting irrelevant information.

What happens to the human body after 30 years of cigarette smoke? According to Obama's doctor...nothing!!

health.howstuffworks.com...

reply to post by jibeho


Claim #6, medical records. During the 2008 campaign, Obama released summary medical information from his personal physician, who pronounced him to be in “excellent health” with routine test results for such things as cholesterol all within normal levels. (McCain, who is a cancer survivor and was 71 at the time, let reporters see his records for three hours to show he was cancer-free.)
Since taking office, Obama has followed the practice of earlier presidents. He released results of his first “periodic” physical exam on Feb. 28, 2010. Results of his second “periodic” exam were released Oct. 31, 2011. His physician described him as being “in excellent health and ‘fit for duty.’”

www.factcheck.org...

Yet more propaganda on ATS... Might as well call this place RNC Wehrmachtbericht

As you've stated Obama: “The American people have assumed that, if you want to be President of the United States, that your life is an open book.” - Barack Obama

If your life is an open book how about explaining your true ties to ACORN and Chicago chapter of the New Party.
Are you a member or not?

Lets take a look at what we can find out through other sources. Stanley Kurtz of the National Review.
Obama’s Third-Party History of the 1990's.

In late October 2008, when I wrote here at National Review Online that Obama had been a member of the New Party, his campaign sharply denied it, calling my claim a “crackpot smear.” Fight the Smears, an official Obama-campaign website, staunchly maintained that “Barack has been a member of only one political party, the Democratic Party.” I rebutted this, but the debate was never taken up by the mainstream press.

But he had been a member according to,,,,,,,,, Illinois ACORN.
ACORN and Corruption,,,
So, Obama denied ever being a member of The New Party,,,Did Obama Lie, is he an Open Book?

Recently obtained evidence from the updated records of Illinois ACORN at the Wisconsin Historical Society now definitively establishes that Obama was a member of the New Party. He also signed a “contract” promising to publicly support and associate himself with the New Party while in office.

He also signed a “contract” promising to publicly support and associate himself with the New Party while in office
And The New Party's Goal:

The issue remains as fresh as today’s headlines, as Romney argues that Obama is trying to move the United States toward European-style social democracy, which was precisely the New Party’s goal.

Barack Obama, candidate for State Senate in the 13th Legislative District, gave a statement to the membership and answered questions. He signed the New Party “Candidate Contract” and requested an endorsement from the New Party. He also joined the New Party.

Consistent with this, a roster of the Chicago chapter of the New Party from early 1997 lists Obama as a member, with January 11, 1996, indicated as the date he joined.

www.nationalreview.com...
Yes, Yes, Obama and his open book life,,,,,,

Originally posted by jibeho
reply to post by Indigo5

 

What happens to the human body after 30 years of cigarette smoke? According to Obama's doctor...nothing!!

Your posts are works of art in BS and pretzel logic.

"30 years of Cigarette smoke?" But you don't know about it, cuz Obama didn't share anything? Which is it.

"according to Obama's doctor...nothing!" Again...how would you know? You keep saying his Medical info wasn't released...despite several posters providing multiple links?

Not unfamiliar logic...it is simply birther disease.

reply to post by spoor


Lol.

Again, you insinuated that I wanted Obama to be recorded in the bathroom and the shower. That's not at all what I stated.

And no, it's not because Obama is suddenly in office that I demand transparency. I've been saying this for years. I"m Canadian, I could give two birds about which Globalist scumbag is running the country I don't live in.

Please show me where I changed my story?

It's not silly to demand that your elected officials be held to a standard higher than everybody, consider they carry the ambitions, beliefs and support of hundreds of thousands of people. In the President's case 100's of millions.

Politics isn't a career, it's a privilege. It's volunteering to represent your fellow man and their wishes, therefore the people have a right to know what your up to, all the time.

Not all the time, but every moment that you are making decisions that impact the lives of those you represent? I would say that only fools would argue that's wrong.

~Tenth

reply to post by guohua


From The National Revew.. A site that describes itself as "America's most widely read and influential magazine and web site for conservative news, commentary, and opinion"

Thats a real unbiased look at things.. Wouldnt expect to see propaganda in a place like that now would i..