Open Mic

Kathysays:

Want to watch and listen to some great comedy? Look for the Georgetown law student’s testimony in front of congress about how the poor co-eds can’t afford to pay for contraception. How the hell have we gotten to this point? I’m just plain embarrassed for her.

Then, the best part, is listening to Rush’s follow-up. Apparently yesterday he made the charge that since this woman Fluk wanted to be paid for having sex, she was really a prostitute – tongue in cheek analogy to get the masses fired up like he often does.

Whoa, did he get the liberal women howling – hilarious! He plays clips from a few “outraged” lib women on this horrific thing he has done, including one from the ever intelligent Sheila Jackson Lee.

Watched it earlier, but I’ll look again for the links.

Advertisements

Comments

  1. I saw it on his website. Funny as heck! A couple snippets:

    I will buy all of the women at Georgetown University as much aspirin to put between their knees as they want.

    Is it any wonder, Clinton wanted to go to this law school and why Hillary went to Wellesley?

    FLUKE: When I look around my campus, I see the faces of the women affected by this lack of contraceptive coverage.
    RUSH: Prove it! Stop the tape. Prove it! What is “on their faces”? Acne? What is it, acne? Zits? What’s on their faces that tells you? Seriously!

    Did you notice in that sound bite Sheila Jackson Lee or Maria Cantwell or one of them talked about the strength that Sandra Fluke had to go before Congress, which is amazing. She’s having so much sex it’s amazing she can still walk, but she made it up there.

    http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2012/03/01/left_freaks_out_over_my_fluke_remarks
    Reply
    Buck the Wala says:
    March 2, 2012 at 7:59 am

    This is funny to the two of you!?

    You do realize that the pill does have medical purposes other than preventing pregnancy, don’t you?

    For Limbaugh to go after this woman, calling her a slut, is absolutely disgusting.

    • Common Man says:

      OMG!!!!

      What Rush had to say is not the issue, he is an entertainer and makes money touting his thoughts.

      If you watch the entire video you quickly come to realize that not only is this girl totally screwed up in the head, but that if she is truely a representative of her peers, we as a people, have lost any and all hope for a free Republic. The years of kool-aid drinking this girl has endured by whatever social group she has spent her some 20 years involved in, has completely warped her mind. I don’t believe that she could be turned back from the dark side.

      This is the most terrifying example of how government is in lock step with the media and educational system to successfully managed and grow and graduate a “conditioned” sheeple.

      We are so screwed…..If this was my daughter I would surely disown her, and I also might consider stepping out into traffic because obviously I failed as a parent.

      I don’t know her parents, but I am sure they are complete and absolute morons.

      The next thing we are going to see is students setting before Congress claiming that frat parties are getting to expensive to pay for so the government needs to raise liquor and beer taxes so they can subsidize student drinking.

      We are so screwed

      CM

      • Buck the Wala says:

        I dunno CM, if it were my daughter, I’d be pretty damn proud of her.

        • SK Trynosky Sr. says:

          Then send her a gift card to Walgreens or CVS.

        • Common Man says:

          Buck;

          So you really believe that our government should be allowed to reach into my/your wallet and remove whatever amount of money they deam adequate to cover the cost of this girls birth control so that she can continue to have as much sex as she wants?

          If so, then I say they need the same freedom to tap your wallet to pay for my beer and whisky so that I can drink as much as I want. Hell, why were on a roll, why not reach into everyone’s wallet and purse and take whatever is needed to subsidize sex change operations, I mean hell he or she is just a he or she stuck in a she or he body.

          This was pure propaganda stage by a tyrannical government bent on envoking total and absolute control.

          IT is time for a revolution

          CM

    • SK Trynosky Sr. says:

      That’s it Buck, always look for that .0043 exception to the rule and base your thinking on that. I listened to the whole thing, it was a joke. Here is this “woman” going to a $ 45,000 per year law school purportedly on a full scholarship and she can’t game the system out of Condoms or Pills? Give me a break.

      • For as long as I can remember, our county health office has provided free condoms. I think it’s pretty common? Cost and availability is just not the issue. I think the real issue for the liberals is to continue eroding our values. Promoting promiscuous behavior, no consequences for their behavior, undermining our very culture.

        • Agreed LOI…Plus, all she has to do is run over to the neighborhood Planned Parenthood office to get her contraceptives. Sheesh!

          Hope all has been well with you!

          RS

          • Buck the Wala says:

            Ah yes, run over to the neighborhood Planned Parenthood office. You know, the same one’s that the right is pulling funding from and trying to shut down.

            • Well Buck…I have no problem ANYONE who supports Birth Control and Abortion by ‘contributing’ financially to planned parenthood to assist those who need BC or an Abortion, but don’t have the $ to pay! HOWEVER, I do have issues with MY tax dinero being used for ANY of this.

              On the other hand, Buck…you are correct above where you had a posting about the fact the Birth Control (i.e. the hormones) are used for treatment of other medical conditions. In the case of this scenario, the Hormone should be prescribed and covered in medical plans — again, this is because it is being prescribed for a medical issue.

              I am also against “funding” out of MY tax dinero men obtaining Viagra or like drugs.

              Also, I remember when I was on the pill, it was at most $25 a month (no copay). Maybe you could say that I am a dinosaur, but really, I’m not…it wasn’t THAT horribly long ago! 🙂

              What kind of BC is this woman on that is costing $3K a year??????

              • Buck the Wala says:

                Well, it was $3K over 3-yrs, so ‘only’ $1K/year — which I agree with you; seems excessive.

                And I can see your argument here as far as providing coverage if there is a medical issue; but one problem is that isn’t the case and in many instances coverage is denied even when there is an underlying medical issue.

            • SK Trynosky Sr. says:

              Thanks to the fracas over the Susan Coleman foundation thing they will do better this year financially than they have done for decades. The UFT in NY is sending several hundred thou even after Coleman is back on board. This is what’s called “solidarity forever”. I’m sure that every other union is too. The extermination of the minority communities can continue. Ah, if Hitler had only been smart enough to take the long view.

            • SK Trynosky Sr. says:

              You too can always contribute.

          • Spitfire

            My dear Southern Belle. I was thinking of you earlier this week, wondering how you are doing these days.

            Now here you pop up.

            Hope all is well in the eastern heartland.

            JAC

            • Hello JAC!

              Other than bi-polar weather, I don’t have alot to complain about! Life is pretty darn good! Celebrating my Mom & Dad’s 50th Wedding Anniversary next month with a big huge blow-out — they are well-loved!

              Hoping all is well with you!

              Hugs,
              RS

          • Spitfire,

            Good to hear from you again. Hope all is well with work and family. Can you imagine having one of your children being called to testify before congress? What a honor! And to sit there and tell the nation and the world that she and her friends want the government to pay for their birth control. So your daughter would have just stated loud and proud she and her friends have sex where getting pregnant is a concern. (what happened to that safe sex thing being taught somewhere) How would you contain yourself form calling a special church meeting to allow all you friends to express their praise for you and your fine family…….

            • Howdy LOI…

              It would be rather embarrassing for this to happen. What goes on in the bedroom needs to stay in the bedroom, but slick Willy’s concupisousness helped to set a trend there….

              I would rather the earth opened up and swallowed me than to put that embarrassment at my parent’s doorstep.

              I’m with you LOI…this is yet another way to “progressively” erode values.

              I do think that Rush Limbaugh could have been a bit more creative in his choice of words.

              Best Regards and hoping that all is well with you too!

              RS

  2. A group of Democratic members of Congress are continuing the political war over contraception and the latest move puts House Speaker John Boehner on the spot. Seventy-five lawmakers are urging the Speaker to “repudiate” comments made by conservative radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh. The Democrats signed a letter to the speaker over comments Limbaugh made on his show on Wednesday…

    Limbaugh’s comment which Williams characterized as “offensive”? This is the one and only Limbaugh soundbite NBC played:

    So, Ms. Fluke, and the rest of you Femi-Nazis, here’s the deal: If we are going to pay for your contraceptives and, thus, pay for you to have sex, we want something for it. And I’ll tell you what it is. We want you to post the videos online so we can all watch.

    Obviously, a bit of humor which escaped the overly-sensitive left-wing/media axis always looking to be offended.

    Earlier, from Scott Whitlock, “Chris Matthews: Rush Limbaugh Could Be the Next Don Imus in the Wake of ‘Sluts’ Comment”

    For Limbaugh’s reaction on his Thursday show to the attacks on him, see “Left Freaks Out Over My Fluke Remarks.”

    And his response to the Democratic letter: “Tell Issa to Condemn Cummings.”

    Limbaugh credits a CNSNews.com blog post by Craig Bannister, “Sex-Crazed Co-Eds Going Broke Buying Birth Control, Student Tells Pelosi Hearing Touting Freebie Mandate,” as “the story that started all this.”

    For an overall lok at the media’s distortions, check our Media Reality Check by Rich Noyes released Wednesday: “How Network News Has Twisted Obama’s War on Religion Into a Conservative War Against Women”

    Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brent-baker/2012/03/01/nbc-firestorm-outrage-women-after-crude-tirade-rush-limbaugh#ixzz1nyP8GcSO

  3. After comedian Bill Maher referred to Sarah Palin as a derogatory term for a vagina a little over week a ago, NewsBusters asked, “Can the dreaded C-word be far behind?”

    According to the Dallas Voice, this happened on Sunday while Maher was “performing” at the Winspear Opera House (photo courtesy Reuters):

    It’s that fearlessness — he acknowledged that some people would probably be uncomfortable with some of his remarks about religion, not to mention calling Sarah Palin a “cunt” (“there’s just no other word for her”) — that makes Maher the most dangerous person in comedy.

    For those unfamiliar, the Winspear Opera House is indeed where the Dallas Opera performs.

    Seems a metaphysical certitude that word isn’t uttered on that stage very often.

    The reviewer – writing at the self-described “Premier Media Source For LGBT Texas” – noted:

    Maher spoke the truth for a nearly two-hour set, and, in my mind, established himself as the pre-eminent political commentator of a generation. He’s a comedian, too, of course. But really, he’s a voice.

    And that’s what makes him dangerous, not just to the right but to all Americans.

    Maher is indeed doing political commentary. When he gets interviewed by CNN, MSNBC, or any of the broadcast network news programs, it’s not to do one-liners.

    It is instead for him to offer his political views about current events in a venue made for such a thing.

    Yet, when he makes a comment that crosses the line, he’ll conveniently hide behind the comedian veil and folks on the Left will wittingly give him a pass.

    On Saturday’s “Fox News Watch,” liberal New York Post commentator Kirsten Powers said, “I have to say, he’s a comedian and it’s hard for me to get up in arms about comedians on cable shows saying things. It’s not as if it happens — it’s not Chris Matthews that said it, for example, I would have a problem with it or somebody — a member of Congress, maybe, but I really, I feel like this kind of stuff just gets a little out of control. He is a comedian who says a lot of crazy stuff.”

    In fairness, Powers walked this back a bit Monday night when Fox’s Greta Van Susteren told her that Maher has defended women’s rights.

    In a recent “Real Time” installment after the riots began in Egypt, the host said that for lasting political change to occur in this region, there’s going to have to be a sexual revolution that improves the treatment of women.

    But apparently to Maher, such equality doesn’t begin at home, for he has in the past eleven days called Palin a t–t, a bimbo along with Congresswoman Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.), and now the dreaded C-word which to women is like the N-word to African-Americans.

    Once again, I point my finger at the National Organization for Women.

    By not specifically admonishing Maher, “Real Time,” and HBO in its weak defense of Palin last week, this hypocritically self-described women’s organization was implicitly telling this so-called comedian and the network he represents it’s just fine to make sexist attacks on this woman – and conceivably all conservative women – no matter how vulgar.

    Welcome to the new and NOW-approved feminism, America – where liberal women’s rights are to be defended while conservative women’s rights are to be trampled on like a restaurant door mat.

    Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2011/03/29/bill-maher-calls-sarah-palin-vagina-again-time-beginning-c#ixzz1nyR1fOxQ

    • Mathius™ says:

      As far as I’m concerned, though it may be tactless, Palin and Bachmann are, in fact, fair game for comedians and pundits alike. They are prominent political figures. What we were discussing was Limbaugh’s decision to attack random minor defenseless individuals with invectives such as calling them sluts or saying “what do you expect from a woman driver.”

      V.H.’s assertion was that “the left” attacked Palin’s kids, as proof of the “both sides” argument. And I contend that, while both sides fire back and forth at each other quite readily, the right (specifically Limbaugh et al) are far worse. So here we have him sexistly attacking a college student. Where is someone equally big on the left attacking kids?

      • SK Trynosky Sr. says:

        Law student = kid ?

        Willing to testify on a partisan issue before congress = kid?

        You guys like it both ways. She is the strong woman when she testifies and the weak little kitten when she is attacked. Sorry, when I heard her testimony, the same four letter word beginning with S came into my mind too.

      • Ah yes, the “relativism” of the left.

        V.H.’s argument, by the way is irrelevant. She shouldn’t have used it because Limbaugh’s comment can stand on its own.

        But then you do the same thing by trying to distinguish between “prominent” figures.

        So your argument amounts to: You can not make fun of people who inject themselves into public debates, about public policy, who’s testimony is at its core, ridiculous.

      • SK Trynosky Sr. says:

        Law student, NOT college student. Perhaps this is why the age of consent or the age of contract should be moved to 35. Regarding my kid’s generation, I keep hearing the excuse as, “Well, their 30 is the equivalent to our 20”. Actually says quite a bit about the infantilization of American society over the past 30 years or so. The military says that 75% of American males between 18 and 25 are “unfit” for military service. That includes mental, physical and moral (arrests) conditions. Had this been 1942, I can hear the panzers being off loaded now in Staten Island.

      • “Where is someone equally big on the left attacking kids?”

        Matt, I don’t have any defense for Rush. If he called her a slut, I think that crosses a line. But doesn’t Maher have millions who watch him? And isn’t he invited to make political comments on nearly all the networks? The View, Today show, etc love to give him a soapbox where he makes some jokes but is never challenged for his crossing that line. Even the womens rights groups give liberals a pass when they attack conservatives.

        You asked for someone equally big, I supplied you with an answer. If he’s not big enough, then I’m left thinking it’s not the size that’s an issue here, it’s the side you root for…….
        You are excusing his actions and the liberals reactions by saying he doesn’t have much influence.

        • Mathius™ says:

          I would argue, and of course, this is just my opinion, that there is a difference between Comedian Maher and Pundit Maher.

          When Fox get caught, as they frequently do, being blatantly biased, they point out that some of their content is “straight news” and some of it is “opinion journalism.” When I see this, I wish that they would change their logo to Fox Opinion rather than Fox News, but I can see their argument. Sometimes, they’re presenting themselves one way and sometimes another, and what flies in one shouldn’t necessarily get a pass in the other. OK, so Maher.

          When Maher is on stage doing a routine, he is a comedian who happens to be doing a political joke. When Maher is on CNN, he is a pundit who happens to also be funny. So if he calls Palin a c**t while on stage wearing his “I’m a comedian” hat, that’s kosher. Not necessarily that funny, but perfectly legit. If he does it while wearing his “I’m a pundit” hat and says something like that, he should be torn to shreds.

          Does this make sense?

          For reference Al Franken was a comedian. He said some terrible things in his time. And that’s fine! But if he said some of that now, say on a campaign stop, I would call him out on it.

          • Matt,

            It would only make sense to me if when bashing Rush, you put Maher in there with him. It is either acceptable comments to you or offensive. And you seem to only care about the players, not their actions.

      • I dunno, blanket statements about clinging to guns and Bibles comes to mind. Painting a whole scope of voiceless people with a sarcastic, but politically charged brush, for the sake of making a political point and marginalizing a whole section of the populace and their opinions, maybe even whole states full of people.

        Please, this whole “yours is worse than mine” crap is BS, either stop taking offense at all or take offense when your own side does it too, anything else is hypocrisy.

    • Ray Hawkins says:

      hey LOI – you confuse me – are you telling me that Bill Maher is dangerous because he calls Sarah Palin a cunt – all because while he cut his teeth as a comedian he is really a vital political commentator? Yet when Limbaugh refers to the law student as a slut or whore he is just being “funny” and the uptight Liberals just cannot take a joke? And meaning he is merely an entertainer and not a political commentator whom many people base their political and more importantly their vote on? (We should also recall Limbaugh knee slappers in calling soldiers who support withdrawal as “phony soldiers” or when he accused Parkinson’s stricken Michael J. Fox of “faking it” for effect”). I don’t consider myself a liberal – and I don’t find Limbaugh the least bit funny – he is a repulsive stain in the underwear of humanity. Bill Maher? He isn’t funny either – he is spineless tool retooling the same old tired one-liners.

      Just askin’ bud – clear me up eh?

      • SK Trynosky Sr. says:

        While I think that Rush made a mistake, you are falling too hard into the trap. The C word among women elicits a response that goes far beyond anything else I have ever seen. The attack on Palin’s less than stellar older children was uncalled for by anyone . The attack on her baby and younger daughter is just plain evil, EVIL.

        A while back O’Reilly castigated Sen. elect Franken because whenever Franken (and others) said something over the top, he passed it off as Satire. So when it is from the left it is satire, if from the right it’s a stain on the underpants of humanity?

        Now I listened to the comment on the summer soldier and think that Rush was doubly wrong. He does not know enough about the military to comment on soldiers at all. Hell, 95 % of the population doesn’t know enough to comment on anything regarding the military. He was, I think, so enamored with playing golf with GW that he lost all reason when it came to looking objectively at Iraq ditto for Cheny and Rumsfeld. .

        Somewhere, somehow, after it happened and Michael Fox succeeded in defeating the Senator from Missouri I remember he was honest enough to admit he had deliberately “overdosed” himself with medication to make a point. This was the same point that Chevy Chase admitted to making when he deliberately, by his admission, made Gerald Ford look like a bumbling fool and idiot before the ’76 election. Same with Tina Fey on SNL. Most people think that Palin actually said she could “see Russia from her front porch”. Goebbels was so right, tell a lie deliberately and often enough and it becomes the truth.

        So, shall we both agree to speak out against stupidity whenever and wherever it arises and to always set the record straight? .

        I still wonder though about this 30 year old “girl” who can’t afford a condom.

        • Ray Hawkins says:

          Why assume it is a condom SK?

          And I agree 1000% with you – we may have to do a lot of speaking every time we see/hear stupidity no?

          • SK Trynosky Sr. says:

            Perhaps my own bias Ray.

            I have never really trusted the pill. While not a biochemist, I find it interesting that the pill is pushed at young women while older women who have have gone through menopause are no longer encouraged to take the very same hormones because of the increased risk of cancer. I have heard that formulations are different and that potency is different but, well, if it were me or my wife I wouldn’t recommend it. The Pill, like Abortion is way too political to get a factual analysis.

            Buck brought up the side note about other medical uses for the pill. I know several women, including a relative who have taken it to regulate their cycle. One in fact took it to get pregnant because she missed several months at a time. Since this was considered a medical usage more than a contraceptive one, I do not think that there is any moral objection nor that religiously affiliated institutions with medical plans would necessarily ban it. Might have to take the extra step of explaining it in more detail but I cannot see it being denied.

            The greatest way to fight stupidity is with facts.

            http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/show/38764

      • Ray,

        I think any confusion must come from your side of this conversation. When/where did I say anything about Maher being dangerous? I find him to be offensive. You have some that go for that deliberately. Take Rush, (please) what he said was deliberately meant to incite a reaction. It has. I find it to be equally offensive as Maher’s comments have been. And lets be honest, Rush, Maher, Jon Stewart, Glenn Beck, etc.. are all good entertainers, their success proves that. And anyone that does that for a living is bound to cross the line sometime.
        Rush doubled down on his comments, as did Maher. Both could have worded it better, made their point without being offensive. They were playing to their crowd, their fans who cheer them on. I think the sad truth is many liberals are blatant in their double standards. When the National Organization for Women is silent about a governor being called a “cunt”, that takes a special kind of blindness. The same applies to all the talking heads on the networks, especially the View. I would agree with any of them who are offended by Rush, except those that give a free pass to the Palin/Bachman/every conservative woman insulters.

  4. Buck the Wala

    “You do realize that the pill does have medical purposes other than preventing pregnancy, don’t you?”

    You do realize that GUNS have purposes other than killing food, don’t you? They in fact protect LIFE, the ultimate “medical” benefit.

    Therefore, I propose that Congress require gun dealers to provide every American with FREE guns of their choice.

  5. Sandra Fluke is a student at Georgetown Law. She’s also a “reproductive rights activist” who agrees wholeheartedly with the Obama administration’s controversial contraceptive mandate. Her reasoning, though, is likely to enrage some critics.

    During a testimony in front of the House Democratic Steering and Policy Committee on Monday (a meeting that was held by House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi), Fluke — who was coincidentally the only witness heard — described the financial constraints that purchasing birth control puts on her peers.

    “Forty percent of the female students at Georgetown Law reported to us that they struggled financially as a result of this policy,” Fluke said, referring to the fact that the university doesn’t pay for contraception. “Without insurance coverage, contraception, as you know, can cost a woman over $3,000 during law school.”

    She detailed, among other stories, how one woman felt “embarrassed” and “powerless” at the pharmacy counter when she “learned for the first time” that contraceptives weren‘t covered by the university’s health care plan.

    CNS News’ Craig Bannister, though, challenged Fluke’s $3,000 figure and came up with some pretty interesting numbers:

    $3,000 for birth control in three years? That’s a thousand dollars a year of sex – and, she wants us to pay for it. […]

    At a dollar a condom if she shops at CVS pharmacy’s website, that $3,000 would buy her 3,000 condoms – or, 1,000 a year…

    Assuming it’s not a leap year, that’s 1,000 divided by 365 – or having sex 2.74 times a day, every day, for three straight years. And, I thought Georgetown was a Catholic university where women might be prone to shun casual, unmarried sex. At least its health insurance doesn’t cover contraception (that which you subsidize, you get more of, you know).

    This isn’t the first time Fluke has made her voice heard in the halls of Congress. Earlier this month, The Blaze reported about Democrat Representatives Carolyn Maloney (D-NY) and Eleanor Norton (D-DC) and their anger over the lack of female witnesses present at a previous contraceptive hearing.

    The congresswomen wanted Fluke to be permitted to speak at the event, but Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) declined to allow it, stating that Fluke was not an expert in religious freedom, which was the issue being investigated.

    Fluke, though, responded by claiming that women should be included in the discussion. She also alleged that a friend of hers died because of a lack of access to contraception and accused Issa of silencing the people who have the most authority to speak on the subject.

    • Buck the Wala says:

      “$3,000 for birth control in three years? That’s a thousand dollars a year of sex”

      I’m getting tired of repeating myself, but once again, the pill does have other medical uses.

      By the way, here is the full text of Fluke’s prepared remarks: http://abcnews.go.com/images/Politics/statement-Congress-letterhead-2nd%20hearing.pdf

      • Buck

        This pretty much sums up who this person is:

        “I’m also a past president of Georgetown Law Students for Reproductive
        Justice or LSRJ.”

        I guess they don’t teach the meaning of the word “JUSTICE” in law school anymore. This is an extension of “Social Justice” theory, not JUSTICE in the traditional or legal sense.

        Buck, do you really swallow this crap? The notion that a “married” woman had to stop using contraception because she couldn’t afford it?

        She claims that her school doesn’t cover contraception in its student health care, then goes on to describe why people like her friend need access to the pill for medical reasons, but then admits her schools health plan includes an “exception” for this.

        She tries to argue that the Blunt amendment and other efforts would not provide this exception. But she has no idea whether it would or not because it isn’t evaluated in the full context. Let alone that it hadn’t undergone the full legislative process. A simple amendment to the amendment would have solved that but none was offered by her users.

        Also note that this was supposed to be the testimony that she was “not allowed to give” by those bad ass WHITE MEN who ran the committee hearing a week ago. But her testimony included the Blunt amendment, which did not exist then.

        I will guarantee you this. She had HELP preparing her prepared testimony. And it wasn’t her room mate.

        • Plus Buck, she just gave you lawyers a bigger black eye. THIS is what is making it through the law schools???

          Maybe that’s why you are really so defensive?

        • Buck the Wala says:

          She never claims that her school doesn’t provide an exemption — in fact, she is pretty clear in stating that, while Georgetown does, other school and institutions do not. The Blunt Amendment, as written, did not provide any such exemption.

          Yes, of course she amended her prepared remarks to include the Blunt Amendment; why wouldn’t she?

          Oh, and Kathy, she isn’t giving us lawyers a black eye — regardless of my own beliefs and whether or not they completely square with hers, I have the utmost respect for her for going in to Congress and arguing her case. Even if you disagree with her, even you must admit that she at least deserves some respect.

          • “Fluke, though, responded by claiming that women should be included in the discussion. She also alleged that a friend of hers died because of a lack of access to contraception”

            I’d really like to hear the full story on this one, someone dies because they didn’t have access to contraception? The UN gives free condoms out in Africa? Where was her “friend” and what did she die from? Childbirth? Maybe, but unless she was raped, she chose to have sex.

            I can see why she makes you proud Buck, a one in a million event justifies requiring millions to make changes. Just too much responsibility to tell a boyfriend to bag it or leave it in your pants……

            • Buck the Wala says:

              LOI, she provided the full medical context, you just refuse to consider it.

              • No Buck, I just didn’t research enough to find her full text, which was what I was trying to post. Saying I refuse to consider something is a little judgemental, don’t you think? I do try to be honest about the bias I carry, but since I’m willing to hear you out, think it show something on my part. I listen to Buck, that ought to earn me respect from any liberal dingbat…..

                Have now read your link on the medical conditions. Seems she contradicts herself that “technically”, it’s provided at Georgetown, which is her example, but some insurance companies make it difficult or refuse to accept medical conditions that require BC medications to treat other conditions….

                I would agree if a Dr prescribes a medication, insurance should have limits on what and why they can refuse. I don’t see that as being the same as mandating all insurance companies MUST cover BC medication for women. For sure, I do not agree with mandating
                a religious group must provide it in their blanket health care plan.

              • Buck the Wala says:

                LOI, perhaps I came off as a bit harsh, but many of the comments I’ve been coming across (not only here at SUFA) have been focusing entirely on how this woman is asking that we fund her sex habit. On top of that, it was just a bit much to read your (albeit sarcastic…i hope) comments about her friend’s death, especially when I had just posted to the full text of her remarks immediately above.

            • Holy crap! That must have been a wild romp! 😯

              An undercover, only in the dark, puritan like me can’t even imagine!

              This has been a lot of fun, but I gotta run (literally – snow is coming fast and I don’t do so well when I run in boots). There’s actually some serious stuff going on my way and you all have provided a respite and some good laughs.

              Have a good weekend SUFAers!

        • JAC – long time no chat……

          Let’s talk about a few things…..

          “The notion that a “married” woman had to stop using contraception because she couldn’t afford it?”

          So what are you saying here? That because the female student is married it is somehow b.s. that she would not be able to afford contraception? I take the statement at face value – because I have no reason to assume anything to the positive or negative contextually regarding the statement. You seem to attack her statement by filling in blanks that do not exist.

          The “exception” – you’re missing the point here with respect to determinations around what is covered and what is not. So what if her school offers an exception as such. That does not undermine her point that the coverage decisions are being made by actuaries and bean counters rather than better enabling the medical professionals to better determine needs – the “needs” are being jackknifed by whats covered.

          I’d contend we have a terminology problem – all these medicines are being lumped into the “birth control” or “contraception” bucket – when a use of them is anything but. By doing so we get fucking idiots like Rush Limbaugh and folks on this board that now presume these women to all be whores and sluts. I suppose that makes my better half a whore or slut since she takes these same medications to control severe cramps and profound blood loss that she has had since our second child.

          And what is this nonsense with you and “bad ass WHITE MEN”? Seriously? Look up the members of the Democratic House Policy and Steering Committee. Go ahead. Dare ya.

          • Ray

            Yes, it has been awhile. Was wondering where you have been off to.

            1. Married woman. I am saying the story is BS. And that given the standards of “testimony” that Buck himself has established here, it is hearsay and inadmissible. Her married status is irrelevant, but that was the witnesses choice to play the “married” card so I was stuck with her comment.

            2. The point. I don’t think I missed the point at all. What she wants is FREE CONTRACEPTION, period. Her testimony to support this is ridiculous when examined under the microscope of logic and reason. She and others have leaned heavily on the “medical” portion of the issue. Her testimony focused on “her examples” of people who suffer from not getting contraception. She tried to use the “medical need” argument for those attending her school, but then admitted this need was in fact covered by the very policy she used as an example of WHY the mandate was needed.

            In other words, the mandate was NOT needed to provide medical needed drugs. But it is needed to provide contraception in general.

            I also recall the Catholics opposing the mandate explained that their policies also provide this exception. So what is the point of the testimony about “health”? It is to INFLAME women into thinking that White Republican Men are trying to get into their bodies once again.

            3. Whores and sluts. I think you are over reacting on this. I have not seen anyone on SUFA say these women actually are whores and sluts. Limbaugh was using his usual sarcastic parody to show the “fallacy” in the arguments. It was funny when I heard it and the context easily understandable. I did not believe him to be attacking this woman or the other women personally. Just as other comedic types use this method. Which for the record, I do find funny at times as well.

            The issue and point of the comment was those demanding free contraception for nothing but birth control purposes Ray. Limbaugh nor anyone here as linked that comment to those requiring medical benefits beyond birth control.

            So your extension of the comment to your wife’s situation is a logical fallacy.

            I do agree that the “terminology” is being muddied. But I think that first came from the left, knowing full well the Republicans would fall in line. It started with using “contraception” to describe a medicine which “aborts” a pregnancy. This obviously feeds into the most emotional issue of our day, which means that Reason and Logic are quickly lost.

            4. White men. I think you are misunderstanding my use of the phrase. This was the essence of the commentary made by Pelosi and other Feminist leaders regarding the Committee hearing held by Mr. Issa. It was in fact thrown at yours truly when trying to discuss this issue at Huff Po. So I used THEIR rhetoric in making the point.

            The “sexual” make up of the committee and those who testified was irrelevant. Because the committee hearing was about the affect on religious institutions, not about the benefits of FREE contraception. The Chair had accepted an expert to testify in Religious issues offered by the Dems. But his person suddenly pulled out and then Pelosi, et al, deliberately turned it into an ugly White Men vs Women issue, because THIS PARTICULAR woman was not allowed to testify.

            Looks to me, given her written testimony, that Mr. Issa was correct in denying her a seat at that particular table.

            This was a deliberate and political hijacking of the Religious Freedom issue. I maintain this was part of the larger orchestrated “contraception issue” created by the DNC and Obama campaign.

            • Ray Hawkins says:

              JAC

              Asking your health plan that you pay into to cover something without co-pay is not the same as getting it for “free”. The cost is still going to be picked up elsewhere in the plan – you and I both know that.

              I don’t think she leaned heavily on the “medical” portion at all – this can and should be positioned that there are preventive health benefits meritorious of coverage (co-pay or not) of both male and female drugs, devices and other FDA-approved products that create a chemical and/or non-chemical barrier to prevent sperm and other bodily fluids from leaving one person and entering another during sexual intercourse or rape.

              The religious exemption did not just go into play – its been part of the interim rule on this since August, 2011 – why the horor now? Even more puzzling – the exemption under the interim rule was modeled after the most common exemptions that have existed under 28 different States that have required coverage of “contraception” – where was the horror at the State level?

              Sarcastic parody? Who the hell is he parodying? He is drawing illogical conclusions based on her testimony because he is an asshole…..not because he is “funny”. His comedic method is most certainly not parody.

              Lastly – if it were such a religious freedom issue – why was it not raised when the interim rule was issued? And why was it never raised materially at the State level?

        • Even when I was broke I could afford condoms, they were always either cheap enough or free from somewhere. If contraception is the real issue, then why does it have to be the pill? There are known issue with the pill and other forms of chemical contraception, ranging from hormonal to weight gain to destabilization of cycle, to sterility (in the case of depo). Almost every time I hear a fuss about condoms its that the guy doesnt like it, or in some cases the girl doesnt. Its preference. If its so tough to deal with that, then suck it up and pay for it yourself. If you are too weak to tell your man to put on a rubber, then learn to stand up for yourself, youre gonna be a lawyer, grow a spine and a strong argument. If he won’t go for that, have the intelligence to know he is a controlling A-hole whom you should not give the time of day.

          Don’t cry to me about women’s health and claim to be a modern, intelligent woman when you should know your argument is crap. Don’t parade yourself as a strong woman qualified for law or any other career and put yourself out there as a victim with your hand out because you cannot manage on your own. Maybe you are as tough as any of the men around you, but that does not make you a strong woman, it just means the men around you are weak fools who should try working for a living once in their life before they die of mediocrity.

          • 😀 😀 😀

          • Ray Hawkins says:

            @Jon Smith – why does it have to be the Pill? Not sure if the law student was approaching it that way (maybe implied?) – but this isn’t just about “preference” sir! Are their known issues with oral contraception? Sure! Are there known issues with condoms? Uh…..yeah – but you knew this right? Breakage? Allergic reactions? Leakage? The fuss isn’t just that one or the other doesn’t like them – the issue is that a single approach is far riskier and impacting to preventive care than just using a rubber. In both parties using preventive measures then both are accepting responsibility for their health.

            • Ray-everyone keeps talking about contraception but the issue in my mind is the government telling a private company that they must give this away for free-and that companies must supply insurance or else and if they supply insurance it must cover specific things. What do you think about the government having this power??

              • Ray Hawkins says:

                VH – its not “free” – it is never free. Its a matter of whether it is co-pay or not. If it “forced” as no co-pay the cost will be recouped elsewhere in the plan.

              • As in… she’ll end up paying for it in health insurance cost…

              • JB,

                As in “we” the tax payers end up paying for it in everyone’s health insurance.

              • It’s not free-well that is a true statement-sorta-but in reality everything they have put out there as necessary preventative services that the companies can’t charge a co-pay for are in fact FREE to the people receiving them-the recouping means we all pay more-but it certainly doesn’t make the amount we have to pay extra – equal. Hell, my husband has to take several pills everyday which he would die without-but somehow these other needs or even just wants are more important.

              • Ray Hawkins says:

                @LOI – incorrect – you are not paying for her health plan at the school.

              • Ray Hawkins says:

                @V.H. – it is either free or not free – it is not “sorta free”. If something is provided w/o a co-pay requirement that does not mean it was free. The amount anyone pays into a plan can be determined by a variety of variables we’ll often never be exposed to or informed of. Where I work, all HCE’s (“highly compensated employees”) pay inherently more into the Health Plan as a matter of policy. How is that for wealth redistribution? 🙂

            • I understand that, but none of it justifies the demand to have it paid for, it is not a medically necessary thing, nor is it a right, so if you want it, you suck it up and pay for it. Be an adult. If your lifestyle is too expensive, change your lifestyle.

              • Ray Hawkins says:

                @Dr. Jon Smith – can you call my wife and tell her that her “birth control prescription” to control profound/excessive bleeding, severe debilitating cramps, and immense hormonal mood swings is a “lifestyle choice” and not medically necessary? (Remind her to grow up and be an adult too)

              • @ Ray.
                In the context of your above comment, I stand by my statement. As for specific medical issues, I have mentioned elsewhere that is a separate matter, tho the percentages of those who use contraception for true medical reasons is quite low, bordering on anecdotal. I would ask, however, is your wife’s prescription $1k a year? Is it something that your insurance “refuses to cover”? I would expect the coverage to be quite different based on the reason for the need of it. Medical need is the variable, not the medicine itself. Furthermore, I cannot speak to your wife’s specific condition, but there are a variety of other means for managing her described symptoms in many cases, some of them are, in fact, lifestyle based, relating to diet and excercize.

              • Ray Hawkins says:

                @Jon Smith

                “The percentages of those who use contraception for true medical reasons is quite low, bordering on anecdotal.”

                – Just curious how you assess that – I’m not aware of any such data but would love to read it

                “Is your wife’s prescription $1k a year”

                – Her co-pay? It is not $1K a year – probably closer to $300.00. As for the real cost of the script – I would have no idea.

                “I would expect the coverage to be quite different based on the reason for the need of it.”

                – That is a bizarre statement – can you please clarify? Within a plan or our plan – the extent to which something is covered is not based on the need for it. If I break my left arm the coverage decision is not different than if I broke my right arm (and I am right handed). Help me understand what you mean and how you would conclude this?

                “……Variety of other means for managing her described symptoms in many cases, some of them are, in fact, lifestyle based, relating to diet and excercize”

                – You are correct – but you also have this backwards. Her condition is not a result of lifestyle choice – it is a result of who she is. Diet and exercise can in some cases affect the condition positively or negatively – in her case she has tried multiple methods involving diet and exercise w/o success – you name it – she has probably tried it.

              • Hence my statement that I cannot speak to your wife’s case, I am glad alternatives have been tried, sorry that they did not work. In your case, insurance is covering this, does your policy cover contraception when there is not a medical need? That was the intended meaning of my “bizarre statement”. What I meant was that insurance would be more likely to cover a medication if it is needed for medical reasons than if it was needed for lifestyle/preference reasons. Its not one arm or the other, its covering a medication that your body needs to operate normally or healthily versus a medication that keeps you from getting pregnant and there is not other reason for it. My statement of “need” was based on this contrast, not on the severity of need within the bounds of medical care. The same could be said for certain preventative things. Many insurance policies cover testing and preventative medicine to a point, but not as much as you want, because it is a personal preference to have more checkups than recommended, unless a doctor says otherwise, in which case those insurance plans often cover the additional tests.

                Having done some additional research on the medical numbers, the percentages run between 10 and 15% of those on contraception are on it for medical reasons. That is more than anecdotal, but still a relatively low percentage.

                Also, as a side note, I never meant to imply that your wife’s condition was a result of a lifestyle choice, I do not know of any cases where a lifestyle directly created such a condition, I just know of many where a change in diet or exercise helped considerably. Obviously, this is not the case for her, and that is, again, unfortunate.

  6. Love this! It is classic Breitbart – always ready to confront to get to the truth. I was at a tea party gathering about a year ago in Madison and Breitbart was here. It was at the time of the public union protesting and as was their modus operandi, they were attempting to shout down the speakers at the tea party rally.

    Breitbart stopped talking, came down off the speakers’ platform and came towards one of the worst offenders of the “noise” and asked him to explain himself. It was just like in this video – they have no answers and the guy finally just shut up.

    http://legalinsurrection.com/2012/03/man-against-the-mob/

  7. gmanfortruth says:

    The Left = Gimmee more! 🙂 Yes, it seems that all left leaning voters want is more free stuff so they don’t have to earn anything. I’m beginning to feel as if a vast majority of Left Wingers are nothing more than PARASITES who need to be purged from society. So in in short, Left = Parasites, a cause for a new and fun hunting season 😆

    • gmanfortruth says:

      No wonder this country is such a mess! 👿

    • I think its entirely appropriate for employees to speak up and demand that their medical needs be addressed in the health plans they pay for. Especially when the employer pays nary a dime. There is a huge shift in moving a larger portion of the costs of the plan to the employee so its not really a benefit any more as it is a service the employer is helping facilitate but also retains all of the content control over. It is also why many, myself included, are considering moving solely to HSA or to buying our own plan out of pocket. Let’s be real – Health Care reform has NOT lowered my costs – they have increased dramatically.

      And the right? They are equally guilty of gimmee – its just comes in different shapes and sizes.

      • Who are you and what have you done with the real Ray Hawkins????? 😉

        • Ray Hawkins says:

          True story – I’d love to have more kids – and the old adage of “kids are too expensive” applies – but more at play here is how skyrocketing costs in Healthcare are the primary determinant for us.

        • Ray Hawkins says:

          @Richmond – I turned 40 and became an angry old man. 🙂

          • Priorities change and as you get older, become a parent, start thinking about how you’ll sustain your way of living in old age. You tend to get tired of people’s BS and self-induced drama. You think to yourself, “Damnit, I’m meeting my obligations and responsibilities…these fools need to also”. You get tired of your hard-earned $’s being “given” to people who just never learn the lessons and keep repeating the same mistakes over and over…

            Hugs to you Ray…I hope that you and the Mrs. will somehow find a way to make the add’l children happen because you are a great Dad!

      • Ray

        Come on sir, you know we true right wingers never ask for anything.

        You have forgotten the left vs right dichotomy. 🙂

      • Remember when….

        http://blog.heritage.org/2011/02/25/wisconsin-union-collective-bargaining-a-teachers-fundamental-right-to-viagra/

        Spot on Ray! i think one thing needed is skin in the game for everybody, on all entitlements. If it’s “free” for someone, abuse is almost automatic. Even a $10 co-pay to a Dr’s office or the ER would stop a lot of abuse.

      • gmanfortruth says:

        Hi Ray 🙂

        Life is great in this neck of the woods, how about you? Chicken coop goes up early next week and the roosters will be crowing by Thursday morning ! Very mild winter means a huge fawn dropping this spring. We had alot last spring too, so our herd is really growing well. Putting two 8 x 7 buildings up on stilts (12 feet high) this spring as well for hunting ( yes, we will have recliners in them?).

        It will be a busy spring here, then the fun begins in the summer and we roll into hunting season ready to go! 🙂

    • Well there you go Gman! Left=Parasites who need to be purged.

      I think that is in fact, what one of the lefties on this site has advocated for!

      I do sometimes wonder if we shouldn’t just give them what they want, and maybe even pay for it. I mean heck, they love mandates – make it such.

      “From this day forward, all statists must, by the power invested in your beloved government, submit to prevention and/or abortion of parasites that you create. If by chance these aforementioned processes do not work, post delivery parasitis-cide will be performed.”

  8. DisposableCarbonUnit says:

    Theoretical legal question for SUFA….

    The government pays for the contraceptive pill for women, as a result she has a blood clot and stroke from taking this free medication. Is the government/taxpayer now liable for additional medical costs?

    • “Liable”? I doubt it. The company holding my plan would not be liable for something that happens to my wife – it’d be a matter of what is covered.

      • Ray

        That is true for a Private company, but Carbon Unit is correct.

        WE the taxpayers will be liable for the medical costs of any complications that arise as well.

        That is the nature of Govt provided service, and the end result of the rationalizations that support it.

        You know the argument. People cost us money therefore we have the authority to control People.

  9. 🙂

  10. the Catholic church teaches that sterilization, contraception or abortion are wrong and that Catholics must not be inolved in them, the regulation forces Catholics–and members of other religious denominations that share those views–to act against the teachings of their faith. Numerous lawsuits have already been asserting that the rule violates the First Amendment’s guarantee to the free exercise of religion. Many of the nation’s Catholic bishops have published letters saying: “We cannot–we will not–comply with this unjust law.”
    Sebelius, however, insisted that the mandate “upholds religious liberty.”

    “The rule which we intend to promulgate in the near future around implementation will require insurance companies, not a religious employer, but the insurance company to provide coverage for contraceptives,” Sebelius told the subcommittee.

    The Catholic bishops have called for the regulation to be rescinded in its entirety, so that no employer, insurer or individual is forced to act against his or her conscience.

    During the subcommittee hearing, Rep. Tim Murphy (R-Pa.) said that contraception provided by insurance companies to people employed by religious organizations under the future form of the rule Sebelius described would not be was not free.

    “Who pays for it? There’s no such thing as a free service,” Murphy asked.

    Sebelius responded that that is not the case with insurance.

    “The reduction in the number of pregnancies compensates for cost of contraception,” Sebelius answered.

    Murphy expressed surprise by the answer.

    “So you are saying, by not having babies born, we are going to save money on health care?” Murphy asked.

    Sebelius replied, “Providing contraception is a critical preventive health benefit for women and for their children.”

    Murphy again sought clarification.

    “Not having babies born is a critical benefit. This is absolutely amazing to me. I yield back,” he said.

    Sebelius responded, “Family planning is a critical health benefit in this country, according to the Institute of Medicine.”

    Rep. Brett Guthrie (R-Ky.), a member of the subcommittee, said after the hearing that if mandating contraception saves money there shouldn’t be a need for a mandate.

    “Their argument is this: Health insurance companies will offer it for free because they make money. You reduce the number of people getting pregnant therefore you reduce the cost of pregnancy, or low birth weight pregnancies or other kind of pregnancies,” Guthrie told CNSNews.com.

    “If you think about it, why don’t health insurance companies provide it now if the argument is health insurance companies are going to make a lot of money? If the health insurance companies were really acting in their own best interest, they would be giving these pills out for free, if it really saved money,” Guthrie added.

    Despite the controversy over whether the mandate is constitutional, Sebelius told Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) during the hearing that the administration never sought a legal opinion about the regulation from the Department of Justice.

  11. gmanfortruth says:

    Sheriff Joe has done it again. The press conference is pretty well done. Wonder what’s next?

    http://www.prisonplanet.com/mcso-obama-eligibility-cold-case-investigation-full-press-conference.html

    On a different note, Brietbart was going to release a video of Obama in a meeting (long ago) discussion re-education camps and how to kill 25 million Americans. This video will be released in a couple weeks. Natural causes my American ass 👿

    • gman

      If you had that info and was about to release it don’t you think you would feel tremendous STRESS?

      The man had a history of heart problems.

      In fact I made a comment after watching him weeks ago that I thought he was in medical distress. He was short of breath and looking like someone who was struggling.

      Sorry my Patriotic friend but I think NATURAL causes.

      • gmanfortruth says:

        JAC,

        Good day Sir 🙂 You may be right, however, it was very quickly announced “natural causes”. This without an autopsy? I would agree he was under extreme stress, having this info and being ready to release it. Coincidence? Maybe. He may have been threatened and refused, poof, dead man walking. We shall see. He died the night before he was to release this. I leave nothing to question at this point.

        • USWeapon says:

          To be fair G, I think they always release “natural causes” as the cause of death whenever there is no immediate evidence that foul play was involved. What is known is that he was walking in collapsed and his heart stopped. So that would appear to be natural causes. SOP says that is what goes in the press release. If the autopsy reveals something else, THEN they say it was something else. But reason says that you start with natural causes when that is what it appears to be.

          For the record I certainly hope it was natural causes. I currently believe that it was. If the autopsy finds something else, I will go on the attack, but I don’t think it will.

    • gmanfortruth says:

      I just have to ask this question. Based on the forensic evidence provided at the Sheriff Joe press conference, is Obama’s papers legit in you mind?

      • gman

        I don’t have time to watch the entire video. I do note, however, the fuzzy language he uses.

        Bottom line: He can not confirm they are authentic. But……. he can not state with certainty that they are not.

        Now for the Bigger point. I don’t think the American People would accept their forgery as TRUE even if they were given overwhelming evidence. They simply would not be able to handle the truth if that turned out to be the situation.

        Which then begs another question. If they did come to realize it was true. What would happen next?

        • gmanfortruth says:

          If they did come to realize it was true. What would happen next?

          First, I think the military turns on the government. There would be new elections after all the turmoil, maybe a couple years down the road. The democratic Party would cease to exist almost overnight. Those who are left of center would be targeted early on, until order was restored. We would not have livable inner cities and the economy would likely collapse into hyperinflation. In other words, things would be just fine and dandy 🙂

    • Buck the Wala says:

      GAAAAH!!! NOT THIS AGAIN!!!

      Ah SUFA, to what address should I forward my bill for psychiatric services from my mental breakdown?

      • gmanfortruth says:

        Buck, Relax! This is just the beginning, LOL. In about 10 days or so, Sheriff Joe will release some more really damning stuff that was uncovered by the investigation. Maybe you should look at the video and see the forensic evidence before you auto condemn it. THese are the kinds of findings that lands people in jail everyday, denial would be beneath you. 🙂

      • Well, you chose to read it, so based on SUFA principles I would say that bill must remain firmly in your own hands. No passing the Buck, pun intended. 😛

  12. The Virginia Senate race is getting contentious with the new release of an attack ad aimed at exposing the truth about candidate Hank the Cat.

    Canines for a Feline Free Tomorrow, a super PAC, suggests there are unresolved questions about Hank in a new video, “Hank for Senate? No Way.”

    “Hank wants your vote for Senate, but what do you really know about Hank?” asks the ad. “Hank has never released his birth certificate, his tax returns and has never responded to allegations that he used cat nip.”

    Hank is positioning himself as a Washington outsider who is focused on job creation.

    When asked for comment, Hank stared blankly and began licking his rear end.

    Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/03/02/what-do-we-really-know-about-va-senate-candidate-hank-the-cat/#ixzz1nzYC0V5L

    And why hasn’t our Canine Weapon not handled this yet?

  13. Buck the Wala says:
    March 2, 2012 at 3:41 pm • Edit

    “LOI, perhaps I came off as a bit harsh, but many of the comments I’ve been coming across (not only here at SUFA) have been focusing entirely on how this woman is asking that we fund her sex habit. On top of that, it was just a bit much to read your (albeit sarcastic…i hope) comments about her friend’s death, especially when I had just posted to the full text of her remarks immediately above.”

    Buck, it’s all good. Mainly having fun with you. I do think saying “you refuse to consider” to be very strong words to use against a thinking person. An airhead would not feel slighted.

    I was watching FOX this AM and caught a segment on a new book that says the left attacks whenever an issue arises. I think there is some truth to this, ex. AGW was settled science, period F’en dot. To question anything was to be labeled a “denier” and attacked. This mandate was issued without even the D of J being asked for an opinion, and when the Catholic church spoke out and a hearing was called, the left attacked these “old, white men” refusing to allow women to testify on contraception.

    But on the other hand, Rushes comments sound awful “attackey” to this southern gentleman. Also reminds me of how Matt frequently avoids answering questions and changes the subject…..
    Matt, you refuse to consider….
    Matt, you refuse to consider….
    Matt, you refuse to consider….

    Thanks Buck, I may have a new catch phrase.

    • If I may…. I don’t think Matt refuses to consider.. I think that he considers but refuses to TAKE A STAND for fear of his stance coming back to haunt him..so he rides the fence on everything. Buck on the other hand…well he’s just Buck the lawyer and we all know how lawyers roll….

      running for cover

      • ooooh, refuses to take a stand for fear of his stance coming back to haunt him…

        Is that like voting “Present”?

        It all makes sense now~

      • Well, we could cut Matt some slack, given his condition…
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Couvade_syndrome

      • Ridin’ the fence gives a man a sore crotch! 🙂

      • Mathius™ says:

        No. I have no issue with taking a stance once I’ve reached a conclusion. I just haven’t reached a conclusion on the ACA or on heath care reform in general.

        Here, I’ll take a stance on a few things:
        Abortion isn’t murder.
        Homosexuals should have the same EXACT rights as everyone else.
        You have no right to define “marriage” for someone else.
        We should not be able to tell someone born in Mexico that he cannot move to the US.
        Dick Cheney shot Breitbart.
        Lawyers are bottom-feeding scum*
        Drugs should be legal. All of them.
        Prostitution should be legal.
        Meat may be murder, but it sure is tasty.
        If this winter is evidence of climate change, I love global warming.
        Red Bull does not give you wings, but it sure is delicious.
        The US is dominated by Christianity, there is no looming Muslim threat.
        The US is dominated by white people, there is no “brown” threat.
        The US is dominated by English speakers, there is no Spanish language threat.
        Even if the above three were false, that’s too bad – deal with it.
        DPM grog is 197 proof. DPM Spiced grog is untestable.
        Black Flag is actually SkyNet.
        D13 is actually a short colonel – I don’t mean Lt. Colonel, I mean he’s short.
        Education is a good thing. It is not “snobbish” to think that way.
        Romney is going to beat Santorum.
        Romney is going to beat Paul.
        Romney might tap Paul for VP. Boy won’t that be interesting.
        Gingrich Who?
        USW was arrested months ago as a spy while backpacking on the N. Korean border.
        The revolution is not coming any time soon.
        The end is not nigh.
        Obama is going to beat Romney.
        I should not have to get permission from some bureaucrat in order to cut down trees on my property.
        Dogs are better than cats, but Cheetahs are better than dogs.
        California and New York are better than Texas. Deal with it.
        Guns are dangerous. So are cigarettes.
        Apple is overvalued.
        Gold is (probably) not a bubble.
        There is no gang violence on the Mexican border. It’s all a cover-up for D13’s raptors.
        Computers will some day be sentient. THEN the revolution will come.

        *This is not intended to be construed as a factual statement.

    • Buck the Wala says:

      Yes, very strong words, but remember: my irritation was in having just posted to her actual remarks.

      And oops! Sorry Matt! Though in his defense, he considers more than perhaps anyone else on this site. He just likes to go down a few rabbit holes, but that is his thought process in action.

  14. NBC Brings on Sandra Fluke to Blast Limbaugh, The Right’s ‘Deafening Silence’ Denouncing Him

    Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/kyle-drennen/2012/03/02/nbc-brings-sandra-fluke-blast-limbaugh-rights-deafening-silence-denoun#ixzz1nzhL6ckK

    • Gotta wonder if NBC will mention FOX and Boehner…..The Right’s ‘Deafening Silence’

      http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/03/02/dems-urge-republicans-to-condemn-limbaugh-over-remarks-on-georgetown-student/#ixzz1nzi5D0or

      President Obama injected himself Friday into the controversy over Rush Limbaugh’s comments about a Georgetown University student who testified on contraceptive coverage — effectively elevating the issue, with some Democrats even trying to raise money off it.

      The president called the student, Sandra Fluke, on Friday afternoon to express his disappointment in the “personal attacks” against her, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said.

      Limbaugh, on his radio show earlier this week, had called Fluke a “slut” following her comments in favor of mandatory contraceptive coverage.

      “The fact that our political discourse has become debased in many ways is bad enough. It is worse when it’s directed at a private citizen who was simply expressing her views on a matter of public policy,” Carney said.

      He said Obama called Fluke to express disappointment about the attacks and “thank her” for exercising her right to speak out.

      The phone call came as lawmakers across Capitol Hill were weighing in, and as the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee incorporated Limbaugh’s comments into its fundraising campaign.

      House Speaker John Boehner’s office earlier in the day scolded Limbaugh. Though Boehner opposes the mandate, spokesman Michael Steel said in a statement that “the speaker obviously believes the use of those words was inappropriate” — in reference to Limbaugh’s remarks.

      But Steel also said Boehner thought it was inappropriate to try to “raise money off the situation.”

      Carney had no comment when asked at the press briefing about the DCCC’s efforts.

      A day earlier, dozens of congressional Democrats had signed a letter to Boehner urging Republicans to condemn the language.

      “Mr. Limbaugh repeatedly used sexually charged, patently offensive, and obscene language to malign the character of this courageous young woman who has chosen to be the voice for many of her peers,” Rep. Louise Slaughter, D-N.Y., wrote in the letter signed by more than 75 other lawmakers, urging Republicans to condemn the “atrocious and hurtful words.”

      Georgetown University’s president, John J. DeGioia, also weighed in on Friday, issuing a lengthy statement expressing concern about the remarks directed at Fluke.

      “(Fluke) provided a model of civil discourse. This expression of conscience was in the tradition of the deepest values we share as a people. One need not agree with her substantive position to support her right to respectful free expression. And yet, some of those who disagreed with her position — including Rush Limbaugh and commentators throughout the blogosphere and in various other media channels — responded with behavior that can only be described as misogynistic, vitriolic, and a misrepresentation of the position of our student,” he said.

      Fluke also released a statement on Thursday saying: “No woman deserves to be disrespected in this manner.”

      Fluke had spoken at a forum last week pulled together by Democrats — it was a response to a hearing held by Republicans where witnesses bashed the administration’s contraceptive coverage mandate.

      Fluke complained at the forum about how much she and other students pay for birth control because Georgetown, a Catholic university, won’t cover it.

      Limbaugh later said on his show that the student was effectively arguing that the students “must be paid to have sex.”

      “What does that make her? It makes her a slut, right. It makes her a prostitute. She wants to be paid to have sex. She’s having so much sex, she can’t afford the contraception,” he said.

      Limbaugh, though, was not cowed by what he described as the left’s “outright conniption fit.”

      “Why go before a congressional committee and demand that all of us (pay)? Because they want to have sex any time. … I mean, they’re going broke having to buy contraception,” he said.

  15. Hasn’t even taken effect yet and it’s already gone up $111Billion. I wonder how much it will cost by the time it comes into effect? IF IT DOES!

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/03/02/lawmaker-wants-answers-after-cost-estimate-for-health-insurance-aid-rises-by/

  16. When you’ve got nothing else, and your record sucks…..let’s try to campaign against Rush! Buck, you’ll be happy to know the big O told Fluke her parents should be proud of her. So gas prices are at all time highs, OCare just came out with an extra $11B price tag, there’s Syria and Iran, and inflation, and national debt, but his handlers think it wise to get involved and call this tool? errrr nice girl who is first a victim of high priced sex and now a laughing stock of the mean, vicious right-wing.

    http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0312/73549.html

  17. Man! It’s gittin’ dangerous living down here next to Alabama! Every day it seems like we have another tornado or 3 coming through!

    And where I live seems to be like a Tornado Bowling Alley!

  18. Whoa, Whoa, Whoa. What’s this? Volt is slowing production and laying off workers? Why it was just…..2-3 days ago that the campaigner in chief told how he has brought back the auto industry, and that he himself would like to drive a volt someday. Well, given the sales, there will probably still some left on the lot when he leaves office next January so he can probably still achieve that goal.

    http://www.freep.com/article/20120302/BUSINESS0101/120302035/Volt-production-on-hold-for-5-weeks?odyssey=tab|topnews|text|FRONTPAGE

  19. Kathy

    You alluded to the need or at least desire for a little humor. So thought I would share what is supposedly a true story I heard on the radio this afternoon.

    Some wise guys wanting to prove a point conducted a survey of young “college” women a few years back. Actually it wasn’t a survey but the gimmick was designed to get an answer, and make a point.

    They visited “several” (??) campuses and asked young women to sign a petition to “repeal women’s suffrage”.

    The young women overwhelmingly supported eliminating women’s suffrage and signed the petition in droves.

    • Haha.

      So many children left behind…

    • Some of those “on the street” clips from various comedy shows are humorous and sad at the same time. You are right on, JB, so many children left behind.

  20. Matt and Buck,

    I understand your aversion to the language used by Limbaugh. I agree that he is a blowhard. There are people on the left like that too, that’s life.

    What I want to hear from you is your feeling on the substance of this situation. What do you think of this woman’s statement? That is, her claim that it is too much of a burden for young women to have to pay for contraception. Specifically college age women.

    • SK Trynosky Sr. says:

      The fact that it now revealed, on the second day, that she is 30 rather then 24 really disturbs me. This is an agent provocateur not Betty Co-ed. Who was dumb enough and why to give her a full scholarship? I’d also like to know the name and circumstances of her dead friend who passed on because she couldn’t afford contraception. I noted with great interest the comment above regarding her cell phone plan.

      • This bothers me too-for some reason I thought she was around 19-probably because she sounded like a whiny child-finding out she is 30 years old-just makes the whole thing seem even more contrived.

    • Did you know that there was a Tweet from Obama’s account -that said something like “Add your name to demand that the Koch Brothers release their donors list” The President of the US is using a tweeter account to pressure and try to intimidate a private business-this is so out of line-considering his power as the President-I am just horrified.

    • I can tell exactly WHY the Administration does this. Because Obama is a Racist himself. And because he also knows that the most effective strategy he can use is to divide America. Put the Haves against the Have nots. Everything he does is divisive and with racial overtones.

  21. USWeapon says:

    I figured I would add in my thoughts on this woman’s testimony as well as Limbaugh’s comments (and Maher’s since it has been brought up)

    First the testimony… I had no problem with it. I felt it was dishonest. I don’t believe for a second that the $3,000 figure she presented is accurate. It is the falsehoods like these that ruffle my feathers a little. It was a grossly inflated figure meant to embellish her position. Of course, isn’t that the way of any political discourse these days? It is a sad state we find ourselves in.

    Limbaugh’s Slut Comment: Look folks, I know some of you really like Rush. I have no issue with his espousing his positions or his attacks on leading democratic figures. Frankly, the performance of nearly every member of the national political scene DESERVES the nastiest shit thrown at it. But I found this attack by Rush classless and needless. He could have merely pointed out her figures were flawed. He could have espoused nothing more than why her position is wrong. Instead he personally attacked her by calling her what he did. This is one of the primary reasons I think Rush should be ignored. To think…. this guy is supposed to be representative of the conservative right. If he represents you, you should be ashamed of yourself. Is this how the christian right shows its moral compass?

    Maher’s Cunt comment: I get it, the guy is supposed to be a comedian. He isn’t any longer. He is now a political commentator in the exact same vein as Rush. He has a political commentary show and does spots on national political television shows. He says vitriolic things that fire up his base and enrage his opponents. Sounds just like Rush to me… His calling these women names is classless and needless. It is why I no longer spend my time listening to his nonsense either.

    On a side note, what I find most fascinating in all of this are the reactions of the offended groups. The national women’s groups lambast Rush for calling one woman a slut while having nothing to say while Bill calls another a Cunt. Likewise, in that article LOI shared above, it stated, “The reviewer – writing at the self-described “Premier Media Source For LGBT Texas” – noted: Maher spoke the truth for a nearly two-hour set, and, in my mind, established himself as the pre-eminent political commentator of a generation. He’s a comedian, too, of course. But really, he’s a voice.” I wonder how that reviewer for a premier source for LGBT Texas would feel if Maher started calling people fags or making jokes about the promiscuity present in in gay bars? He would be enraged and call for his head.

    It is this type of hypocrisy that angers me the most and renders most of these “rights” groups irrelevant in my mind. They want tolerance when it comes to their cause, but are absolutely fine with complete intolerance when they agree with it.

    That is all….

  22. Rush is a dickwad earning duckets off his brain dead audience and all, no doubt, but let’s face it, the retort I read yesterday in one Internet article was pretty spot on; after hearing about Obama’s call to the woman, there was a reference to something Bill Maher said about the divince Miss Palin: calling her a C-word and Obama not sending back Maher’s $1,000,000 contribution. If that’s true (both the C-word reference and the $1,000,000 contribution, Limburger brain wins that argument hands down).

    I often check in with that other neaderthal (Mark Levin) on my drive home from work (for about 2 minutes–he’s yelling is obnoxious but what he often says is so factual absurd, it’s hard to take him serious) … then I switch to the Fan and eventually settle on my I-pod and an opera.

  23. Ray

    Response to your latest:

    “Asking your health plan that you pay into to cover something without co-pay is not the same as getting it for “free”. ”

    In reality it is getting something for free. Your argument, while true in the final affect is not true with respect to the affect on the person asking for the free cookies. To them it is free. The contract is overridden by the Govt dictate. The new cost will be pushed to reductions in payout to other providers, reductions in other coverage or increased premiums. The last may or may not be paid by the actual beneficiary. In all likelihood they will be paid by the employer. As long as the ones asking for Free Cookies have the political control.

    So in reality they are asking for Free Contraception and they EXPECT to get exactly that. But of course that is not the underlying and fundamental issue. But that is never addressed in these types of political dust ups. After all, it is all about diversion and obfuscation so the public doesn’t really understand what is going on here. As mentioned by others here, it is all about expansion of FEDERAL POWER and CONTROL.

    “”I don’t think she leaned heavily on the “medical” portion at all – this can and should be positioned that there are preventive health benefits…..”

    She absolutely pushed this aspect. I really don’t have a problem with this part of the testimony, if it were not mixed deliberately with the other in a way that makes it almost impossible to tell which one is which. However, most of her testimony on this is nothing but hearsay, and she is NOT an expert in the area. But she is an ADVOCATE and is connected to the DNC power base. Otherwise they wouldn’t have offered her up as a witness in the first place. None of that, however, diminishes the validity of a discussion about actual medical benefits.

    You raise a good point about actuaries and bean counters making decisions about coverage. I would remind you that this applies to Private as well as Govt provided insurance and to Govt provided Medical Care itself. There is no escaping this reality, IF people are going to rely on OTHERS to provide their coverage. Of course, this young lady completely ignored this reality in her testimony. That is because it was intended to do one thing. INFLAME EMOTIONS.

    “The religious exemption did not just go into play – its been part of the interim rule on this since August, 2011 – why the horor now? ”

    I addressed this a week or so ago. The Catholic Bishops explained that they were promised an exemption. While I oppose this mandate I find it ironic they were bitten by the same snake they chose to lie down with, when they supported Obama Care.

    You make an error in logic by raising the State plans. The mandate is a Constitutional Issue dealing with FEDERAL POWER. Just as with the issue of State mandated Auto Insurance. I don’t like the State mandates, but they have the Constitutional Authority to do so. The Federal DOES NOT.

    “Sarcastic parody?”

    I know you hate Limbaugh and nothing I say is going to sway your opinion of the piece. Much like any discussion of Ayn Rand’s ideas are simply dismissed with pejoratives because of her arguments for the treatment of Indians. Perhaps Parody wasn’t the right word. But it doesn’t matter anyway. I found it funny and obviously you did not. I did not take great offense at his comments just as I don’t for those made by other entertainers, when there is some type of context.

    On the other hand, I agree with V.H. that Limbaugh is more than just an entertainer and he KNOWS that. He fell right into the trap this time and has done his party’s political aspirations no good by his comments. But at the same time, I find the Righteous Indignation from the Left to be PHONY and HYPOCRITICAL.

    “Lastly – if it were such a religious freedom issue – why was it not raised when the interim rule was issued? And why was it never raised materially at the State level?”

    I answered this above under the religious exemption. I will add this, however. The general approach of the Left’s argument is to insinuate that the Catholics are only raising hell about this to undermine Mr. Obama and the Republicans are just joining in for the fun.

    First, the Catholic establishment has supported Mr. Obama and usually stands with most Progressive goals of Nationalizing health care and welfare. So this part falls on its face.

    Second, the Republicans have stood firm against erosion of the Religious Liberty provisions and traditions with respect to the Federal Constitution. So I see their jumping in as completely consistent with their previous positions. Now I am not saying they are “consistent” regarding the entire issue of Religious Freedom or adherence to the Constitutional principles. I am just saying they are consistent on this one portion, which shows this was not ginned up indignation on their part.

    It is at the same time makes for a great “Political Opportunity”. Just as Ryan’s budget provided for demonizing the R’s over Social Security. Please don’t confuse my explanation with my condoning this stuff. I am just trying to explain it for everyone.

    Now on the REAL underlying issues:

    Govt provided health insurance is IMMORAL.

    Obama Care is IMMORAL.

    The “mandated coverage” by the Fed Govt is IMMORAL.

    Kathleen Sebelius’ comments about “Health Care Costs” being contained by “preventing births” reflects an ethic that exists within the hard core Progressive Movement that is IMMORAL.

    • The Sage speaks before he goes to the Doc’s party …

      Govt provided health insurance is IMMORAL. Obama Care is IMMORAL. The “mandated coverage” by the Fed Govt is IMMORAL. Kathleen Sebelius’ comments about “Health Care Costs” being contained by “preventing births” reflects an ethic that exists within the hard core Progressive Movement that is IMMORAL.

      Listen to me, JAC … 1% of the population ruling over the rest of us is IMMORAL. Not attending to sick people because they can’t afford health care is IMMORAL. Greed is IMMORAL (no matter WTF Ayn Rand soaked into your brain). Capitalism is IMMORAL. Get over it. Step out of the darkness and into the light.

      Think of your fellow man, he needs a helping hand … put a little love in your heart …. do the right thing.

      • Charlie

        The 1% CAN NOT “rule” over us without using Govt.

        Govt use of force on behalf of business, enviros or YOU is IMMORAL.

        My failure to take care of people I don’t know and thus be able to care for my family is MORAL.

        I have NO OBLIGATION to care for those I do not know or do not care to look after.

        Charlie’s view of the world: Freedom is Immoral. Liberty is Immoral. Justice is Immoral. Unless of course Charlie is the one who holds the stick.

        • The 1% CAN NOT “rule” over us without using Govt.

          EXACTAMUNDO, my man. And they own it now and always have. Find your way out of that maze and win a cookie.

    • Your right JAC-I do think Rush made a mistake and I think he needed to be told to stop and I can not condone his choice of words -But I also agree with everything in the following article.

      Levin rallies for embattled Limbaugh, tells media ‘you can go to hell’ [VIDEO]
      Published: 4:49 PM 03/03/2012

      By Jeff Poor – The Daily Caller

      On his Friday night broadcast, conservative radio host Mark Levin had some strong words for those criticizing Rush Limbaugh for the remarks he made about so-called contraception activist Sandra Fluke, even as some Republicans condemn Limbaugh.

      Levin, the author of “Ameritopia: The Unmaking of America,” said he had planned to ignore the backlash aimed at his colleague, but the “piling on” was too much for him to stand.

      “I wasn’t even going to address [the issue], but watching the news today, watching the piling on and watching really the shameful inability of conservatives to defend one of our own is really awful,” Levin said. “One of the great things about Andrew Breitbart was that he was a warrior, and people have praised him for being a warrior. And then here we are in a battle which I’m about to explain and some of the people who have praised him have either left the battlefield, or worse.”

      Levin generally took the same position as Limbaugh, criticizing Fluke’s expectation of the role the government should play in providing birth control.

      “The media have tried to give you the impression that [Fluke] is just a law student and being put upon. Ms. Fluke does not represent most women,” Levin said. “She does not represent most women that I know, and most women that I know would not be testifying before Congress, before the national media, talking about all the sex they have engaged in and then have the nerve to demand that the citizens of this nation pay for contraceptives.”

      Levin explained that, in his view, Fluke represents the mentality of the sexual revolution of the 1960s.

      “She’s a radical feminist,” he said. “This isn’t to be cheered or embraced. This is not how we parents raise our daughters and sons.”

      But Levin saved his strongest condemnation of the media for the end of his show’s opening segment, when he questioned the media’s motivations.

      “I want the leftists at MSNBC, CNN and the other so-called news outlets who are dressed up as journalists but are nothing of the sort — I want you to understand something,” he said. “You don’t get to decide who the rest of us listen to. You don’t get to decide who the rest of us admire. You’re not going to succeed in driving Rush Limbaugh from the airwaves. I don’t care how many cowardly Republicans you speak to,” he said.

      Levin then accused the media of pandering to President Barack Obama.

      “You say nothing about the unconstitutional acts of this president,” Levin said. “You say nothing of the policies that are bankrupting our nation. You do nothing to expose the lies and deceit of this nation. In fact, if you’re not covering it up, you’re cheering it on. This is why we have no respect for you, why your audience and readership are plummeting and will continue to.”

      Levin concluded by saying he thought he spoke for many and told the media to go to hell.

      “No, we will not let you take down Rush or anyone else,” he said. “In fact, I think I speak for tens of millions of Americans, you can go to hell.”

      Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/03/03/levin-rallies-for-rush-limbaugh-tells-the-media-you-can-go-to-hell/#ixzz1o7kp6yjV

      • Mark Levin … a certified lunatic. Limburger’s best defense was the bit about Maher and Obama. They should leave it at that. Toss Levin into the mix and those willing to accept Limburger’s poor choice of words as his shtick have to wonder all over again.

        “She’s a radical feminist,” he said. “This isn’t to be cheered or embraced. This is not how we parents raise our daughters and sons.”

        I raised my daughter to stand up for whatever she believes in and not to be a clone of her parents (either one). Currently she leans more conservative than liberal (on most issues of the day) but that is her choice, not mine or Limburger or whacko Levin.

        When Levin stops using “the founding fathers” argument (which is so friggin’ flawed it makes my skin crawl) to justify everything in his warped mind, I’ll stop calling him a psycho, whacko, idiot.

        If Obama took a dime from Maher and Maher called Palin a C-word, then Obama is the hypocrit in all this (for that fugazy phone call). Leave the girl alone. Let the brain dead audience of Limburger and Levin cheer wildly into the night (nobody else cares). But Levin would do Limburger a favor by focusing on his usual absurdity, calling Obama a socialist (yeah, right) and screaming like a spoiled brat who dropped is rattle from his high chair.

        The Sage has spoken … again.

        • Charlie

          Once again you have nothing of substance so you resort to name calling. Whether it is the founders, framers or Levin does not matter.

          It is the same vacuous strategy.

          • Facts seem to disturb you more than name calling.

            The Founding Fathers were not the originators of America, my friend. America did not need discovery. Nor did it need a constitution made by men of wealth for men of wealth. Nor did it need slavery.

            Want me to keep going?

            • Charlie

              Not only vacuous but fallacious arguments as well.

              Not originators? Nothing but a word game that means nothing. FOUNDERS in fact FOUNDED this NATION.

              Did not need discovery? It most certainly DID from the standpoint of the European descendants who live here. The rest is irrelevant to any argument about our form of Govt. Strawman. But for the record, America was DISCOVERED by every inhabitant that has ever existed here. At least as far as the human record is concerned.

              Need for a Constitution? Of course it didn’t. If you wanted Monarchy to continue. As for the wealth and color of those who FOUNDED it, another strawman. But again for the record, they were NOT all men of wealth.

              Need for slavery? Another straw man. NEED? It started WITHOUT slavery, then adopted slavery, then rejected slavery. All that is except the soft slavery of your socialist value system.

              Go ahead, keep going.

              • Reread what you wrote JAC. Every line a contradiction.

                FOUNDED THIS NATION FOR WHOM? FOR WHAT?

                IT NEEDED DISCOVERY FOR EUROPEAN DESCENDANTS. MIGHT MAKES RIGHT? TALK ABOUT FALCIOUS ARGUMENTS.

                EXACTLY, WITH YOUR EUROPEAN DESCENDANTS CAME SLAVERY … AND GENOCIDE … AND SOME ARE STILL SLAVES (WHETHER IT BE ON RESERVATIONS OR ECONOMIC SLAVES) …

                I’M NOT SHOUTING BUT MY KEYBOARD IS STUCK.

            • USWeapon says:

              So what it needs are big unions and big government to force it to fit the mold that you prefer it to fit?

              I prefer you keep going. The more you add, the more ridiculous your argument becomes, and thus the less people are inclined to give it any credence. If you want to continue to harp about slavery (abolished over a century ago) and the theft of this country from Indians (happened over two centuries ago), you can do so, but it won’t do anything to help your argument now.

              • Ah, USW, you’re back … and making as little sense now as before; a flag waving contradiciton.

                big unions are what widened the gap between 1% and the rest? you continue to amaze.

                big government (owned by the 1%) bailed out who again? Oh, right, Wall Street. Who paid for that again? Oh, right, all the rest of us.

                There’s your credibility. Slavery may have been abolished more than 100 years ago, my great patriotic friend, but the voting rights act was legislated in 1965 … what’s that, no vote, no democracy? They get to pay taxes but can’t vote? Abolished everything but de facto, brother.

                Theft of the country 200 years somehow legitimizes it in your mind. It must be great to be you.

                Your argument against BIG government is pretty comical, quite frankly. It makes no different what size the government is if it’s corrupt (I can only hope you’d agree to that) … and so long as 1% can own the government (no matter what size), it serves the 1%.

                But that’s another inconvenient truth that your patriotism just can’t deal with. It’s okay if the 1% remain the 1%, but God forbid the rest of us take what is ours back. If it was gained illegally (via a corrupt government), why can’t it be nationalized (for everyone)? It’s what they do to criminal ill gotten gains.

              • USWeapon says:

                And what flag is it you think I am waving?

                Exactly what is it that you THINK I believe Chaz? Are you under the impression that I like big government? Or Wall Street? I am unsure how you came to such conclusions. And make up your mind, either you think that BF and I are of one mind and I want a totally government less system with zero checks or balances, or you believe that I want a government that allows the 1% to rule us all. I can’t believe both. But your lack of knowing what I believe does not equal a contradiction on my part.

                OK, so we will go with slavery ended with the voting rights act. So it was 47 years ago instead of 100. It still doesn’t change the fact that continuing to point it out doesn’t do anything to bolster your argument.

                As for theft 200 years ago, what I think doesn’t matter. I didn’t legitimize or condone such actions. In fact I presented no stance on the subject at all. I merely pointed out that something that happened 200+ years ago has no bearing on today’s arguments. Despite your continually trying to bring it up, which is really nothing more than you pulling a “look over here so you stop seeing the inconsistencies in my argument over there.” So I will give you a shot Charlie. Explain to me the relevance of bringing up the plight of the native Americans circa 1500-1800 while debating the future of this country…

                MY argument against big government is comical? According to you, big government now is controlled by the 1% at the expense of the rest of us. I can somewhat agree with that. Your solution is to make government bigger and even out the rest of us. The problem is that history shows that as government gets bigger, the government is no longer controlled by the 1%, instead it becomes controlled by the 0.01%. The same rich assholes and crooked businessman control the government as before, only now they have even MORE control. Tell me how that is an improvement over what we have now? Better yet, tell me how this time it really is gonna work even though it never has before. Please, enlighten me to what will be done different so that what I say would happen… won’t.

                I am unsure why you continue to use “patriotism” as though it were a bad word. I am also unsure what you mean when you make a statement such as “another inconvenient truth that your patriotism just can’t deal with.” If by patriotism you mean that I believe in the inherent rights of man and strive for a world where man is more free, then yes I am a patriot. And proud of it. And further saddened that someone could possibly wish for less than that for every man, woman and child. You may be willing to give it up for yourself. But people like me will continue to ensure that we will fight you tooth and nail to keep you from giving ours away as well. You would sacrifice the freedom of everyone in order to create what you deem to be a better greater good world. You would turn us from slaves (your words) into….. less free slaves?

                If it was gained illegally (via a corrupt government), why can’t it be nationalized (for everyone)?

                So let me get this straight. You believe that the solution to a corrupt government is to GROW it and nationalize industry? Read again my comment above: Better yet, tell me how this time it really is gonna work even though it never has before. Please, enlighten me to what will be done different so that what I say would happen… won’t.

        • SK Trynosky Sr says:

          So, what is a Socialist?

          • I doubt a socialist would’ve turned their back on unions the way Obama did in Wisconsin.

            Or that they would have gifted Wall Street with $700 tax free duckets without stipulations to protect workers.

            Or that they would excuse Citibank 38 Billion in taxes after bailing citibank out.

            I can keep going …

            • The founders only claimed to create a “more perfect union” not a perfect one. They were well aware of the flaws as much as anyone else since. However, in order to create that union at all, compromise was required. They did kick the can down the road and it was eventually addressed. I don’t know about your family, but I have relatives and in-law relatives that lost limbs, lives, suffered wounds and imprisonment during the CW to correct the problem. We paid dearly for the correction of those flaws. The issue is settled, the flaws in the original document were addressed. Move on.

              Charlie, we keep hearing about this socialist utopia of yours. Socialism around the world has been associated with strong man thugs and murderers who implemented its principles with bullets and bayonets. So please name for us your socialist heroes. Is it Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Castro, Chavez, Tito, Kim Il Jung, Ho Chi Minh, or Hitler, Mossolini, Franco, Huessein, Assad, Sadat? How many millions are you willing to slaughter to make your utopia happen? I will be one. How many others? Or maybe we can get by with just having re-education camps? Is that your socialist utopia? Frankly, I will take Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, Hamilton, Adams, Madison, etc. over any of the above.

              Or maybe you would be happy with the bankrupt partial socialist systems of Europe? Greece and Spain are good examples. Maybe we should emulate them?

              If our system is so flawed and so wrong, why are people streaming over our boarders by whatever means to be part of it? Flawed as it is, it is still better than most. Individual freedom in this country is under attack. Once gone, we will be as mediocre and as miserable as the rest of the world.

              So please Charlie, tell us how this socialist utopia will work? How does it address the many flaws of individuals and mobs? How do we prevent mob rule or dictators? What will be the checks and balances?

              • T-Ray

                He has already admitted it will NOT work. That it will result in exactly what you say.

                But he supports it anyway.

                And this is how freedom is lost.

              • USWeapon says:

                Once gone, we will be as mediocre and as miserable as the rest of the world.

                Yes, T-Ray, but we all be equally mediocre and miserable, and that is what Chaz wants.

              • The founders only claimed to create a “more perfect union” not a perfect one. They were well aware of the flaws as much as anyone else since. However, in order to create that union at all, compromise was required.

                How convenient that argument is. You might feel a bit different if you were one of the victimized of that great compromise.

                Yes, Chaz wants everyone to be miserable and mediocre … because everyone knows that people who exist under socialist forms of government are so less inclined to be creative, inventive, etc., etc. That’s a well established fact, right?

                You guys have swallowed the Kool-Aid and can’t keep it from coming out your noses, me thinks.

              • Typical of you Charlie, you didn’t answer a single question but fell back on the victim argument. Did you ever consider that had we not compromised and formed a strong union in 1787, that Britain would have regained their former colonies by 1812? Or worse yet, we would have had a king or other despot come to power.

                Charlie, you are an author so are well versed in writing. Please explain to us exactly how this socialist utopia is supposed to work. How is it going to be different than all previous failed examples? What did they do wrong that you will do right?

                Your socialist state would make us all slaves of the state. Is that what you want? I thought you did not like slavery.

                Frankly, I think you are the one who has drunk the liberal/progressive/socialist Kool-Aid and are in a state of denial.

            • SK Trynosky Sr says:

              But a socialist would act in collusion with Goldman Saks and other banking institutions, wouldn’t he? He would want central planning, wouldn’t he? He would want government guidelines on industries that had been private up to that point, no? He would want to re-distribute wealth of course. He would use all power at his disposal to delay and block projects and programs which did not fit his world view.

              Several topics ago, I asked the left leaning folks on this blog to describe for me the country they envision if the Obama they voted for was re-elected, if he was succeeded by a like minded individual and if his party controlled the Congress and courts for the next 12-20 years. I would like to know how they see the issues of education, welfare, the economy, the military, foreign relations, monetary policy, energy, health care, abortion, taxes, race relations, illegal (only) immigration, amnesty etc. shaking out. The only caveat is that it must be paid for.

              One of the ways that I justify my political stance is by looking at issues in the past, present and then, taking them to their logical conclusion, the future.

            • USWeapon says:

              Nope… because none of those things would have existed under socialism. We would all just be poor, but, hey we would all be equally poor! BF’s version of the future may be a dream, but yours is a nightmare.

              • Yes, because everyone living in the Netherlands, say, are poor and miserable and totally incapable of being hard working people because we we all know, USW, only Americans are born with those inherent character traits.

                Sweet Jesus …

              • USWeapon says:

                I would prefer that you use arguments that make sense or that you at least say “sweet jesus” in retort to what I say rather than in retort to the ridiculous hyperbole that you make up as though I said it. I don’t recall saying anything nearly resembling “only Americans are born with those inherent character traits.” Nor did I comment on anyone in the Netherlands. What I said is that with your version of the future for America, we will all be equally poor. Because never in history has socialism or communism resulted in increased prosperity for a nation. I know that flies in the face of what you want to believe. And I know that your only defense against me to to insult me and stretch what I say into some form of ridiculous farce as you did in this case… but come on…..

    • Ray Hawkins says:

      @JAC – would be interested in prior comments you made regarding the interim rule if you remember what day that was from. I thought the dust-up in 2012 was that some wanted the exception expanded and/or it was drawn up in the GOP races.

      I do agree with some of the pundits with respect to Limbaugh – his odd relationship with the GOP. He is a supposed king-maker imho. A GOP candidate will only speak against him in very measured ways. But since when has a Rush endorsement meant anything? This will all blow the hell over and we’ll forget it ever happened – forgetting as you say what the underlying issues are – focused instead on Rush Limbaugh.

      FTR – there is a whole slew of perfectly logical reasons to vehemently oppose Ayn Rand. Her treatment of Native Americans is but one example. I think often that had she had children, she may have never written Atlas – just a thought…… 😉

  24. Unfortunately, all of this angst over the words of a lawyer want-a-be are a diversionary tactic that started with George Stephanopoulos’ question to Romney in the debate several weeks ago. The Dems either planted the question for George or he came up with it himself because he missing the action of being in the political game. The never humble Rush should have known better than to step in this pile of horse pucky. No he has become the diversion. The Dems have a chance to kill two birds with one stone. They can continue to marginalize the Repubs and move the debate away from the Dem’s and Obama’s terrible record over the last 6 years and reduce Rush’s influence at the same time. One of Rush’s long time advertisers from his Sacramento days has bailed. It remains to be seen if any stations drop him.

    It always amazes me how the debate can center on the exception to a rule and not on the rule itself. If someone needed medication for other than contraception but was denied it because of a blanket ban on that specific medication, that is an exception. We should work to solve the exception not change all of the rules so there are no exceptions. There will always be exceptions.

    Chemical contraception is not a necessity but a voluntary life style choice. Hence it should not be paid from public funds or from private insurance unless all parties agree to it. Same goes for the topic specific medications for males. Same goes for plastic surgery unless it is reconstructive after an accident or major illness. Same goes for sex change operations which Berkeley and some other bay area cities now pay for. If we are going to be forced to pay for health care publicly, it should be for needs not choices.

  25. http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/

    Rush has posted an apology. The earth moved. Did you feel it.

  26. V.H.

    In case you missed this it is an example of effective emotional appeal, on your side of the issue for once.

    http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/03/the_new_scar_on_my_soul_comments.html#disqus_thread

    • I know that abortion will never be completely stopped, scared people can convince themselves that a lot of actions are justified, at least until after the deed is done. I doubt it will ever be illegal in this country again-I personally hope so-but at the very least we need to work -so that it will never, EVER be an easy decision. Never be looked at as just a blase, nothing of importance was lost , so acceptable that one doesn’t even stop to think about just what they are destroying-decision.

      I suspect that the destroying of these two lives will hurt these two people and their marriage much more-than having or carrying two more children to term ever could have. 😦

    • Reality.

      I can’t even imagine reacting the way this woman did – to choose to end the life of two of her children. One of the commenters said what I probably would have said: we keep all three or divorce.

    • SK Trynosky Sr. says:

      Just sad. I don’t know if one can ever recover from something like that.

      Went to a Catholic Mass in Latin today at the request of my wife. Even brought along my 1957 missal. They have dropped a lot but even so, what I got out of it was a sense of regret of what we Catholics lost. It was not so much the change of language as it was the loss of the magnificence and mystery of the Mass.

      Looking around some 50 years later, I wonder, if we had not changed anything, not even an iota, could things have possibly worked out worse than they have.

      I remember my dad, a non Catholic, remarking on the changes. He said something to the effect that if it took a thousand years to “screw it up” as the reformers claimed, why could they not merely implement one change per year for fifty years in an incremental way. Nobody would have even noticed and the rest of us would not have felt that the rug was pulled out from under us.

      Just some musings from one of Bill Buckley’s boys who “Want to stand athwart history and yell stop” or at least time out.

  27. Memo to Ms. Shultz

    You my dear lady are the epitome of EVIL. You are a LIAR, willing to say anything and do anything to justify your attack on freedom, liberty and justice.

    SUFA: From my inbox:

    Friend —

    So here’s the latest in the GOP’s attack on women’s health:

    Rush Limbaugh is now leading the charge, waging a series of ugly attacks on a Georgetown law student named Sandra Fluke, who bravely testified in Congress to protect a woman’s access to contraception and preventive care.

    His response? He called her a “slut” who “wants to be paid to have sex,” adding, “she’s having so much sex, she can’t afford the contraception.” He neglected to mention that Sandra was testifying about her friend who was denied birth control she needed in order to stop ovarian cysts from growing.

    Displaying a stunning lack of leadership, Mitt Romney wouldn’t denounce Rush’s point of view, saying, “I’ll just say this, which is, it’s not the language I would have used.”

    Our President — on the other hand — called Sandra yesterday to thank her for speaking out for women.

    As Democrats, we rally around and support the people who put themselves on the line for the things we believe in. Right now, we need to stand with Sandra.

    Add your name in support of Sandra — and everyone fighting to protect women’s health.

    The attacks coming from the GOP on women’s health are way over the line — and very dangerous.

    Mitt Romney has come out in support of the “personhood” amendment, which would have outlawed some forms of birth control and even in-vitro fertilization. Rick Santorum declared contraception is “harmful to women.” It’s happening at the state level, too, like the bill Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell is about to sign into law that will force women considering abortions to have ultrasounds, and require doctors to ask them if they’d like a picture.

    If we don’t speak out, it’ll continue.

    We didn’t fight as hard as we did for health care reform just to have key progress for women repealed by GOP politicians, like the Blunt-Rubio amendment would have done. And we didn’t fight as hard as we did for women’s rights just to have radio “entertainers” like Rush Limbaugh viciously attack women who stand up for the care they need.

    Rush Limbaugh said Sandra’s parents should be ashamed of her. President Obama told Sandra that her parents should be proud.

    We’re proud, too, because she’s fighting for all of us.

    Stand with Sandra and everyone else who’s fighting for women’s health today:

    http://my.democrats.org/Stand-with-Sandra

    Thanks,

    Debbie

    Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz
    Chair
    Democratic National Committee

    • SK Trynosky Sr says:

      Again, I doubt that her friend was denied access to hormones necessary to preserve her health. Since I posted on this before, I actually remembered from the 1970’s (no less) that one of the women I knew who needed the pill to regulate her cycle was a very serious Catholic and had actually gone to the Church and asked if what she needed would be a problem, she was told an emphatic NO. It has always been one of those huge lies told about the Catholic Church much like the one where the Church would insist that in a choice between Mother and Child if something should go wrong in childbirth, that the mother would have to be sacrificed. I was taught this was a myth in high school (1960-64) . I also know another young woman at the time who was prescribed by a practicing Catholic physician, the pill, for cystic acne.

      The curse of actually knowing things, or knowing where to go to look them up is that you are constantly accused of “making it up”. So, often the person with the facts is perceived as a liar because their facts get in the way of feelings. Personally, to me, Sandra is a friggen liar and Wasserman ain’t much better. Both have an agenda and have conveniently turned what had been a conscience issue and more importantly a Constitutional issue, into a debate over contraception !?

      Note: the use of an exclamation point and a question mark together was referred to as an interbang in the old days. It represented shock and incredulity. It never caught on but I like it from time to time.

    • USWeapon says:

      I wonder if Debbie will rally around this statement, a play on her own:

      And we didn’t fight as hard as we did for women’s rights just to have television “entertainers” like Bill Maher viciously attack women who stand up for the things they believe in.

      DWS is a liar, a hypocrite, and dangerous for America. Just like nearly everyone else in DC.

    • Did you know that Ms. Schultz who is so outraged at Rush-was a guest on Bill Maher’s show?

  28. What is killing me is the fact that the Republican candidates keep letting people like DWS and others get them distracted from the only real issue in this election. THE ECONOMY!

    They should start ignoring all these side issues and focus on the economy, the price of gas… hell, the price of living from day to day.

    They can whip Obama’s ass if they do. That is why Obama and his worshippers are doing everything in their power to get their focus off of the economy and on all this other bulldookey. Unfortunately, it’s working.

    • V.H.

      I know the poster is not yours but FOR THE RECORD.

      The Park Service is part of the Department of Interior, NOT the Dept of Agriculture.

      The U.S. Forest Service is part of the Dept of Agriculture.

      The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Bureau of Land Management are in the Dept of Interior.

  29. Rush Limbaugh Isn’t the Only Media Misogynist
    Mar 4, 2012 10:00 AM EST
    Rush Limbaugh apologized on Saturday for calling a Georgetown Law student a slut for testifying about contraception and starting a firestorm of outrage. Kirsten Powers says the liberals who led the charge need to start holding their own side accountable.

    Did you know there is a war on women?

    Yes, it’s true. Chris Matthews, Keith Olbermann, Bill Maher, Matt Taibbi, and Ed Schultz have been waging it for years with their misogynist outbursts. There have been boycotts by people on the left who are outraged that these guys still have jobs. Oh, wait. Sorry, that never happened.

    Boycotts are reserved for people on the right like Rush Limbaugh, who finally apologized Saturday for calling a 30-year-old Georgetown Law student, Sandra Fluke, a “slut” after she testified before congress about contraception. Limbaugh’s apology was likely extracted to stop the departure of any more advertisers, who were rightly under pressure from liberal groups outraged by the comments.

    Let it be shouted from the rooftops that Rush Limbaugh should not have called Ms. Fluke a slut or, as he added later, a “prostitute” who should post her sex tapes. It’s unlikely that his apology will assuage the people on a warpath for his scalp, and after all, why should it? He spent days attacking a woman as a slut and prostitute and refused to relent. Now because he doesn’t want to lose advertisers, he apologizes. What’s in order is something more like groveling—and of course a phone call to Ms. Fluke—if you ask me.

    But if Limbaugh’s actions demand a boycott—and they do—then what about the army of swine on the left?

    During the 2008 election Ed Schultz said on his radio show that Sarah Palin set off a “bimbo alert.” He called Laura Ingraham a “right-wing slut.” (He later apologized.) He once even took to his blog to call yours truly a “bimbo” for the offense of quoting him accurately in a New York Post column.

    Keith Olbermann has said that conservative commentator S.E. Cupp should have been aborted by her parents, apparently because he finds her having opinions offensive. He called Michelle Malkin a “mashed-up bag of meat with lipstick.” He found it newsworthy to discuss Carrie Prejean’s breasts on his MSNBC show. His solution for dealing with Hillary Clinton, who he thought should drop out of the presidential race, was to find “somebody who can take her into a room and only he comes out.” Olbermann now works for über-leftist and former Democratic vice president Al Gore at Current TV.

    The grand pooh-bah of media misogyny is without a doubt Bill Maher.

    Left-wing darling Matt Taibbi wrote on his blog in 2009, “When I read [Malkin’s] stuff, I imagine her narrating her text, book-on-tape style, with a big, hairy set of balls in her mouth.” In a Rolling Stone article about Secretary of State Clinton, he referred to her “flabby arms.” When feminist writer Erica Jong criticized him for it, he responded by referring to Jong as an “800-year old sex novelist.” (Jong is almost 70, which apparently makes her an irrelevant human being.) In Taibbi’s profile of Congresswoman and presidential candidate Michele Bachmann he labeled her “batshit crazy.” (Oh, those “crazy” women with their hormones and all.)

    Chris Matthews’s sickening misogyny was made famous in 2008, when he obsessively tore down Hillary Clinton for standing between Barack Obama and the presidency, something that Matthews could not abide. Over the years he has referred to the former first lady, senator and presidential candidate and current secretary of state as a “she-devil,” “Nurse Ratched,” and “Madame Defarge.” Matthews has also called Clinton “witchy,” “anti-male,” and “uppity” and once claimed she won her Senate seat only because her “husband messed around.” He asked a guest if “being surrounded by women” makes “a case for commander in chief—or does it make a case against it?” At some point Matthews was shamed into sort of half apologizing to Clinton, but then just picked up again with his sexist ramblings.

    Matthews has wondered aloud whether Sarah Palin is even “capable of thinking” and has called Bachmann a “balloon head” and said she was “lucky we still don’t have literacy tests out there.” Democratic strategist Jehmu Greene, who is the former president of the Women’s Media Center, told Fox News’ Megyn Kelly in 2011 that Matthews
“is a bully, and his favorite target is women.” So why does he still have a show? What if his favorite target was Jews? Or African-Americans?

    But the grand pooh-bah of media misogyny is without a doubt Bill Maher—who also happens to be a favorite of liberals—who has given $1 million to President Obama’s super PAC. Maher has called Palin a “dumb twat” and dropped the C-word in describing the former Alaska governor. He called Palin and Congresswoman Bachmann “boobs” and “two bimbos.” He said of the former vice-presidential candidate, “She is not a mean girl. She is a crazy girl with mean ideas.” He recently made a joke about Rick Santorum’s wife using a vibrator. Imagine now the same joke during the 2008 primary with Michelle Obama’s name in it, and tell me that he would still have a job. Maher said of a woman who was harassed while breast-feeding at an Applebee’s, “Don’t show me your tits!” as though a woman feeding her child is trying to flash Maher. (Here’s a way to solve his problem: don’t stare at a strangers’ breasts). Then, his coup de grâce: “And by the way, there is a place where breasts and food do go together. It’s called Hooters!”

    Liberals—you know, the people who say they “fight for women”—comprise Maher’s audience, and a parade of high-profile liberals make up his guest list. Yet have any of them confronted him? Nope. That was left to Ann Coulter, who actually called Maher a misogynist to his face, an opportunity that feminist icon Gloria Steinem failed to take when she appeared on his show in 2011.

    This is not to suggest that liberals—or feminists—never complain about misogyny. Many feminist blogs now document attacks on women on the left and the right, including Jezebel, Shakesville, and the Women’s Media Center (which was cofounded by Steinem). But when it comes to high-profile campaigns to hold these men accountable—such as that waged against Limbaugh—the real fury seems reserved only for conservatives, while the men on the left get a wink and a nod as long as they are carrying water for the liberal cause.

    After all, if Limbaugh’s outburst is part of the “war on women,” then what is the routine misogyny of liberal media men?

    It’s time for some equal-opportunity accountability. Without it, the fight against media misogyny will continue to be perceived as a proxy war for the Democratic Party, not a fight for fair treatment of women in the public square.

    http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/03/04/rush-limbaugh-s-apology-liberal-men-need-to-follow-suit.html

  30. All the Abortion supporters on here. Here is you something to read. It more than likely won’t change your mind. You will still come up with the same old tired excuses you always use. Woman’s choice, her body….. blah, blah, blah. But it makes sick to my stomach. As I’m sure this man AND his wife will everytime they think about it. Just read it. If you have the guts. Or you even care.

    http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/03/the_new_scar_on_my_soul.html

  31. Wow…look at all the neat conversation I missed while away for a few days….good morning all….back among the semi comatose.I am getting to old for this stuff…I decided to venture out of the TOC (Tactical Operations Center) this time….I forgot how many mesquite thorns and brambles there were out there. Something that struck me as odd though, and brought back several not so good memories….It was eerily quiet. Used to, one could see the lights of the small villages and an occasional Mexican adobe or house on the banks…..nothing is there, Even Ciudad Acuna (once a very popular border town)is not very active any longer. The restaurants close at 5 pm now and the ever popular “Boy’s Town” that was used to the airmen from Laughlin AFB…..all but closed now as no service men go across the border any longer. They get robbed and killed. The Lake that is there…Lake Amistad….no more night fishing…no lights on the lake from boats other than armed patrol boats. Too many bass fishermen getting beaten, robbed, and killed. Any water sports are conducted during the day under the watchful eye of the Texas Guard units in 200 HP Mercury powered bass boats with M60 machine guns. It is a war zone and it is sad.

    We watch the Mexican Federales (Mexican National Police) openly drinking beer with and turning a blind eye to the cartel members who openly carry automatic weapons around when it is a violation of Mexican Law……but such is the way of the “frontier”.

    Anyway….good morning all.

  32. Two Response to USW (because I’m too busy today):

    I don’t recall saying anything nearly resembling “only Americans are born with those inherent character traits.” Nor did I comment on anyone in the Netherlands. What I said is that with your version of the future for America, we will all be equally poor. Because never in history has socialism or communism resulted in increased prosperity for a nation.

    Except the facts prove that statement false. Netherlands & Sweden. Prosperous nations, both. No, they don’t have our 1% problem (god bless them), but neither do they have a middle class being ground into the dust.

    I know that flies in the face of what you want to believe. And I know that your only defense against me to to insult me and stretch what I say into some form of ridiculous farce as you did in this case… but come on…..

    Your implications that capitalism is what creates prosperity is pretty obvious. I am pointing out to you how absurd that is. My only defense against you are your words, USW. I can’t remember you coming close to winning an argument (except in your mind). You make statements and therefore they are fact. Maybe on Mars, but on Pluto we don’t drink the patriotic Kool-Aid as fast.

    #2:
    But your lack of knowing what I believe does not equal a contradiction on my part.

    The point was, my confused patriot … is what is the difference between a small & big gov’t if both are corrupt? And since they’ve been corrupted since this government was formed (by the wealthy for the wealthy), why not give the little guys the opportunity to run it?

    OK, so we will go with slavery ended with the voting rights act. So it was 47 years ago instead of 100. It still doesn’t change the fact that continuing to point it out doesn’t do anything to bolster your argument.

    First off, it proved your first statement was WRONG (another factual inconvenience you’ve had to address). But what you don’t address (never address) is the residual effect of an entire race having once been slaves and then denied the right to vote. How they were not only second class citizens (if citizens at all) legally, but how the social implications (how they were treated by non-government society) continue to haunt their number (no matter how much you think you’re sacrificing by paying taxes toward welfare, etc.). You don’t remove the long term effects of slavery by saying, “that was 100 years ago … or 47 years ago” … or 200 years ago).

    I merely pointed out that something that happened 200+ years ago has no bearing on today’s arguments.

    There, you prove my point directly above. No bearing, huh? How white of you.

    Despite your continually trying to bring it up, which is really nothing more than you pulling a “look over here so you stop seeing the inconsistencies in my argument over there.” So I will give you a shot Charlie. Explain to me the relevance of bringing up the plight of the native Americans circa 1500-1800 while debating the future of this country…

    Try and follow this USW. I know it’s distracted you in the past. If the country was founded illegally (war, genocide, the taking of lands via violence (something even Ayn Rand wouldn’t approve of), then how can it’s so-called prosperity be so worshipped and valued (when the people originally VIOLENTLY uprooted and placed on reservations continue to live in mostly depraved conditions)? What makes you think the Founding Fathers argument you so often turn to as validation of this great nation of ours isn’t incredibly flawed? Factually flawed. Not a single treaty with native Americans was EVER honored. Not a one. Small government, big government, makes no difference. Not a one was honored. Some native americans seek to have some lands returned to them (The Republic of Lacotah). Are you willing to give back what you seem to defend was stolen? The point being, how do you debate the future of “this country” when it never was “this country”? We build lies upon lies and 1% profits from it. The way you address the injustices that are factual “stains” on this country are to suggest it’s too late now. As convenient as it gets, brother. You’d make the perfect Republican candidate for President.

    MY argument against big government is comical? According to you, big government now is controlled by the 1% at the expense of the rest of us. I can somewhat agree with that.

    Good, because you recently stated so in a post of your own.

    Your solution is to make government bigger and even out the rest of us. The problem is that history shows that as government gets bigger, the government is no longer controlled by the 1%, instead it becomes controlled by the 0.01%. The same rich assholes and crooked businessman control the government as before, only now they have even MORE control.

    Really? What history is that? Something you’re “assuming” once again (the way you often assume how competition in a genuinely free market would break down the bigger corporations over time)? I see that as pure fantasy. Something that makes communist utopia genuine by comparison.

    Tell me how that is an improvement over what we have now? Better yet, tell me how this time it really is gonna work even though it never has before. Please, enlighten me to what will be done different so that what I say would happen… won’t.

    There is no enlightening you, USW. Nationalization scares the crap out of you, but I’ll be damned if I know why. Maybe you have some grand plan to be Donald Trump some day. I have no idea. I can’t imagine why people outside the 1% defend the system that makes them slaves to those who own/run things.

    I am unsure why you continue to use “patriotism” as though it were a bad word.

    Actually, it is a bad word. It suggests nationalism. What you write beneath about the inherent rights of man, etc., is more humanitarian and a lot closer to communism than the system you defend so blindly. Take away the flags (nation states) and what you have is humanity. Maybe you wouldn’t dismiss how this country was actually formed so cavalierly if you thought in terms of humanity.

    If it was gained illegally (via a corrupt government), why can’t it be nationalized (for everyone)?

    So let me get this straight. You believe that the solution to a corrupt government is to GROW it and nationalize industry? Read again my comment above: Better yet, tell me how this time it really is gonna work even though it never has before. Please, enlighten me to what will be done different so that what I say would happen… won’t

    Once again, you claim it has never worked and that is simply factually wrong. Wrong again and again and again.

    No, you missed the point again; the difference between a small corrupt government and a big corrupt government is what you refuse to address. There is none. If all a government does is serve a single portion of society, it does little for all those “inherent rights of man” you mentioned earlier. This is where BF is right; yet he defends the smallest gov’t position (that those who have already accumulated their wealth through a corrupt system are somehow entitled to retain it (and pass it on to their children, etc.). That makes very little sense to me. Either disband it altogether (BF’s anarchy) or let the little guy have a shot at it. The 1% has had their turn for long enough.

  33. BENTONVILLE, Ark. – Sept. 27, 2007 – Walmart Stores, Inc. (NYSE: WMT) today announced phase two of its $4 prescription program with changes that will help even more Americans deal with the high-cost of healthcare. The program – which has already saved Americans more than $610 million in its first year – has been expanded in two key ways:

    More medicines covering more categories – Important prescription medicines have been added to the $4 program covering glaucoma, attention deficit disorder/attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADD/ADHD), fungal infections and acne. Fertility and prescription birth control will also be included at $9, compared to national average prices ranging from $24 to $30 per month and saving women an estimated $15 to $21 per month – $180 to $250 annually.

    Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2012/03/05/attention-media-walmart-and-target-have-been-offering-9-birth-control#ixzz1oFdclc8x

    Wal-Mart and target have been selling The Pill for $9 a month since 2007. But Obama and the Democrats in congress expect to pay around $84 a month. Anybody ever told them to seek a second estimate/opinion?

    • Good Morning, LOI……I have cautioned you before that throwing logic and rational thinking at this crowd this early….can be hazardous to the health.

      • Morning D’,

        Consider the health hazard is from our liberal friends. I don’t think they shoot very straight. Also have a distraction planned (ooooow look, a puppy). I think I can escape them without injury. Now if I were lobbing stink-bombs your way, I would be in a very deep bunker phoning it in..

    • SK Trynosky Sr says:

      Kinda puts a whole new perspective on that Fluke-Limbaugh thing doesn’t it. Nine bucks is doable by returning used soft drink and beer bottles. but that is probably far beneath an up and coming 1 percenter.

  34. Oh Charlie, my Plutonian friend….either too much Canoli or the air is really thin this type of year up there. Here, I go off slaying dragons and miss great discussions. I have an article that as soon as it is published here should refocus your energy……give USW a break, so to speak. You and BF can beat up on me for awhile.

    However, until then…allow me to take a turn. First, you make a statement that needs some clarification. You mentioned Sweden and the Netherlands….I suggest you take a closer look at Sweden. It is being reported that they are close to collapse because the entitlement programs that they are on……have run out of money. There is no more money and their debt is reported to be rising as fast or faster than ours. Those that were making the money seem to be moving in droves out of Sweden….but that is reported, I have not confirmed same.

    But, let us go to something else that you seem to me to be mired in…….Please name a single Communist country or Socialist country that does NOT have a 1%. Please….just one.

    Another thing that you and I will have difficulty in coming to agreement on, I think. Your issue of slavery is very misleading,in my estimation. You seem to fall on the side that when a wrong is recognized that there needs to be some reparations that need to be done for centuries. You also seem to dwell upon the issue that ONLY the United States committed acts of slavery and you do not mention those countries that are swamped in slavery today. So, if your theory of the American Indian is to be offered and that they were enslaved and conquered and put on reservations and are kept there to this day throughout generations is to hold true…..then I say you will have to go back a whole lot further. Like 5,000 or more years ago. Perhaps we need to address reparations on all those empires that have done their hegemonic desires and killed and conquered people and stole their lands and enslaved them for hundreds of generations…..Perhaps the Incas and the Aztecs need to tell Spain and the Dutch and the English to repair them? Perhaps we need to go to Mexico and tell them to get off Inca lands…..I will be the first to say that this world…..THE WHOLE WORLD…..(not just the USA)…is a survival of the strongest. The American Indian…was conquered. Whether right or wrong is a subject of another debate but this has been going on all over the world. It is going on right now and it is not the USA doing it nor their hegemony designs. But how far does one go in recognizing “reparations”. Ok, just in the last 150 years, the American Indian was pushed off their land, pushed onto reservations, and a persecuted race of people. I think we all recognize that. We all recognize that the African descendents were sold initially sold into slavery by…wait for it…..BLACK slave traders. There is a movie out called Amistad…pretty factually accurate, as movies go. Stronger tribes raided peaceful tribes, took their men and women…marched them to the coast and sold them to (OMG….European slave traders). Slavery is a bad issue and I agree with you it should not have been done. Ok…facts are that it was done. What do we do now? We correct the problem and that problem has been corrected. I will never accept the argument that the American Indian is mired today on reservations by government edict. They are citizens, and rightly so….they have the right to go anywhere they wish and do whatever they want. You and I both know, that there is no reparation where ANYONE can be made whole. As a matter of fact, I think that I can successfully argue where reparations have enslaved more people than have liberated more people….the American Indian and African descendent being the first.

    You do remind me of my son…..he believes in a Star Trek world where every one contributes to society as a whole…..he is one of the “why can’t everyone just get along” crowd. I just tell him to live his life as he sees fit and if he can get along that way…go for it. I tell him to step right out and change the world. Society was NEVER intended to live together in peace and harmony. History will show you this. Hell, even Cain slew Able….and they were brothers in the perfect utopian world back then…..or wait…..would God be considered the 1% in today’s standard.

    My point being, sir……you cannot point to a single country that does not have its 1%. You do not like the concept of the USA…founding father’s etc……bully for you and that is your right to think and voice your opinion. To you, everyone is persecuted and enslaved. Cool, if that is what you think….but until you can point out a better place (if there was one, I believe you would be there), then perhaps this is the better, so far. I have to think that we are neophytes in this world….newborns…and we, USA, despite its growing pains and faults have done more for humanity and the world as a whole than we have against and have raced past those that have been here for hundreds of centuries. There must be something we have done correctly.

    Now, read me very carefully, my Canoli friend….I am NOT saying that this is the perfect place. It is not…but until one can name a better place, all factors considered, (agriculturally, industrially, economically, militarily, democratically {cough cough} or any other “lly”), this is still the best place that I have found….and while I have tasted the “kool aid”, I am not addicted to it.

    • But, let us go to something else that you seem to me to be mired in…….Please name a single Communist country or Socialist country that does NOT have a 1%. Please….just one.

      Quickie response (really pressed for time these days). The issue isn’t that socialist countries have or haven’t 1%’ers. The issue is what do the masses get for their contributions (taxes). No contest. Better education, health and retirement with dignity. If the money is fleeing Sweden, all the better. Somehow I don’t think the Swedish masses will commit collective suicide. they’ll figure it out; the same as we would figure it out should the 1%’ers here opt for the United Emirates. Let them go … I suggest we take their money before they do so, leave them enough for a 1 way ticket (which shouldn’t bother them since they are so superior to the rest of us, they’ll have no trouble without those inherent advantages they relied on in the first place … they’ll do fine in The Emirates).

      I have to skip most of your statement beyond this because of time. This place can be so much better, colonel (we can see that clearly from Pluto), but it is degraded at a very rapid state and capitalism is the cause. Capitalism that created this gov’t and continues to run it. Capitalism without this gov’t simply wouldn’t/can’t exist. Why not let everyone live with dignity rather subject ourselves to 1% rule?

      That is not a call for welfare for everybody. I think you know how I am about such things. This socialist/commi, etc., is one hard working dude, as is his wife and several others we know who don’t believe capitalism works. We accept that there are slackers and there are worker bees in all denominations and guises. I know several very conservative types who have no problem slacking at every opportunity and decrying welfare. I also know liberals who do the same. That is my point; we don’t need to have the great big millionaire carot on a stick to survive. We’ll all figure it out.

  35. Correction: It IS possible to become addicted to DPM grog.

  36. Hey…. I have a question: IF I support a woman’s right to choose…..why does that make me an abortionist?

    • Buck the Wala says:

      Answer: It doesn’t.

      How are you this fine Monday morning Colonel? I see over the weekend you’ve become addicted to DPM grog — there are worse things to be addicted to.

      • Doing great, Counselor……very despondent on our border situation. It matters not what we do if the Mex govt does nothing. However, I am happy to report that in Texas, border crossings have been reduced 77.4 % from 2008. Some due to what we are doing and some due to the activity of the cartels killing their own. It is getting impossible down here. When we capture the simple migrant worker, we are told horrific stories of the Mexico side of the border. Even if we were to throw the border open today….it will be controlled by the cartels. They will stop and charge the immigrant. The cartels are even standing with the Federales on the bridges…..stopping even the legal Mexicans that come over to work…and forcing restitution. Unbelievable.

      • Gotta hand it DPM…..he has a flotilla of shallow drafted Grog boats….I never imagined coming up the river all the way to Del Rio.

    • SK Trynosky Sr says:

      Problem is, everybody has a right to choose but then you have to live with the consequences. That piece on American Thinker that VH posted and Esom commented on is an example. You do the deed and then spend the next 50 years thinking about it. I always sort of figured there will come a day and a time when you will have to justify what you did. That is when the real fun begins. If you believe in maximum personal liberty, then obviously it is the woman’s choice. Does the baby have rights? That’s where it gets sticky even if you believe in maximum personal liberty. There really is no answer.

      I take it you were not a Star Trek fan. I always thought Roddenberry was one of those who thought we should strive for a better universe but admitted that there would always be conflict along the way. Human nature. When they started re-running “Have Gun Will Travel” and I hung around to read the credits I was shocked to see that the especially good, thinking episodes were done by the pre-Star Trek Roddenbury. About 20 in all. He had a feel for the human condition as an ex-bomber pilot and ex LAPD cop.

      Mr. Stella shows an abysmal lack of knowledge of history. If our western European friends (including Sweden) had to fend for themselves in a post WW 2 Europe, I wonder, after they created their own shield (and paid for it), how much would have been left for prosperity. That assumes of course that they came out of WW 2 as something other than German puppets and slaves. .

      • I am a great Trekkie………even got into the Next Generation……..but it is great TV. We have 3 d replicators now…..but technology is not politics….

      • SK, put down the Kool-Aid, brother. You’re clueless on this, my friend.

        How did the world every survive without the US&A? Think about it.

        • SK Trynosky Sr. says:

          It did, unpleasantly.

          Unfortunately for your position(s) facts speak for themselves. Prior to the United States arriving on the scene, there was one major government, Great Britain, that had a small tradition of citizen participation and power. The creation of the US accelerated that process exponentially. Since the founding, citizen’s rights have continued to grow. One could point out the original limitations on voting that have been gradually eliminated, property, poll tax, literacy, gender, servile status, age etc. Therefore, the society has continued to mature. The only other government I can think of, Switzerland, who had direct citizen involvement, as commendable as it was, did nothing to export its ideas. Even today in Britain, despite two world wars a differentiation in classes persists. Whatever progress they have made in democratizing over the past two hundred years has been by following the example of America even though it was their political philosophers who proposed what we accomplished.

          Other societies around the world like your Netherlands and Sweden, have followed what this country pioneered. Your position may very well be that such things may have happened on their own but history shows that up until our founding they did not.

          You dodge questions repeatedly, you answer nothing and your political stances are immature. The great leap forward you would seem to advocate look suspiciously to me like the French Revolution.

          In thinking about where we have fallen down in the past, I think we can very honestly point out that we inherited these failures from “over there”. As time went by, we cast them off perhaps too slowly in both our opinions, but we cast them off.

          American imperialism, economic or otherwise owes its origins to the progressive movement. “Making the world safe for democracy” and the “white man’s burden” would probably not have been on the founders hit parade. They certainly weren’t on Washington’s.

          Never liked Kool-Aid, always held out for Coke.” It’s the real thing.”

    • d13

      Good morning sir. Hope all went well along your southern flank.

      You should have asked Charlie that question directly. It goes to the core argument he seems to be trying to make.

      • Explain Please 🙂

        • V.H.

          The assignment of guilt to those who committed no crime themselves. (Kind of Catholic of him don’t you think?)

          The assignment of moral judgment to people/cultures/societies who did not hold the same moral values.

      • Good morning, JAC…..if you are referring to the abortionist question……I was called that this weekend… Even got a finger shake in my face…and before you ask…the finger is still attached to the perpetrator.

        This person, a male, did not even ask what my position on abortion was…..just assumed that because I believed in a woman’s right to choose…that somehow makes me guilty.

        The Southern border is…well…you would not believe it. It has to be seen to be appreciated. However, because of our efforts….campers can now raft the river in the Big Bend area without minimal threat to snipers that shoot the rafts and rob the rafters…..we have been successful in shooting the snipers and moving them to Arizona and California.

        New Mexico has adopted our standards now…..and the even the El Paso corridor is beginning to feel the pinch. Maybe they too will move to California and Arizona. The new thing now is the cartels, in concert with the Federales, are stopping legals from daily work routines on the US side from crossing the bridges unless you pay a toll….Americans that still cross are not stopped coming back but Mexican Nationals are…and the Mex govt…..turns its head…The average toll for the legal worker who lives in MExico and comes to the US on a daily work visit….$5. Every day.

        Oh, and the new wrinkle……Mexicans who are traveling to the US…and living here to escape the violence….the remaining families are being murdered one by one until homage is paid for protection. If a whole family moves up here and the cartel finds out about it……are still being tapped for protection money….and our current administration knows this and so far…has done nothing. As one ICE supervisor said….we cannot stop this even if we wanted to…..and that is a quote.

        • d13

          Colonel, as I mentioned some time ago, it seems to me that Texas will soon be faced with an opportunity to EXPAND its borders.

          The natives will cheer the Texicans as “Liberators”.

          My only question………will you give any of it back to them?

          🙂

  37. The individual activist groups use benign-sounding names including This Is Our DC; Good Jobs, Great Houston; Good Jobs, Better Baltimore; Good Jobs Now in Detroit; Fight for Philly; One Pittsburgh; Good Jobs LA; and Minnesotans for a Fair Economy.

    In reality, they are creations of the wealthy and influential labor union, amounting to a secret network of new SEIU front groups.

    Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/03/05/secretive-nationwide-network-gives-seiu-new-organizing-muscle/#ixzz1oG5u8Wg5

    A couple things here for the Sage (and all), one his union buddies up to no good again.
    Two, if he wants to talk about the US’s history on slavery, can he explain the meaning of the Marines official song verse about
    “the shores of tripoli”?

    • I have a few extra secondi.

      Why is you attack unions for whatever excesses they may (or may not) cost the public (or private sector) but think nothing of CEO’s, etc., who “earn” while they are at business lunches that go on for 2-3 hours?

      How can people trying to survive with a few benefits that might equal $100K or more upset you less than people “earning” $20+ million in bonuses (often for bankrupting their companies)?

      Unions are the bones a gov’t owned by 1% throw to the masses and you blame those picking up the crumbs. Amazing.

      I’ll look up the marine verse you mentioned. I have no idea what it refers to, but I doubt it can erase how slavery continues to affect this country.

      • Charlie

        SIMPLE:

        Govt UNIONS are IMMORAL. They are created and supported by the use of Govt Force.

      • Interesting. I went to see what the “shores of tripoli” meant and as usual, the hypocrosy is overwhelming. Jefferson sent troops to stop pirates who, amongst other crimes, were engaged in taking hostages and selling them off as slaves.

        Jefferson, who had slaves his own bad self.

        Americans fought to keep people from being slaves while utilizing slaves at home.

        There you go … one more Electric Cool-Aid Acid test of facts being turned upside down.

        • I know, I know … just because Jefferson had slaves (had six kids with one), doesn’t mean he was FOR slavery.

          How noble of him … and his bretheren, those men of nobility, one and all, the founding philanderers.

          • Chaz,

            Sorry but you knowledge of history seems superficial, or maybe you have already made up your mind and don’t want to allow facts to influence what you have decided is TRUTH. First consider who brought the first slave to the new world? The English, as indentured servants. They (white settlers) sold themselves into slavery. Next, who brought to and sold the first African salve to the new world? The Dutch. Now ask yourself who was the first nation to not just outlaw importing slaves, but send warships to interdict slave ships? And you answer that Jefferson owned slaves himself. Have we talked about that standard liberal tactic of changing the subject instead of answering a question?

            • LOI, seriously, are you out of your friggin’ mind?

              You’re pointing to Europeans who settled America as a defense of slavery in America?

              Oh, those terrible liberals. How illogical we all are …

              and how batshit crazy you are …

              • Charlie,

                Again you change the subject instead of answering….

                “LOI, seriously, are you out of your friggin’ mind? (maybe, people are frequently judged by the company they keep)
                Oh, those terrible liberals. How illogical we all are …( I think hypocritical is closer, but your call)
                and how batshit crazy you are …” (again, your call, I don’t know much about batshit to make a comparison)

                “You’re pointing to Europeans who settled America as a defense of slavery in America?”
                No, I’m comparing the historic record of the United states vs all other nations in that time period. I’m not excusing our failures but do take into account that Cuba alone imported more slaves from Africa than the USA. So all the nations damning the US, what’s their record? Did Spain, Russia or any Middle East country outlaw slavery? There is part of our history to feel shame and regret for, at the same time, there is much to inspire. And you judge all by today’s standards, but make excuses for others. Who was better treated, a slave in the US or a “comrade” under Lenin or Mao. Slavery is evil, no question. But were there not greater evils?

        • Charlie

          Restating FACTS that have already been accepted as FACTS by everyone in the argument is NOT overturning facts.

          Your arguments are not about facts. It is about interjecting emotionalism into the discussion and trying to use facts as you see them to rationalize your irrational view points.

          You sir, are no better than the Jefferson you wish to create.

          • JAC, take two and go to right …

            Seriously, WTF are you trying to say?

            Jefferson had slaves, screwed at least one, at least 6 times, and was President of a country that engaged in slavery … and was a pretty significant player in drafting the constitution of same country. I don’t know how you walk that back, my friend, no matter what his better angels of intent may have been. Still, somehow, you walk it back … again and again and again.

            • Charlie

              I haven’t walked anything back. For a purveyor of words you seem to have trouble reading and comprehending them when written by others.

              What Jefferson did or did not do has nothing to do with the validity of various concepts, such as Freedom, that were put forth during his time. It does nothing to negate the wisdom of his own writings on the subject.

              It has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the points I made at the beginning of this discussion.

        • Hi Charlie.

          As a brief aside. From what I’ve read about Jefferson, I think he would have freed his slaves if he had the chance. He was so heavily in debt that he couldn’t afford to in the end. Not a justification, of course, but an interesting tidbit.

          Also, his view of slavery at the time was something along the lines of “they need the protection that slavery provides” (food, beds, etc.), some sort of fatherly affection. I can’t really see how that works, but…

          I think that last one might be him trying to justify his ownership of slaves, but the common thought was much different than today’s so I can’t say for sure. Just goes to show you how far we’ve come as a people!

          Jefferson certainly was an interesting dude. There is a book on him called “American Sphinx.” I couldn’t think of a more fitting title!

      • Charlie, I thought you were not coming back…..Please elaborate, concisely if possible….how slavery continues to affect this country? or have you already said this somewhere and I need to find it.

        • I did already state it, sir. Essentially, how generations of a slavery society continued to treat people of color since it was abolished. Certainly, since 1965 (voting rights act) … people of color were and in some cases/states, continue to be treated very differently from whites. I am not taking the Al Sharpton view of this, so don’t make that mistake (Sharpton to me is one big fraud), but I cannot ignore what I experienced in my lifetime (the way people of color were discriminated against in the smallest of ways to outright discimination). It’s a fact voting rights legislation and/or the civil war doens’t erase.

          There are polar feelings about race for a reason, Colonel. And Al Sharpton isn’t the only reason.

          Even if one were to look at how people of color often segregate themselves (whether in the work place or at the voting booth), that is a definite sign of the after effects of slavery (why so many voted for Obama, for instance). what has he done for people of color since coming into office outside of an Al Green impersonation? Squat, to my mind, but he will continue to get such support for the mere fact that people of color continue to experience (sometimes valid/sometimes not) what they perceive to be the after effects of being legally less than full citizens under the law. To deny that is to deny reality.

          Now, what to do about it? There isn’t an easy fix, but no fix is not fair either. I agree that many programs such as affirmative action do little more than further alienate the races, but … until there is a much closer to level playing field for all, the mess remains firmly in place.

          Now, take that injustice and multiple it by 1,000 for what happened to Native Americans …and pointing to tax free casinos isn’t exactly addressing the issue. Not everybody wants to deal blackjack the rest of their lives.

          • Charlie

            Is slavery the reason that hispanics segregate themselves into communities of like people???

            • SK Trynosky Sr. says:

              From practical experience they also quite often self-segregate into national communities. Not much love lost in NY between Dominicans, Mexicans, Puerto Ricans, Cubans, Salvadorians and others.

              It is an interesting question that there is really no answer to. All immigrant groups for the first and possibly second generation tend to stay with their own. Language and culture can explain that. As they get assimilated, they will become part of that melting pot.

              I do not know if anyone has done any studies on the assimilation of blacks from the islands of the Caribbean. Just based on my personal interactions, despite the fact that they too are descended from slaves, they seem to carry less baggage and have assimilated. Well, maybe not all, those Rasta folks are somewhat different. West Indians also seem to resent being pigeonholed and even labeled as “blacks”. Again, these are my just thoughts based on experiences I have had with a pretty large sample. if anybody else has similar or dissimilar experiences I’d like to hear them.

              • SK, I found that immigrant communities (especially West Indians) 1st generations work extra hard here to make something for the next generation and to a degree, that next generation becomes a bit more spoiled (like pretty much all 2nd and 3rd generations) but to blame that being spoiled on entitlements only is a bit nonsensical (not that you did that; just pre-empting a JAC/LOI attack).

                Bottom line, there’s no easy erasure of what years of being treated like 2nd class citizens (going back to being treated like animals). Certainly not waving it off and saying, “That was two hundred years ago, or 100 years ago or 47 years ago)” … that is just ignoring facts for the sake of a very weak argument (i.e., essentially USW’s argument: if I could do it, why can’t they?).

              • SK Trynosky Sr says:

                I think that there is more to it than that. When I was a teenager, I listened to Malcolm X. As a matter of fact he was shot less than five blocks from where I lived. Malcolm preached a gospel of self sufficiency. I think he thought long and hard about things and decided that there was no percentage in either being a separatist or a victim. It is too bad that he died when he did because I truly believe he could have been the greatest of them all. No one knows how it all would have turned out but there was zero likelihood after his breaking with the Hon. Elijah Muhammad and the Nation of Islam that he would have turned out to be a race pimp.

                There are those who would say that a white guy like me and an old white guy at that has no right or understanding of the plight of minorities. I put them in the same exact place I would put someone who says that I can’t understand the horrors of combat because I wasn’t in combat, the holocaust because I wasn’t a Jew or a cancer survivor because I have not had cancer. All I need to understand is imagination and empathy. I do understand, I have gone out of my way in life to meet people who have experienced these things so that I can understand them better.

                So, if I turn around and make a suggestion about how someone can improve their lot, it’s not based on some Pollyannaish view of the world but rather a careful analysis of the problem, possible solutions, probable solutions, and finally probable outcomes. Despite the fact that most times I have about as much success as Cassandra, daughter of Priam, King of Troy, I still keep trying.

                Despite minor differences in skin coloration, ethnicity, religion etc. we are all members of the Human Race and are all subject to the same laws of nature. Just change the words around a bit from the wisest thing I have ever heard which came out of the mouth of S/SGT. Robert E. Lee Smith, a black man, standing before his very diverse platoon in 1969., ” I don’t care what color any of you think you are, you are all one color to me….GREEN”

            • JAC, why don’t you take a look at how Hispanics vote next election and see how that works for you?

              Hispanics aren’t treated much better (worse in some places–i.e., the southwest) … but keep those blinders on, buddy. They’re doing you so much good so far.

              • Charlie

                And what does that have to do with my question?

                ABSOLUTELY NOTHING!!!!

                Once again you can not stay on target. You claim that slavery is the cause of blacks segregating themselves. Then explain how did Slavery cause the Irish, Pols, Germans, Swedes, Norwegians, Chinese, and now Mexicans to segregate themselves.

                If slavery is the Cause of segregation and the other groups were not slaves then slavery is NOT the cause of segregation.

                Or it is the cause for ONLY the Blacks. But if this is true you must provide an explanation. You cannot simply declare slavery a reason. Especially given the segregation of Free Black Men in the North and West.

              • Big stretch…….Charlie. I live with Hispanics. Other than illegal immigrants, I see zero discrimination. As a matter of fact, I see reverse discrimination on a very large scale and stand ready to prove it. So, get the Southwest mantra and stow it. But, if you wish to point to actual discrimination in the Southwest, I am all ears. Leave illegal immigration out of it. There is no stretch that illegal immigration is discrimination at all.

                As to African Americans, Blacks, Negroes….whatever you wish to call them, I grew up in the social change. I remember distinctly the segregation. I have not seen it since the early sixties. Do not point to percentages or numbers as proof…that has zero to do with discrimination. The fact that a company does not employ Hispanics or Blacks and is all Caucasian is not in the slightest a case for discrimination. It is discrimination to those of you who think that numbers rule the world but they do not. I do not see lower wages, separate counters, separate anything. I see colleges discriminating against whites and Asians in favor of Blacks and Hispanics. I will go toe to toe with you on provable facts…..not conjecture. I will also not accept any number of court cases from the EEOC as a bona fide case for institutional discrimination. In politics, the race card is played all the time….not because of discrimination but because of the fear factor and being beaten over the head with it.

                Now, I will agree with you to an extent on the American Indian in that they were persecuted and maltreated. Not right at all. I will not point to tax free casinos either, although, why don’t you try to start one. Is not the height of discrimination favoritism? Is there not a case of reverse discrimination? I can make one. Anyway, thank you for answering my question.

  38. Link for discussion on Constitutional Conventions

    http://electriccityweblog.com/?p=14199

  39. Charlie,
    Discrediting a person does not nullify or discredit their philosophy. So you throw Jefferson under the bus for hypocrisy. That may quell some of the hero worship, but it does not mean that his thoughts and words in terms of philosophy were not groundbreaking and a part of great strides forwards in societal norms. There are claims out there (they may be true or false, I never determined that conclusively) that Darwin converted to creationism on his deathbed. Assuming that were true, would be average evolutionary scientist or atheist throw out the whole concept? Of course not. They may, at most, be inspired to look closely at why that happened and look closely again at the theory, but if they find a satisfactory answer, the actions of the man make no difference to the validity of the thought itself. Same for a person of faith. Would a Christian change because leaders have been hypocrites? No, because the faith is not in men, but in the belief system itself.

    Same for your criticism of the treatment of the Native Americans. You bring it up, not to seek reparations, but to make the claim that our wealth and success as a free market country is a direct result of theft of property and murder of native population. Slavery you use in a similar way, as if those things are the root of our financial success. They are not. Certainly, the total quantity of resources is greater because of the amount of land and resources in it, but the real productive power in the US came from innovation and industrialization, but from plantations and the midwest. The South lost, mostly, because it was financially and technologically backward compared to the North. It was, in fact, because they were dependent on a slave based economy that they were so easily beaten in spite of having a mailitary of superior skill. The midwest and beyond are very important now, but we were on the way to being a major power well before that time, and would have been one even without the takeover of the west. Nothing can justify the conquest of the Americas by the US or Europe, not even the fact that had we not done it someone else would have. It was a horrible thing. But when I point out the untrustworthiness of our government back then I hear the argument that it was a long time ago and we are more enlightened now. So, if I cannot use the argument, neither can you. It is irrelevant to wealth, and to capitalism itself.

    • Same for your criticism of the treatment of the Native Americans. You bring it up, not to seek reparations, but to make the claim that our wealth and success as a free market country is a direct result of theft of property and murder of native population

      You gotta admit, Jon, the real estate value since “America” was “discovered” went up pretty substantially. Imagine the reparations owed now?

      And I think you ignore the fact that much of our wealth as a nation is due in part to our hegemony and absolute exploitation of weaker nations’ labor forces. We’ve never stopped making people (whether foreign or our own) slaves to their wages. Look at how much of a third world we’ve become (unless you can’t see it, it’s in that ever widening gap, my friend). You can blame the government all you want, but then you’d be ignoring those who own it and trust me, my friend, it isn’t the 99%.

      • Sure, I will admit that. I am not denying the value of our real estate or resources. However, England had more colonies than just us, they had land and resources that totaled more than we have now. Spain, even more so. In fact, Spain stole almost the whole of South and Central America, engaged in slave trade, etc. They had more land and resources than we did. They did less settling and more pillaging, but the fact remains that Mexico is not really populated by former Aztecs and Mayans on some natural progression of their culture. Russia had more land and resources than the US as well, especially when it was the USSR (which forced Russia’s neighbors into compliance with communism), yet they collapsed in a pile of corruption and starvation. I can point to any civilization and show that it has taken from another one at some point in its history. As for the ones that were expanding at the same time as we, however, you will note that they did not become super powerful or economically dominating. Why? Because its not about the stuff. I could equalize the property of every person in the world and inside a few years there would be an income gap, and people complaining about how unfair it is.

        So, yes, I blame the government for the recent decline, since that decline began at about the time of the New Deal and the things that made us great began to be taken away, educated out of our children, and generally demonized at that time and at the behest of government. I am not ignoring the 1%, they are loving the decline, it makes the real estate and the “stuff” you concern yourself with that much easier to acquire and/or pillage. Workforce exploitation is nothing compared to the brainwashing of a whole country into making it easier and easier to control them. That widening gap is the decline of the middle class, which the 1% rejoice in, since it means they have no competition anymore. And it is mentalities like yours that make it all possible.

        • Thanks for clearing that up for me, Jon.

          And it is mentalities like yours that make it all possible.

          Here I was thinking it was the friggin’ unions!

          Who knew it was my fault?

          SAGES of the world unite!

          • I gotta hand it to you Charlie, I really do enjoy your sarcasm. And no, thats not sarcasm, the above comment made me smile big. While I stand by my statement in general, it does look a bit silly blaming it all on you personally when we all know it really is the unions. 😛 Ok, that last part was sarcasm….. 🙂

        • SK Trynosky Sr says:

          Nah, It was the great society. Roosevelt’s guys were a lot smarter than that. Arthur Schlessinger used to talk about how Harry Hopkins, FDR’s right hand man shot down the idea of a direct check to the unemployed in the Depression. He wanted the WPA and CCC programs because they did not break a man’s spirit. LBJ and the gang either never got that message or had an agenda. RFK used to go off about that business about teaching a man to fish vs. giving him a fish but I never saw anything on that come to fruition from him or from Teddy.

          Charlie asks above about the Hispanic or Latino vote. The sad fact is that an awful lot of those folks have been encouraged to become victims. The whole bi-lingual nonsense failed miserably long, long ago and yet we still have it. One would, I think, not be far off the mark to assume that it allows Hispanic politicians to fill the traditional Padron role, an unfortunate carryover from their culture.

          An interesting bit of news from NY. The redistricting for congressional purposes of NY has been taken into the back room. Governor Cuomo (the younger) after spouting off unendingly about “openness” has moved it into the 15th sub-basement of the state capitol. Word is Charlie Rangel has had it. His district is about to become a “Hispanic” district for favors owed by the younger. Charlie is being moved north, far north, out of Harlem into a predominantly white district. Blacks DO NOT have the influence in NY they once had. Their numbers are in decline and their neighborhoods are being gentrified.

  40. gmanfortruth says:

    @Charlie, Good Day Sir 🙂 I see Pluto is serving you well lately, LOL. I took the time and really researched Communism. After reading the history and watching numerous documentaries, I would say you can keep it and all the comes along with it. I would rather own a slave than be Communist. You worry so much about how this group aor that group is being treated, I can only reply, “it sucks to be them”. If they don’t have the Canolli’s to stand up for themselves then life will continue to suck.

    I’m not a 1%er. I don’t care about them. I don’t care about how much they make an hour. I only care about what I’m doing and if I’m happy. I am very happy without being rich. I feel bad for those who are really struggling in life, but life stray dogs, I can’t save them. Maybe you should realize that what you are wanting has resulted in hundreds of millions of deaths. Lenin starved millions, nice start to Communism if thats what your into!

    • Oy vey …

      • Democrats in the United States more likely to believe in Bigfoot (33%) than Republicans or Independents. In Britain, almost a third of Scottish National Party (SNP) voters believe the Loch Ness Monster is real, while Liberal Democrats (15%) are the least likely to agree with that assessment.

      • gmanfortruth says:

        THat’s all I get? 🙂 What’s up with that? Charlie, come on dude, you can’t really believe that all the everyone can be equal crap is really going to exist? It’s never going to happen, ever! There will always be the rich and always be the poor, unless, of course, there is a major Revolution that eliminates the rich, temperarily all be it. To the elite, we are nobodies and quite expendable, hope you can handle that when it’s time for your forced relocation.

  41. I am not a big fan of Israel….but you have to hand it to Net Man…….he tells Obama……shove it buddy……If I wish to attack Iran, I will take the responsibility for it. You have no reason to be notified ahead of time if we deem it necessary to launch a preemptive strike. We will protect ourselves….go away.

  42. SK, you’re alright by me, brother.

  43. Instead the attorney general outlined a three-part test for determining when a targeted killing against a U.S. citizen is legal. He said the government must determine after careful review that the citizen poses an imminent threat of violent attack against the U.S., capture is not feasible and the killing would be consistent with laws of war.

    The Obama administration has refused to release the Justice Department legal opinion on al-Awlaki’s killing under the Freedom of Information Act and is in court opposing efforts to have it made public.

    Is any of this troubling to anyone besides me?

    • gmanfortruth says:

      Yes Sir, It is very troubling to me. I’m an Oathkeeper, I don’t want to see our military become assassins at the hands of this corrupt government.

    • It’s a long slippery slope and I do not see any turnouts with sand piles.

  44. Great News! After 2 1/2 long days my granddaughter, Brooke Alison, finally made her way into the world! Of course she is THE most beautiful thing I have ever laid eyes on. Thank You Jesus! This grandma is wiped out. Nite all!

  45. Ray Hawkins says:

    “Pope rejects ‘arrogant’ IVF: Marital love the only ‘worthy’ way to conceive”

    VATICAN CITY, February 27, 2012 (LifeSiteNews.com) – In meeting with officials and participants of the Pontifical Academy for Life general assembly Saturday, Pope Benedict XVI stressed that the only acceptable way of conceiving a child is through sexual intercourse between a husband and wife.

    “Indeed, the union of a man and a woman, in that community of love and life which is marriage, represents the only worthy ‘place’ for a new human being to be called into existence,” he said.

    He added that temptations leading scientists to offer unacceptable infertility treatments such as in vitro fertilization include “easy money or, even worse, the arrogance of replacing the Creator.” He noted that such pride endangers humanity itself.

    The pope told the 200 scientists and members of the Pontifical Academy for Life in attendance that the field of human procreation seems to be dominated “by scientism and the logic of profit,” which often “restrict many other areas of research.”

    Benedict XVI also spoke with compassion in addressing married couples unable to conceive children. “The Church is attentive to the suffering of infertile couples”, he said, “and her concern for them is what leads her to encourage medical research.”

    “Science, nonetheless, is not always capable of responding to the needs of many couples, and so I would like to remind those who are experiencing infertility that their matrimonial vocation is not thereby frustrated. By virtue of their baptismal and matrimonial vocation, spouses are always called to collaborate with God in the creation of a new humanity. The vocation to love, in fact, is a vocation of self-giving and this is something which no bodily condition can impede. Therefore, when science cannot provide an answer, the light-giving response comes from Christ.”

    • Ray Hawkins says:

      Many health plans do not pay for IVF and/or other infertility treatments. I’ve had at least one job where I was counseled discretely to say nothing about IVF with respect to my own family plans.

      Anyone want to discuss?

      Not shocked at the Pope’s statements. It is what I would expect. Feel bad for any Catholic women with infertility issues that now gets this hung on their necks. But maybe its no issue to them?

      • Naten53 says:

        I have not heard of anyone having IVF covered by insurance. Not sure about why you would be counseled to not say anything other then technically employers cannot discriminate against women for pregnancy but they often do it in a way that it either can’t be proven or goes unnoticed.

        • Ray Hawkins says:

          @Naten – my wife’s current plan covers IVF. When I was employed by Comcast IVF was also covered. With a prior employer I had, IVF was not covered – I was advised not allow IVF plans we had at the time to become “public knowledge” such that the partner I reported up through would ever become aware (said Partner eventually retired and found full employment with the Archdiocese of Philadelphia).

  46. Hypocrisy on parade!!! Go to link if you want to see the video 🙂

    Laura Ingraham Busts The View: When Ed Schultz Called Me a Slut Barbara Walters ‘Laughed it Off’

    By Noel Sheppard | March 06, 2012 | 10:45

    As NewsBusters reported Monday, the ladies of ABC’s The View were tremendously sympathetic to Georgetown University law student Sandra Fluke’s tale of woe and misery having been called a “slut” by conservative talk radio host Rush Limbaugh.

    Yet as Laura Ingraham pointed out on Tuesday’s Fox & Friends, her being called a “slut” by MSNBC’s Ed Schultz last year was a source of great amusement on The View with Barbara Walters acknowledging to great laughter, “Joy Behar on this program has called me a slut” (videos follow with transcribed highlights and commentary):

    As the Limbaugh-Fluke-Schultz discussion on Fox & Friends ensued, Ingraham commented, “When it was brought up on The View, Barbara Walters kind of laughed it off. She was like, ‘Joy, you call me that word all the time.’ And they kind of just laughed. But when Fluke goes on The View yesterday, it was ‘Oh, isn’t this a tragedy’ and ‘Oh, isn’t this horrible’ and ‘Rush Limbaugh should be driven off the air.'”

    Was she right?

    NewsBusters reported on May 26, 2011:

    Instead of focusing on the vileness of Ed Schultz twice calling conservative talk show host Laura Ingraham a “slut” on his radio show, ABC’s The View co-hosts gabbed back and forth Thursday about co-host Joy Behar’s catty use of the term for her colleagues.

    Behar apparently calls her colleagues sluts on the ABC daytime show, and so the co-hosts chatted about the nature of her “insults” and compared them with Schultz’s use of the term. […]

    BARBARA WALTERS: I would like to say that Joy Behar, on this program, has called me a slut.

    (Laughter)

    GOLDBERG: Joy Behar has called many people a slut on this program. Did you hear from this woman’s organization? Ever?

    JOY BEHAR: Why Barbara, when I call her a slut, the truth is an ultimate defense. That’s all I have to say.

    Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2012/03/06/laura-ingraham-busts-view-when-ed-schultz-called-me-slut-barbara-walt#ixzz1oLvwm1W6

    • Buck the Wala says:

      I don’t have the time to look up and read the whole transcript, and can’t watch any clips while at work. But assuming what you have posted here is true, taken at face value that Ed Schultz called Laura Ingraham a ‘slut’, then I denounce Ed Schultz as vehemently as I had denounced Limbaugh the other day.

      That being said, I do wish I had the time to look into this in further detail.

      • Look into it all you want -the truth is they pretty much changed the discussion when it was about ED and made it about is it bad to call a woman a slut-and is it worse if a man does it-not much condemnation of old ED-when it came to Barbara-I will only disagree on one part-she was much more worried about the left or anyone else going after the advertisers in order to stop free speech-knows it could hurt her show if that becomes a common practice-and in our current divided country she has a point.

    • Ray Hawkins says:

      @VH – you should add that Ed Schultz formally apologized on air for his classless comments about her right before he was suspended for a week.

      • I wonder if the president called her to offer sympathies…

      • Buck the Wala says:

        Important point to add.

      • Okay-don’t see what that has to do with The View ladies- response. I wasn’t talking specifically about Ed’s actions-I was talking about the difference in the way the ladies handled the two situations.

        • Hypocritical Cable Networks Eagerly Bash Rush But Embrace Crude Bill Maher

          By Rich Noyes | March 06, 2012 | 14:57

          Both MSNBC and CNN have devolved into a feeding frenzy over Rush Limbaugh’s crack last week about a Georgetown law student, with hosts on both networks scolding Limbaugh for his words and fantasizing the conservative radio powerhouse will get knocked off the airwaves.

          But an MRC review finds those networks had no negative reaction to far more vulgar and sexist language used by HBO host Bill Maher. Instead, both networks have hosted Maher repeatedly (12 times in the past year) in softball formats where the journalists ritually flatter the vulgarian: “Your show is brilliant,” “I love your show,” “You’re the funniest, smartest guy around.”

          If either CNN or MSNBC genuinely cared about the use of insulting language toward women, they could stop providing the vile Maher with a regular platform to promote his show and his left-wing views.

          [Warning: this article includes uncensored vulgarities to accurately represent what Bill Maher has said about conservative women.]

          Here’s what CNN’s Piers Morgan said about Rush Limbaugh on Friday: “Limbaugh’s disgusting comments are the work of an archaic old dinosaur living in a warped, ugly swamp, who thinks it’s okay to degrade decent young women for sport and ratings. Well, it isn’t it. Shame on you, Rush Limbaugh.”

          The next morning, NBC’s Today show brought on MSNBC host Al Sharpton to lambaste Limbaugh: “You can’t have him as a major spokesman in your movement and then he says something as offensive and misogynist as this.”

          Monday, on MSNBC’s The Ed Show, host Ed Schultz — who last year had to apologize after he called conservative radio host Laura Ingraham a “slut” — urged liberals to exploit Limbaugh’s use of the same term (also with an apology) to get his show cancelled. Schultz fantasized: “If there is a time to get him off the air, this is the push. I mean, if women in this country are serious about what they hear on the free airwaves of America, there’s no better time.”

          Now, here’s a rundown of some demeaning language used by Bill Maher in just a nine day period last March:

          ■ On March 18, 2011, Maher, on his HBO show Real Time, employed a crude term for a female body part when talking about Sarah Palin: “Sarah Palin finally heard what happened in Japan, and she’s demanding that we invade Tsunami. I mean, she says, ‘These Tsunamians will not get away with this.’ Oh speaking of dumb twats….”

          ■ A week later, on his March 25 show, Maher insulted Palin and Michele Bachman as “bimbos.” Talking about the GOP field, Maher argued: “If Bachmann and Palin get in, that’s two bimbos, and then there’s Mitt Romney, a millionaire, and Newt Gingrich, a professor. We just need a skipper and a buddy – we’ve got Gilligan’s Island.”

          ■ Two days after that, on March 28, Maher employed the C-word in talking about Palin during a show in Dallas. According to a favorable review in the Dallas Voice: “It’s that fearlessness — he acknowledged that some people would probably be uncomfortable with some of his remarks about religion, not to mention calling Sarah Palin a ‘cunt’ (‘there’s just no other word for her’) — that makes Maher the most dangerous person in comedy.”

          But none of this prompted any of the scolding that has greeted Limbaugh’s transgression. In fact, in the days and months that followed, CNN and MSNBC cheerfully included Maher a dozen times as a guest in their line-up. Only Chuck Todd, filling for Chris Matthews on Hardball, brought up Maher’s vicious comments just one day after the day after his Dallas event: “Any regrets on what you said?”

          Maher, predictably, said he wasn’t sorry: “I’m not trying to hurt somebody’s feelings. But if you want me to say ‘I’m sorry, what I said was wrong,’ no, sorry, I can’t go there.”
          Story Continues Below Ad ↓

          These demeaning comments have not caused the news networks to sour on Maher, as he continues to make regular appearances and receive pats on the back from CNN and MSNBC hosts:

          ■ On March 22, 2011 — in the midst of his storm of nasty comments about conservative women, Maher appeared on CNN’s In the Arena. Host Eliot Spitzer did not ask about Maher’s “dumb twat” insult of Palin from four days earlier, or pose any hostile questions to Maher. Spitzer ended by genuflecting: “Your show is brilliant. I love watching it.”

          ■ On March 29, 2011, Maher made his MSNBC Hardball appearance with Chuck Todd, as noted above. While Todd — unlike CNN’s Spitzer — did ask Maher about how he was “getting hammered in the conservative blogosphere, among a lot of conservative hosts” for his nasty comments about Palin and Bachmann, he was in no way judgmental.

          Todd ended that interview by publicizing both Maher’s upcoming show on HBO as well as appearances in Indiana and North Carolina. “Bill Maher, always entertaining to have you on.”

          ■ On April 12, 2011, MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow hosted Maher, and not once asked about his nasty comments about women. Instead of scolding Maher for his deplorable remarks, Maddow was thrilled to have him: “It is nice to see you….I’m very excited….Thank you so much for being on with us, Bill. It’s really nice to see you. Thank you.”

          ■ On May 3, 2011, Maher popped up on The Joy Behar Show on CNN’s Headline News Network. Behar fawned over her guest: “I love your show. I watch you every week, and I really get irritated when they put you on hiatus.”

          ■ On May 17, 2011, Maher showed up on MSNBC’s Hardball, where Chris Matthews touted him as their “star guest.” Maher trashed Michele Bachmann as a “frothing loon,” jabbing that “Bachmann is the candidate for people who find Palin too intellectual.”

          ■ On June 14, 2011, CNN’s Anderson Cooper interviewed Maher about the GOP debate. Maher unleashed his usual invective, declaring that the Republican candidates “have just horrible, society-killing ideas about America.”

          ■ On July 11, 2011, Maher appeared as a guest on CNN’s Piers Morgan Tonight, and made the host laugh with a crude reference to Palin and Michele Bachmann. Morgan asked Maher about the GOP nomination: “If you had a choice, gun to your head, which one is it? Palin or Bachmann?”

          Maher replied: “I would need a gun to my head. I hope Sarah Palin gets in so that they split the MILF vote.” MILF is an acronym for a “Mother I’d Like to Fuck.” The CNN host ended the interview by telling Maher: “May you remain gloriously uncensored on HBO…Love the show.”

          ■ On August 3, 2011, fill-in host Michael Eric Dyson had “the great Bill Maher” on MSNBC’s The Ed Show. Dyson touted Maher as “my very good friend.”

          ■ On October 11, 2011, Maher returned to MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow show, which Maddow eagerly promoted. “The one and only Bill Maher is going to be here for an interview tonight,” she promised viewers. Talking about the radical Occupy protesters, Maher used the occasion to suggest violence against Fox News owner Rupert Murdoch: “If a brick came through Rupert Murdoch’s window, I have a feeling Fox News would be a lot more gentle on the Wall Street people….”

          ■ On January 25, 2012, CNN’s Cooper brought Maher onto his show to talk about Obama’s State of the Union speech and the Republican nomination contest. During that interview, Maher made a derogatory reference to Mormons, predicting Romney would be the nominee and: “I think Obama is going to beat him like a runaway sister wife.” Cooper winced: “Geez, your runaway sister wife? I haven’t heard an LDS punchline in quite a while.”

          ■ On February 27, 2012, Chris Matthews was thrilled to see Maher back on Hardball where he talked about the Republican “crazies” and “idiots.” “Hey, Maher, you’re the best,” Matthews flattered. “You’re the funniest, smartest guy around….Thank you, Bill Maher — you’re an Irish guy, too. Thank you for coming on.”

          ■ That same night, Morgan interviewed Maher again, this time prompted by his $1 million donation to Obama’s SuperPAC. Maher mocked Christianity: “You’re allowed to have your opinion that a Palestinian 2,000 years ago walked on water and did magic tricks and was really — he’s really still his own father and all that stuff.” As always, Morgan was delighted: “Bill Maher, always a great pleasure.”

          Obviously, there’s a certain amount of show business in the media fawning over Bill Maher, but it underscores how utterly unbothered they are by his frequent, nasty comments about conservative women. With that as context, it’s hard not to see those networks’ flamboyant outrage at Rush Limbaugh as nothing more than opportunism by liberals out to destroy the most successful conservative in the media.

          Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/rich-noyes/2012/03/06/hypocritical-cable-networks-eagerly-bash-rush-embrace-crude-bill-maher#ixzz1oN0eCd8Q

          • Buck the Wala says:
            • 1. Of course their trying to help Rush-the repubs’ like him for the most part-even if he did screw up and we are sooo tired of the hypocrisy of the left. But this sounds more like an attack on Powers-shame on her for pointing out that the liberals have done the same thing. And they always want us to just move along while they keep attacking.

              2.Bill Maher is just a comedian-sure he is. That’s why all the political people go on his show and he’s invited to theirs. I Hear he’s even gonna head a democrat fund raiser-course they may cancel that now-or maybe not.

              3. This is relevant-Why?

              4. No one is denying Rush is a voice for the republicans-the rest is simply denial -reread the article I posted.

              5. Please-we all know including you, that the mentioned people push it as far as they can-on almost a daily basis-but they aren’t completely stupid-They can’t hide behind being a comedian or an entertainer. But occasionally go so far they must have their hands slapped. But these same people want Rush to lose his job.

              6. False argument-these types of attacks are not okay -whether the person is a private citizen or a public figure.

              7.Okay-this one I’m just gonna laugh at-even Maher knows not having sponsors is a much better shield than having sponsors. Read #2. And all that standing on principals -that’s just another way of saying move along and be quiet -while we keep attacking , cause we don’t lay claim to any particular principals that you can accuse us of breaking.

  47. Is this true????? And what about Paul?
    Did the republican party purposely fix this so only Romney could win or we would have a contested primary? And I guess it’s legal and has some validity-but keeping people off the ballot in these States irritates me, anyway!!

    Tuesday, March 6, 2012
    Santorum Can’t Get to 1144
    …and neither can Gingrich.

    FHQ has been saying since our Very Rough Estimate of the delegate counts a couple of weeks ago that Romney is the only candidate who has a chance to get there. But, of course, I have not yet shown my work. No, it isn’t mathematically impossible, but it would take either Gingrich or Santorum over-performing their established level of support in the contests already in the history books to such an extent that it is all but mathematically impossible. Santorum, for instance, has averaged 24.2% of the vote in all the contests. Since (and including) his February 7 sweep, he is averaging 34.7% of the vote. That is an improvement, but it is not nearly enough to get the former Pennsylvania senator within range of the 1144 delegates necessary to win the Republican nomination.

    FHQ has modified that original model and put together a spreadsheet that not only better captures the rules in each state, but also allows for a constant level of support across all upcoming contests to be to be plugged in. Let’s begin by assuming that Santorum enters with 19 delegates and project a 50% level of support across all the remaining contests with bound delegates. This 50% would apply to not only the statewide vote but the congressional district votes as well. In other words, this would trigger a winner-take-all allocation of delegates in most states that have the conditional winner-take-all/proportional rules hinging on a candidate receiving a majority of the vote.

    This is extremely generous. It assumes that candidate X would win nearly all the delegates in states that were not already directly proportional. Less generously, this does not count, like the previous version of this exercise, caucus states with unbound delegates (see Iowa, Colorado, Maine, Minnesota, etc.) nor automatic delegates who have yet to endorse.

    Where does that leave Santorum? 1075 delegates.

    But hold on. What if we add another layer to this by accounting for the thresholds for receiving delegates in the various states (typically 15% or 20%)? This would have the impact of reallocating delegates of those under the threshold in proportional environments to those candidates over the threshold. That would mean more delegates. If we set the number of candidates over the threshold to its lowest value — 2 candidates in 20% threshold states and 3 in 15% threshold states1 — that maximizes the number of reallocated delegates.

    Where does that leave Santorum? Again, this is assuming winner-take-all rules have been triggered in all the conditional states. It assumes that the likely bare minimum of candidates has crossed the thresholds to receive reallocated delegates. This is very generous.

    1162 delegates. That’s cutting it awfully close.

    Surely the automatic delegates or the unbound caucus delegates would keep Santorum over 1144. Yeah, they could potentially serve as kingmaker until you remember that we just very unrealistically gave Santorum winner-take-all allocation where is was conditionally possible. We gave him a consistent 50% of the vote — over 15% better than he has performed during his best stretch. Also, Santorum — given the polls we have access to for today’s races — is very unlikely to reach that level of support across all of the Super Tuesday primaries and caucuses. That means that after today — a day with over 400 delegates at stake — Santorum will not be able to get to 1144.

    …and neither will Newt Gingrich.


    Well just a darn minute there, FHQ. Your cooking the books, right? What if you put Mitt Romney in the same model(s) under the same circumstances? Ah, I’m glad you asked.

    In the first model where Romney would be at 50% support statewide and in each congressional district, the former Massachusetts governor would net 1254 delegates.
    In the second model that accounts for a likely bare minimum of candidates over the threshold, Romney would surpass 1300 delegates at 1341.

    Even if we simulate a scenario where Romney continues to only win half of the congressional districts, he still gets to 1152 delegates in the second more realistic model and .2


    The bottom line here is that Romney has enough of a delegate advantage right now and especially coming out of today’s contests that it is very unlikely that anyone will catch him, much less catch him and get to 1144. The latter seems particularly far-fetched given the above scenarios. And that is a problem in this race. Well, a problem for Gingrich and Santorum anyway. If all either of them can take to voters is an argument that all they can do is prevent Romney from getting to 1144, then neither has a winning strategy. That sort of strategy has a half life; one that will grow less effective as, in this case, Romney approaches 1144. Complicating this scenario even further for Gingrich and Santorum is the fact that if neither can get to 1144 or even close to it, neither is all that likely to be the candidate to emerge as the nominee at any — unlikely though it may be — contested convention.

    These contests today may not be decisive in terms of settling the nomination, but they very much represent a mental hurdle in this race. That Santorum and Gingrich cannot get to 1144 without vastly over-performing in the remaining contests (relative to how well they have done in the contests thus far) ushers in a new phase in the race.

    But how long will the “keep Romney from 1144 plan” last? With southern contests scattered throughout the rest of March, Gingrich and Santorum will have legitimate chances at wins. However, that means Illinois on March 20 and the bulk of April end up being rather tough terrain. Wins on Romney’s turf become imperative to stay alive at that point for Gingrich and Santorum. By that point, though, Romney will still hold the delegate advantage and favorable contests in front of him. That is not a good combination for anyone hoping to catch him in the delegate count.

    …or even keep him under 1144.


    1 Remember that one candidate is already at the 50% level and it has been rare to see more than two candidates over 20% or 3 over 15% with the top candidate approaching 50%.

    2 In states with an odd number of congressional districts, the delegate total was rounded down to the nearest whole district. A five district state would have Romney winning only two districts. This does not apply in states where there is an attempt to allocate congressional district delegates proportionally. In those states, Romney is given the partial total across all congressional districts. Look, if we are going to be generous to Santorum/Gingrich then it is equally as helpful in this exercise to be stingy with Romney. We want to poke holes in his ability to get to 1144. If we poke enough, Romney can be pulled under 1144, but it becomes more and more complicated and less and less realistic.

  48. Good stuff, colonel … I’ve always been a Truman man and although I don’t have inside information and can only look at what’s been amassed over the years, I agree with his decision to use the bomb (for most of the reasons you stated). Should it be used again? Only in defense (which pretty much means we’re all screwed anyway … but that’s how I happen to believe most of civilization will come to its end). Each nation state (so long as we think in nationalist terms and we probably always will) has the right to do what it wants, whether to defend itself or not … and that will ultimately lead to a nuclear war.

    Of course my favorite Truman move was nationalizing the steel mills … but then the 1% reminded the judges why they were there (to protect $) and it was overturned … damn shame.

  49. Mathius™ says:

    This is completely off-topic, but I just wanted to take a moment to mention that the people who say hedge funds are unregulated have no freaking clue what they’re talking about.

    That is all. Have a nice day.

%d bloggers like this: