ChrisWeigant.com

Friday Talking Points [201] -- "Hands Off My Uterus!"

[ Posted Friday, March 9th, 2012 – 16:43 PST ]

OK, quite obviously, I had to put that subtitle in quote marks, since I do not actually possess a uterus. The quote marks indicate I'm just suggesting it as a slogan for others (those of the female persuasion, of course) to utilize. Just to clear that up, in case you were wondering. But we'll get to all of that in a moment, because first we must attend to our primary chores.

To begin our prognostication of the upcoming Saturday primaries and caucuses, I'd like to aim a quick broadside at the mainstream media, just to get warmed up. During Republican primary season this year, the media has bizarrely continued their Orwellian "some states are more equal than others" philosophy when it comes to paying attention to things. Tomorrow, for instance, the great state of Kansas holds a primary election. It will award 40 delegates -- coincidentally, the exact number of delegates in Iowa and New Hampshire combined. Kansas has more delegates than South Carolina, Nevada, Colorado, Maine, Arizona, Michigan, and four of the ten Super Tuesday states. Kansas has exactly the same number of delegates as Mississippi, a state which votes next Tuesday. Kansas has three fewer delegates than the state of Washington, which was similarly ignored by the media (and pollsters) at large.

I have no idea why some states are worthy of the media's attention, and some states are not. Perhaps it is the New York City/Washington D.C. media bubble. Kansas (and Washington, and Maine, and a few others) simply do not make the cut, for some strange reason. Now, it's easy to see why the very first states in line get an overwhelming amount of attention, but the media focus is inexplicable even once you discount the early excitement. For example, here's a quick quiz: which state had the most delegates on Super Tuesday? It may surprise you to find out that the answer to that question is not "Ohio," but actually "Georgia." Maybe in that case it was anti-Newt bias, who knows? The ways of the mainstream media are too arcane and Byzantine for mere mortals to understand, at times.

But enough of this whacking the media around like a cheap piñata! The only states we ignore in our primary prediction series are those with rules so downright bizarre as to defy an answer to the simple question: "Well, what day do you guys actually vote on?" (Wyoming, we are looking in your direction...). Ahem.

Super Tuesday was a good day for us here, as we achieved a lofty 9-for-10 score in picking winners. The only state we missed was Alaska, which we had awarded to Ron Paul, because we felt sorry for him. This improves our overall record for this election season.

Total correct 2012 primary picks so far: 30 for 46 -- 65%.

In addition to the state of Kansas, three U.S. territories will be holding caucuses tomorrow: Guam, the Northern Marianas, and the Virgin Islands. Polling is non-existent for all four localities, so we're just going to have to wing it. I'm going to go for a cheap joke, and call all of the island territories for Mitt -- because he likes islands so much, he uses them to do his banking! Also, because Guam was already used as a cheap punchline by Santorum, earlier in the year -- which they have definitely not forgotten in Guam. As for Kansas, I think it's a pretty safe bet that Santorum wins the Sunflower State. Santorum's wins are pretty contiguous when mapped out, and Kansas fits right in with all the bordering states Santorum has so far won (Colorado, Oklahoma, and Missouri).

Those are my picks, let me know yours in the comments, as always.

 

Most Impressive Democrat of the Week

President Obama gave a wowzer of a speech at the end of February, but we've covered that later in the Talking Points part of the program. You'll also have to wait until then for the reason why Oklahoma state senator Constance Johnson deserves an Honorable Mention this week.

Also deserving an Honorable Mention are Senator Mark Udall from Colorado and Representative Adam Smith from Washington state, for sponsoring a bill to end the legal provision for indefinite military detention of American citizens. The bill's chances for passage are doubtful, but that doesn't detract from the importance of the fight. Obama won't be in the Oval Office forever, after all.

But this week, the Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week was once again Sandra Fluke. She won her first MIDOTW two weeks ago, which was before Rush Limbaugh's slime hit the airwaves. Since then, she has shown nothing but poise and strength in facing the media storm. If this is the next generation of women's activists, then the future will be a brighter one. President Obama phoned her up just to tell her that her parents should be proud of her, which was exactly the right thing to do.

More power to Sandra Fluke, and more power to those who support her. The way she has conducted herself throughout this fracas has been nothing short of stellar. It is hard to even imagine a better contrast than Rush Limbaugh on the one side, and Ms. Fluke on the other.

For holding her head high throughout the fray, Sandra Fluke is once again our Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week.

[Sandra Fluke is a private citizen and our policy is never to provide contact information in such a case.]

 

Most Disappointing Democrat of the Week

If you define it one way, Dennis Kucinich had a pretty disappointing week. Not for anything he did, but for losing his primary race for his House seat. Measured by sheer Democratic disappointment, the Kucinich election certainly was a weighty one.

But, as we said, it wasn't really his fault. His district was merged with another Democrat's district (Ohio lost House seats due to the 2010 Census), and it was only possible for one of them to win. His voice will be missed next year in the House, that is for sure.

But our real Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week this week was none other than Robert F. Kennedy Junior.

Kennedy, this week, thought it would be a good idea to send the following out on Twitter:

Speaking of prostitutes, big oil's top call girl Sen Inhofe wants to kill fuel economy backed by automakers, small biz, enviros, & consumers

When called on it by Inhofe's office, he doubled-down:

To my critics: What do you call a politician -- democrat or republican -- who sells the public interest for money?

Now, first of all, I understand what Kennedy is saying -- in fact, I have defended the use of the term for exactly the same reasons myself. I even ended my article with almost the exact same language: "Because by my definition, anyone who screws the public over for money is, indeed, a whore."

But even having said that, does anyone really think that this was the best week to use such an analogy? It certainly muddies the waters, and it doesn't make either Kennedy or any other Democrat look good right now.

So, not so much for what he said or even how he said it, but more for his incredibly bad timing, we hereby award Robert F. Kennedy Junior this week's Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week. Maybe next time, think twice before you tweet.

[Contact Robert F. Kennedy Junior on his public web page (scroll down to the bottom and click on "Contact"), to let him know what you think of his actions.]

 

Friday Talking Points

Volume 201 (3/9/12)

We've got two weeks to cover, here (due to our retrospective 200th edition last week), so let's dive right in to this week's Friday Talking Points, offered up (as always) as suggestions for how Democrats should be framing the issues of the day. The first three this week are unrelated (although the first two are from Obama), but the final four are all about the continuing Republican War on Women.

 

1
   It's all about values

It didn't attract much media notice, but President Obama gave a barn-burner of a speech to the United Auto Workers in Washington D.C. Admittedly, this is about as friendly an audience as the president can expect to speak in front of, but even so the speech was extraordinarily good. The UAW has the entire video, or if you're pressed for time, you can take a look at a shorter excerpt of just the highlights. From the official transcript, as Obama enters full-on campaign mode, mocking Mitt Romney's stance:

And who knows, maybe the naysayers would finally come around and say that standing by America's workers was the right thing to do. Because, I've got to admit, it's been funny to watch some of these folks completely try to rewrite history, now that you're back on your feet. The same folks who said, if we went forward with our plan to rescue Detroit, "You can kiss the American automotive industry goodbye." Now they're saying, "We were right all along."

Or you've got folks saying, "Well, the real problem is -- what we really disagreed with was the workers, they all made out like bandits -- that saving the auto industry was just about paying back the unions." Really? I mean, even by the standards of this town, that's a load of you-know-what.

. . .

Let me tell you, I keep on hearing these same folks talk about values all the time. You want to talk about values? Hard work -- that's a value. Looking out for one another -- that's a value. The idea that we're all in it together, and I'm my brother's keeper and sister's keeper -- that's a value.

They're out there talking about you like you're some special interest that needs to be beaten down. Since when are hardworking men and women who are putting in a hard day's work every day -- since when are they special interests? Since when is the idea that we look out for one another a bad thing?

I remember my old friend, Ted Kennedy -- he used to say, "What is it about working men and women they find so offensive?"

 

2
   The price of gas and Iran

While the first talking point is really Obama's alone, this next one can easily be used by any Democrat. All you have to do is quote a line or two (the last two sentences certainly suggest themselves) from the president's recent press conference, and then immediately pivot to the crucial question: "Can anyone advocating militarily attacking Iran answer a very simple question for me -- what do you think the price of gas will be at the pump, the week or the month after we attack Iran? Be honest with the American people." Obama didn't quite connect these dots in his presser, but he sure came close, and laid down the same challenge in a more polite manner. In a response to a question on Iran, which pointed out what the Republican candidates were saying, Obama responded:

Now, what's said on the campaign trail -- those folks don't have a lot of responsibilities. They're not Commander-in-Chief. And when I see the casualness with which some of these folks talk about war, I'm reminded of the costs involved in war. I'm reminded that the decision that I have to make in terms of sending our young men and women into battle, and the impacts that has on their lives, the impact it has on our national security, the impact it has on our economy.

This is not a game. There's nothing casual about it. And when I see some of these folks who have a lot of bluster and a lot of big talk, but when you actually ask them specifically what they would do, it turns out they repeat the things that we've been doing over the last three years, it indicates to me that that's more about politics than actually trying to solve a difficult problem.

Now, the one thing that we have not done is we haven't launched a war. If some of these folks think that it's time to launch a war, they should say so. And they should explain to the American people exactly why they would do that and what the consequences would be. Everything else is just talk.

 

3
   Another month, another quarter of a million jobs

Democrats need to stop shying away from talking the economy up a little bit. They are currently scared that they'll be perceived as "out of touch" if they paint too rosy a picture, but by shying away from the issue, you'll never be able to paint Republicans as "out of touch" for their constant doom and gloom.

"Did you see the jobs figures that just came out? Another month, another quarter of a million new jobs. When President Obama took office, America was losing three-quarters of a million jobs per month. We now have a continuing net turnaround of one million jobs per month better than 2009. Don't get me wrong, we've still got a long way to go, but let's put the big picture in a little perspective, shall we?"

 

4
   Hands off my uterus!

Obviously (as I mentioned), this one only works if you happen to be a woman. But every single Democratic woman should be singing the same tune on this one. Democrats are winning this battle, and they are winning over women voters in droves as a result. So don't let up!

"When Democrats were trying to reform healthcare, Republicans darkly warned that the government would somehow be getting in between doctors and patients. Turns out they're just fine with this idea -- but only when the patient is a woman. Republican men in statehouses across the land continue to wage their War on Women, now forcing women to pay for procedures which are medically unnecessary, which neither the woman nor her doctor have ordered. From the halls of the statehouse, old men have decided what is proper medicine for women to receive. That sounds one hell of a lot like government getting between a patient and her doctor, doesn't it? The Republican Party -- the party of big government interfering in personal decisions and mandating what a doctor can say and must do in the examination room. Looks like the future they predicted is coming true, except it is not Obamacare doing it, it is Republican legislators. The hypocrisy is simply astounding. I have a message for these men, from American women: 'Hands off my uterus, Sir! What gives you the right? How dare you tell me and my doctor what we must or mustn't do!' I hope Republicans hear this loud and clear, or they are going to hear this message in a big way, come November."

 

5
   Second-class citizens

I missed the big Rush Limbaugh pile-on last week, but luckily there's still enough to go around.

"Republicans finally found the cojones to denounce Rush Limbaugh last week -- even if they were pretty timid about it -- because he so clearly crossed a line of decency. But you know what? I'm not impressed. I'm not impressed because this man uses language that is even worse pretty much every day of the week, and nobody says a peep about it. Any woman who stands up for her rights is likened to Adolf Hitler and the Third Reich by Rush, every time he uses the disgusting and disgraceful term 'feminazi.' This is nothing short of a blatant attempt by Rush and his supporters to limit women to some sort of second-class citizenship -- citizens who should be seen and not heard. I wish the media would ask every single Republican candidate for office whether they condone Rush Limbaugh's continuing use of 'feminazi' or whether they are man enough to demand he stop comparing American women's rights advocates to Nazi Germany. I've got some news for Rush, and for those Republicans who are too frightened of him to denounce this sort of language -- women can indeed vote now, in this country. And we're going to, this November."

 

6
   No funny hats, but still...

Lump the entire War on Women together and frame the debate on your terms. Call your opponents what they are.

"They don't wear funny hats any more, but there still sure are a lot of Puritans in this country these days. It wouldn't surprise me in the least if you told me some red state out there is going to force every woman who gets a birth control prescription to wear a scarlet letter on her clothing. The Republicans waging their Puritan War on Women don't just want to take America back to the Nineteen-nineties, they want to take us all back to the Sixteen-nineties."

 

7
   Every sperm is sacred

Some Democrats are fighting back with the best weapon of all: scathing ridicule and mockery. Of course, for scathing ridicule and mockery, Monty Python's Flying Circus still does it best.

"One of the little-noticed battlefields in the Republican War on Women are so-called 'personhood amendments' which would outlaw many common types of contraception for women. Oklahoma state senator Constance Johnson shot back with an amendment of her own, just to show how ridiculous things have now gotten. He bill would have also outlawed, and I quote, 'any action in which a man ejaculates or otherwise deposits semen anywhere but in a woman's vagina,' unquote. Call it the 'Every Sperm Is Sacred' bill, if you will. Is this ridiculous? Yes. What is even more ridiculous is the concept of a personhood amendment in the first place, which attempts to legislate not only morality but also science and medicine. I say we let the doctors practice medicine, and leave the outrageousness to Monty Python and other comedians, from now on."

-- Chris Weigant

 

All-time award winners leaderboard, by rank
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

Cross-posted at: Democratic Underground
Cross-posted at: Democrats For Progress

 

273 Comments on “Friday Talking Points [201] -- "Hands Off My Uterus!"”

  1. [1] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    It is hard to even imagine a better contrast than Rush Limbaugh on the one side, and Ms. Fluke on the other.

    How about Bill Maher on one side and all the women he's hurled misogynist slurs at over the years: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ISKQD7ytSk&feature=youtu.be I think it would be really wise for O's super PAC to return that million bucks soon. This can't be playing well for O, the good dad. Needless to say, this video — with extra bleeps inserted — is all over the Fox pundit shows tonight, including O'Reilly's. That guy's got a big audience, with lots of Indies tuning in.

  2. [2] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Chris1962 -

    You (and others) certainly make a good point. Ordinarily, Obama would be well-advised to give the money back. He could continue taking the "high road" by doing so.

    But there's a snag -- Maher gave the million to the Super PAC. Legally, there's not supposed to be coordination between them and the campaign, or Obama himself. Now, we all know this is a fiction, but it is what it is.

    Obama could certainly come out in public and say "I would not accept money from Bill Maher, and I would encourage any group supporting me to take the same posture" and (legally) this seems to be a loophole in the "no contact/no coordination" rule.

    In fact, I agree with you and that's what I would tell Obama to do, if I had his ear. You can't take the high road only halfway, I do agree with your sentiment.

    -CW

  3. [3] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    I knew you would agree, Chris, because if there's one thing you're not, it's a hpocrite, IMO. And you're right about O's ability to come out in public with that statement. He made a statement when the PAC was introduced, which sounded an awful lot like a request that people contribute. So there's no reason he can't express a personal desire to see that money returned.

    And what the heck is the super PAC's excuse? Why isn't the guy, who heads that thing, giving the money back himself? And what's with Axelrod's upcoming appearance on Maher's show, stunningly enough? And an Alabama Dem fundraiser, which hired Maher as their headliner, showing no signs of canceling him? And why, pray tell, aren't the congressional Dem women calling for that money to be returned.

    And what's David Gregory gonna try to do on Sunday? Ignore this all?

    This is the stuff that makes liberals look really, really bad: when they don't take their own to task. I mean, did you watch that video, with O's beautiful little girls? And there's Maher and Letterman ripping Palin's kids apart? That shot of her in the grocery store, with her little boy passed out on her shoulder? And O's hiding behind the excuse that he can't tell the PAC what to do? Ugh.

    Meanwhile, this Louis C.K. dude saw trouble coming and got out of the way fast enough: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/09/louis-ck-out-radio-tv-dinner-speech_n_1336013.html Smart decision. Yet there's Obama — this country's leader — trying to lay low and ride out the storm, with Jay Carney sputtering out these excuses at the press gaggle that are downright painful to watch. Bad, bad strategy.

  4. [4] 
    jennmarie wrote:

    As far as why some states get more attention than others, press is paying more attention to purple states that could go Dem or Rep in November. Georgia and Kansas are solid red and won't decide the election. States that could go either way and have a lot of delegates are going to determine who wins.

  5. [5] 
    Michale wrote:

    "Hands Off My Uterus!"

    Tell ya what, CW...

    I'll keep my hands off "your" uterus (:D) if you promise not to make me pay for preventing "your" uterus from getting any bigger..

    Deal??? :D

    As to Fluke, CB said it all ready and quite well.

    Democrats are blatant and foul hypocrites for condemning Rush while smoozing up with Maher...

    Hell, even the scumbag Maher himself, says as much..

    The simple fact is, any woman that needs 5 condoms a day is either using them as balloons (it's happened before... Don't ask :D) or is, to put it politically correctly, VERY sexually active. Which is a nice way of saying what Rush said...

    As for Iran???

    The Left goes on and on about the "cost of going to war" while utterly and COMPLETELY ignoring the cost of NOT going to war...

    If the Left really wants to be fair about the whole issue, let's discuss THAT cost, eh??

    As for Obama as our Commander In Chief... He is utterly pathetic...

    What kind of Commander would even CONSIDER re-election concerns when it comes to deciding whether or not to go to war..

    ANY President, in his role of CnC, who tries to make a deal over military action on the basis of his re-election doesn't DESERVE to be POTUS...

    For that alone, Obama deserves the MDDOTW award...

    Michale

  6. [6] 
    Michale wrote:

    Basically Sandra Fluke is the Left's version of Joe The Plumber.

    A political operative being run by an election campaign...

    Michale.....

  7. [7] 
    Michale wrote:

    Hay CW (and anyone else who wants to stick their 2 cents in :D),

    Gloria Allred seeks Rush Limbaugh prosecution
    http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0312/73829.html

    I would be interested in ya'alls thoughts on this...

    Michale.....

  8. [8] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    I'd like to know when Allred's planning on prosecuting Maher for his attacks on Palin's children. Good frickin' grief, the hypocrisy, double standards and selective outrage that comes out of the Left is nothing short of mind-boggling.

  9. [9] 
    Michale wrote:

    Good frickin' grief, the hypocrisy, double standards and selective outrage that comes out of the Left is nothing short of mind-boggling.

    Exactly

    And what is REALLY nauseating is A> the hypocrisy is so completely and utterly blatant and 2> the Left is completely and utterly oblivious to it's existence.

    http://dailycaller.com/2012/03/05/the-lefts-respect-for-women-a-look-back/

    Now I am not saying that what Rush said was appropriate. I am not defending his statements in the least...

    All I *AM* saying is that the Left has absolutely no moral or ethical basis to call out Rush on his statements.

    NONE whatsoever...

    Michale.....

  10. [10] 
    Michale wrote:

    Meanwhile, this Louis C.K. dude saw trouble coming and got out of the way fast enough:

    Speaking of LCK:

    http://dailycaller.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/louisckhatespalin.jpg

    (WARNING: The above JPG shows some quotes that are extremely graphic and thoroughly disgusting)"

    Wonder why Obama didn't call up Sarah Palin and ask her if she is doing OK and apologize for the disgusting and perverted attacks her and her daughter have endured...

    Yea, I know, I know.. Palin brought it upon herself by entering politics..

    And yet, Sandra Fluke is being run by Obama's former White House Communications Director...

    But ya'all are right...

    It's "different".... :^/

    The ONLY difference is one are attacks against Right-Wing women and the other are attacks against Left-Wing women..

    That is the ONLY difference of relevance...

    The former doesn't seem to be worthy of condemnation by the Left..

    The latter?? The Left can't condemn fast enough and want the commenters prosecuted and thrown in jail..

    Michale.....

  11. [11] 
    Michale wrote:

    And what the heck is the super PAC's excuse? Why isn't the guy, who heads that thing, giving the money back himself?

    I have read so much about this I can't find the exact quote..

    But the head of Obama's SuperPAC said that Maher is an "entertainer".. And Rush is the "de-facto Head of the Republican Party".... So, it's OK for Maher to "entertain" in that manner, but it's not OK for Rush..

    Can you believe that complete and utter felgercarb???

    Rush is as much of an entertainer as Maher is.

    Considering the size of Rush's audience compared to that of Maher's, it would appear that Rush is MORE entertaining than Maher could ever hope to be...

    What it all boils down to is that, once again, the Left has proven beyond ANY doubt that their hypocrisy is unparallelled in the annals of human history...

    Michale.....

  12. [12] 
    Michale wrote:

    What it all boils down to is that, once again, the Left has proven beyond ANY doubt that their hypocrisy is unparallelled in the annals of human history...

    And yes... I hyperbole much.. :D

    Michale....

  13. [13] 
    Michale wrote:

    Illegal robocalls accuse Republicans over Rush Limbaugh and 'slut' slur
    http://harndenblog.dailymail.co.uk/2012/03/-women-of-the-99-percent.html

    To paraphrase Richard Nixon

    "It's not illegal if {{Democrats}} do it."

    :^\

    Michale.....

  14. [14] 
    Paula wrote:

    I disagree with this Maher-is-the-same-as-Limbaugh position.

    Maher doesn't hold the same level of power over Dems as Limbaugh holds over Repubs.

    Maher's insults were one-off's, not 3-day-long slanderfests.

    Maher's targets were extremely public extremely nasty women who busily dish it out all day long.

    Limbaugh's target was a young activist/student who did not insult anyone in the course of her testimony - she simply posited a position that Limbaugh and all his right-wing fanatic women-haters disagree with - disagree with, btw, purely in their "if Dems like it we hate it" knee jerk pattern. They've had no problem with contraceptives being covered for years now - it only became an issue when repubs thought they could use it as a political football.

    Maher called some women some names and moved on.

    Limbaugh started with name calling and ended with language that was almost sexually predatory. His whole thing about posting sex tapes on the internet took his diatribe into a very nasty place -- Maher has never gone anywhere near this place. Furthermore, Limbaugh's slanders were entirely strawmen - he went on and on about his fantasy of what Sandra Fluke said in her testimony - he fabricated testimony that bore no relationship to what she actually said. So he combined complete dishonesty with his trademark bullying of a women who was not in a position to fight back on his level.

    I enjoy Maher much of the time but I completely disagree with his tweet about accepting Limbaugh's "apology". Limbaugh didn't "apologize" - he used some weasel language in attempt to quiet the controversy and stop his advertisers fleeing. It was clear that he wasn't the least bit sorry for what he had been saying -- he was sorry there was blowback. (Maher also defends Ann Coulter, someone I find utterly loathsome and indefensible.) But then, Maher IS a comedien, not the defacto leader of the Democratic party.

    I don't like Maher's use of certain words at all. Not at all. However he doesn't use them routinely -- and probably won't use them again.

    The false equivalency is one of the right-wing's favorite defenses. Whatever awful thing they do, they figure they can say that someone, somewhere on the left, has done it too. They can't actually defend their actions so they fall back on false equivalency.

    I don't think Obama should do a thing about Bill Maher. I think it is a non-issue being served up by repubs who want everyone to stop looking at Limbaugh as the perfect representation of what they are -- look at the shiny object over there! Bill Maher called what's her name a c--t. Sorry repubs, a couple of sentences by Bill Maher are not equal to 20 years of non-stop prejudice, lies and abuse. They aren't even equivalent to the 53 separate slurs Limbaugh laid on Sandra Fluke over 3 days.

    And I have to say that there is a singular beauty in watching Limbaugh's self-destruction. It's been a long time coming but he did it to himself. He's also dealt a blow to the whole hate-radio establishment--today I read that 98 advertisers have informed Premiere they not only don't want their ads on Limbaugh, they don't want their ads on any shock jock shows. Let's hear it for the free market!

  15. [15] 
    Michale wrote:

    Maher doesn't hold the same level of power over Dems as Limbaugh holds over Repubs.

    Assumes facts not in evidence..

    What "power" does Limbaugh hold over the Republican Party??

    The only "power" Limbaugh has is to really piss off the Left....

    Limbaugh's target was a young activist/student

    Young??? 31 years old is not YOUNG by ANY stretch of the definition...

    They aren't even equivalent to the 53 separate slurs Limbaugh laid on Sandra Fluke over 3 days.

    Please list them....

    :D

    he fabricated testimony that bore no relationship to what she actually said.

    For example.......???????

    The false equivalency is one of the right-wing's favorite defenses.

    And denying the equivalency is one of the Left Wing's favorite defenses...

    He's also dealt a blow to the whole hate-radio establishment--today I read that 98 advertisers have informed Premiere they not only don't want their ads on Limbaugh,

    Local sponsors that have absolutely NOTHING to do with Limbaugh's show...

    Limbaugh is actually refusing sponsors that want to return after their business took a huge hit...

    Limbaugh is laugh all the way to the bank.. :D

    What Limbaugh said was disgusting, but at least partially accurate...

    What Maher said is reprehensible and should not be condoned, mitigated nor defended in any way, shape or form...

    This is simply a case of the Left turning a blind eye to disgusting and perverse attacks, SOLELY because the object of the attacks don't share the Left's political views..

    PERIOD...

    Michale.....

  16. [16] 
    Michale wrote:

    This is simply a case of the Left turning a blind eye to disgusting and perverse attacks, SOLELY because the object of the attacks don't share the Left's political views..

    While at the same time, castigating a conservative celebrity for speaking crude remarks about a fanatical activist, part of which was factually accurate..

    And then trying to PROSECUTE the celebrity for making the remarks..

    I mean, com'on!!!

    The Left is supposed to be all about Free Speech and the First Amendment, eh???

    I guess the Left is all about the First Amendment, except when they disagree with the spoken sentiment...

    Exactly HOW is that different than ya'all accuse the Right of being????

    "Anyone??? Anyone??? Beuhler???"

    Michale....

  17. [17] 
    Michale wrote:

    Maher called some women some names and moved on.

    Really???

    28 MILLION Google Results to "Bill Maher Attacks Women"..

    Maher hasn't "moved on" at all..

    It's especially telling when Maher attacked a breast-feeding mother.

    But you are correct.. There IS a difference between Maher and Limbaugh..

    Maher makes his living attacking women in the most disgusting and perverse ways imaginable...

    Limbaugh doesn't...

    Michale.....

  18. [18] 
    Michale wrote:

    On another note...

    US soldier kills Afghan civilians in Kandahar
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-17330205

    Now THIS is something that Obama SHOULD issue a formal apology for..

    Michale.....

  19. [19] 
    Michale wrote:

    Maher makes his living attacking women in the most disgusting and perverse ways imaginable...

    Allow me to clarify that...

    Maher makes his living attacking Republicans, of which many are women.

    Which explains, I guess, why he is so popular with the Left...

    Nothing pleases the hysterical masses more than some good old-fashioned hate-mongering....

    Michale....

  20. [20] 
    akadjian wrote:

    @Chris1962

    QQ: Are you against SuperPACs?

    -David

  21. [21] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Michale [18] -

    This is why you and I get along, because when you lay down the rules for what you think, you tend to follow them. I try to do the same, to avoid hypocrisy (which is why I had to put a link in this article to my "On Whores" article from days of yore).

    While I don't agree with your opinion about the previous apology, today's tragedy is one where "politics stops at the waters edge" -- and there aren't too many of those, these days, it seems.

    I did find it interesting that the White House has learned the lesson from the Qu'ran burning fracas, though -- every news report I heard or read used some form of the phrasing "Obama expressed his condolences" and the word "apology" never appeared at all.

    I'm not really going anywhere with this point, but I did think it was interesting. And I do agree with you that Obama did the right thing today.

    -CW

  22. [22] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    jennmarie [4] -

    First off, welcome to the site! Apologies for the delay in getting your comment posted, but from now on you should be able to post instantly, unless you try to post more than one link per comment (these comments are held for moderation automatically to cut down on comment spam).

    As for your point, you may be right, although I have a sneaking suspicion that it also has to do with the travel budget the media has for the primary season. I see that states which are further away (WA, and HI this Tuesday) get short shrift, while states closer to the DC/NYC axis get heavier coverage no matter what.

    To put it another way, a lot of states which are solidly blue or red got a lot of coverage already, no matter how they're likely to vote in November.

    But you do raise an interesting point. The "writeoff" states may indeed be getting (and continue to get) short shrift from the media.

    It amuses me how many news reports don't even MENTION Hawai'i, these days, though...

    :-)

    -CW

  23. [23] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Michale [7] and Chris1962 [8] -

    Gloria Allred is a publicity hog. She has no standing whatsoever in deciding whether Florida prosecutes Limbaugh under a 100-year-old-plus law or not, she's just grandstanding for her own benefit. If I could prove she was trying to make some money off of the entire exercise, I would personally label her a "whore."

    Satisfied?

    :-)

    -CW

  24. [24] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Michale [12] -

    And yes... I hyperbole much.. :D

    Careful... there are Grammar Police on this site, and you may have just provoked their wrath... I'm not sure "hyperbole" is a conjugatable verb, to put it another way...

    "hyperbolize" maybe? I dunno...

    :-)

    -CW

  25. [25] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Paula [14] -

    The only thing I'll say is that Bill Maher, of all people, knows what it is like to be kicked off the airwaves as a result of sponsors fleeing him.

    After 9/11 he made a statement which was logical, but not in tune with the public sentiment. He stated that it didn't take courage to fire missiles from thousands of miles away which blew people up, but that it did take courage to self-immolate yourself by flying an airplane into a building in a suicide/homicide attack. This, while being fully true, was enough to get him banished from the broadcast media's airwaves. He's lucky (I have been studying American history in this regard) that a mob of people didn't appear before his television studio and immediately burn it to the ground, or string him up from the nearest tree... and, no, that is not an exaggeration of the historical record.

    I don't defend everything Maher says, but I do have to point out he does have a rather unique perspective on boycotts and networks dumping him.

    I offer it up only as a subject for conversation.

    For the other side, I wonder how many Righties showed their indignancy when John McCain reportedly called his wife (HIS FREAKIN' WIFE!) the "C-word", when it was reported in the 2008 campaign. Hypocrisy, in other words, is a dish served at both the Democrat and Republican tables...

    -CW

  26. [26] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Michale [15] -

    Young??? 31 years old is not YOUNG by ANY stretch of the definition...

    I thought that, according to George W. Bush (and other Republicans of the time period), anything up to 40 years old was "young and irresponsible"?

    Heh. The hypocrisy knife-ful of frosting ices both ways, don't it?

    -CW

  27. [27] 
    Michale wrote:

    This is why you and I get along, because when you lay down the rules for what you think, you tend to follow them. I try to do the same, to avoid hypocrisy (which is why I had to put a link in this article to my "On Whores" article from days of yore).

    Yea, I know I can go overboard at times...

    For me, Inconsistency is Hypocrisy's second cousin, so I try to at least be consistent. :D

    While I don't agree with your opinion about the previous apology, today's tragedy is one where "politics stops at the waters edge" -- and there aren't too many of those, these days, it seems.

    I completely agree.. I have to say though.. Every time I read about Karzai expressing outrage at the brutal murder of these innocent civilians, I want to put a fist thru my monitor...

    Not because the killings WEREN'T brutal and outraging (they were) but so were the killings of our soldiers by our supposed "allies". And that asshole, Karzai, didn't say diddley squat about that...

    It would serve Karzai right for the US to just up and go. Let's see how Karzai loves the mess of his own creation without us Americans keeping the peace.. Karzai wouldn't survive the day and I would have a huge grin on my face.

    Yea, I know.. Such would not be in the best interests of the US.. But it is a pleasing fantasy nonetheless...

    Let me just say for the record that, in the coming months, I will likely not be as opposed to an Afghan Theater pull-out as I might have been.

    Gloria Allred is a publicity hog. She has no standing whatsoever in deciding whether Florida prosecutes Limbaugh under a 100-year-old-plus law or not, she's just grandstanding for her own benefit. If I could prove she was trying to make some money off of the entire exercise, I would personally label her a "whore."

    Satisfied?

    Indubitably.. :D

    That's why I like you. More often than not, you call a spade a spade (or, in this case, a whore a whore :D ), even if it's a Democrat..

    I just can't believe no one from the Professional Left has condemned Allred for such an outrageous position.. I am sure that there is not any condemnation because most on the Left would LIKE to see it happen...

    For the other side, I wonder how many Righties showed their indignancy when John McCain reportedly called his wife (HIS FREAKIN' WIFE!) the "C-word", when it was reported in the 2008 campaign. Hypocrisy, in other words, is a dish served at both the Democrat and Republican tables...

    I am appalled that such a thing was done.. However, it's very different than the Maher case, because it was used as a term of affection. A gross, perverse and disgusting term of affection, to be sure, but a term of affection nonetheless...

    There were many times in the heyday of my wife and I....er... playtime, where I affectionately referred to her as a "slut".. But it was all in lustful fun.. :D Had I used the C-word, however, I probably would have lost *MY* C-word... I'll let ya'all fill in the anatomical blanks.. :D

    Maher's use of the word was in anger as a form of attack...

    While that doesn't make the word itself any less distasteful, it DOES put the two acts in different hemispheres...

    I thought that, according to George W. Bush (and other Republicans of the time period), anything up to 40 years old was "young and irresponsible"?

    As has been well established, Bush is not always right and "other Republicans" even less so...

    Paula was trying to make Fluke out to be some poor innocent child who was being picked on by the Big Bad Wolf...

    Such is not the case.

    Fluke is a middle-aged Left-Wing professional activist that has some VERY radical ideas on how the world should be. Ideas that are not in keeping with mainstream Americans...

    Based on her own testimony, one has to wonder how she finds time for her activism, what with all the sex she is having.. :D

    Michale.....

  28. [28] 
    Michale wrote:

    The only thing I'll say is that Bill Maher, of all people, knows what it is like to be kicked off the airwaves as a result of sponsors fleeing him.

    Which is likely why Maher issued a statement in support of Rush..

    The Left got their apology.. By not accepting it, the Left looks petty and vindictive. The Left showed their hand insofar as they weren't interested in anything other than bringing Rush down..

    Which is why Rush actually came out on top of this whole issue...

    It's also ironic that the Left cheers that sponsors are leaving Rush.. As has been reported, it's only local affiliate sponsors that have pulled their ads. This will, in turn, mean less ad revenue for the local stations running the ads. Which, in turn, could possibly result in job losses for employees of those local stations.

    So, the Left is actually CHEERING that Fluke brought down local stations and fired employees..

    Good job... Maybe next time, the Left can take a crap on Mom's apple pie.... :^/

    I did find it interesting that the White House has learned the lesson from the Qu'ran burning fracas, though -- every news report I heard or read used some form of the phrasing "Obama expressed his condolences" and the word "apology" never appeared at all.

    I concur... Obama has definitely learned the lesson that always apologizing for everything makes one look weak.

    There is nothing wrong with expressing regret or condolences.

    Michale

  29. [29] 
    Michale wrote:

    Regarding the Rush/Maher issue, when one pulls away all the chaff and distractions and felgercarb, one fact remains.

    In BOTH cases, an entertainer sought to entertain his audience by playing to their political bigotry, using crude and offensive "humor"...

    The idea that the two cases are, somehow, different is ridiculous and borne of nothing more than political bigotry. Or, to be more polite... political partisanship.. Same thing...

    The ONLY difference in the two case is that, in Rush's case, he was at least partially correct..

    This is simply a statement of fact, not an indication of support for Rush's crude humor..

    Michale.....

  30. [30] 
    Michale wrote:

    Careful... there are Grammar Police on this site, and you may have just provoked their wrath... I'm not sure "hyperbole" is a conjugatable verb, to put it another way...

    That was just in response to an anticipated post (my guess would have been Bashi, with dsws a close second :D) which would have said, "Hyperbole much??"...

    :D

    Michale.....

  31. [31] 
    Michale wrote:

    David,

    I know it wasn't addressed to me, but.... When has that ever stopped me? :D

    QQ: Are you against SuperPACs?

    First let me say that ANYTHING that allows MORE Corporate influence in our elections is a bad bad thing...

    Now, let me ask you a question...

    Do you think SuperPACs and, by extension the Citizens United ruling, are a "threat to our democracy"??

    Michale...

  32. [32] 
    dsws wrote:

    28 MILLION Google Results to "Bill Maher Attacks Women".

    Slogan of the right-wing echo chamber: repetition is a perfect substitute for facts. Yes, the right-wing blogosphere can generate 28 million web pages for any search string they feel like. So what.

    It amuses me how many news reports don't even MENTION Hawai'i, these days, though.

    Well, 40% of the country now thinks Hawaii is a foreign country.

    I'm not sure "hyperbole" is a conjugatable verb

    It falls within the bounds of reasonable idiomatic license.

  33. [33] 
    Michale wrote:

    Slogan of the right-wing echo chamber: repetition is a perfect substitute for facts. Yes, the right-wing blogosphere can generate 28 million web pages for any search string they feel like. So what.

    So, there are absolutely NO VIABLE candidates for condemnation amongst ALL 28 Million web pages??

    Is THAT really your contention???

    Hell, if if only 5% of those web pages have legitimate complaints (which is a HUGE benefit of the doubt, considering it's Bill Maher we're talking about) that would STILL leave 1.4 MILLION legitimate complaints...

    Does that indicate the "moving on" attitude that Paula ascribed to Maher???

    SERIOUSLY??? :D

    Michale.....

  34. [34] 
    akadjian wrote:

    First let me say that ANYTHING that allows MORE Corporate influence in our elections is a bad bad thing.

    I would agree with your statement. Whether Citzens' United is a "threat to our democracy" is debatable, but it seems to me like it's increased the influence a single person can have on the process.

    Look at the impact Sheldon Adelson has had with the Gingrich campaign.

    Though, to be honest, this may actually have opened the Republican primary up to more competition.

    This could very well be because of all the existing influence of money prior to Citizens' United.

    Right now, it's still unclear what the consequences of Citizens' United will be. I'm just curious what people think.

    -David

  35. [35] 
    Michale wrote:

    Whether Citzens' United is a "threat to our democracy" is debatable,

    I completely agree...

    but it seems to me like it's increased the influence a single person can have on the process. Look at the impact Sheldon Adelson has had with the Gingrich campaign.

    "A difference which makes no difference IS no difference"
    -Commander Spock

    It's likely that Adelson's support of Gingrich will amount to anything in the end result..

    I have no doubt that SuperPACs will have an impact...

    But will they carry the day??

    I don't think so.. SuperPACs may carry the leader over the line.... But I don't think they would actually turn a loser into a winner...

    Michale.....

  36. [36] 
    Michale wrote:

    It's likely that Adelson's support of Gingrich will amount to anything in the end result..

    It's UNlikely that Adelson's support of Gingrich will amount to anything in the end result..

    Michale

  37. [37] 
    Michale wrote:

    But I don't think they would actually turn a loser into a winner...

    I would even go so far as to say that, while SuperPACs would unlikely be able to turn a loser into a winner, it IS possible that they could turn a winner into a loser...

    So, in THAT regard, I guess SuperPACs could "carry the day"...

    Just not in the manner intended.. :D

    Michale.....

  38. [38] 
    akadjian wrote:

    It's likely that Adelson's support of Gingrich will amount to anything in the end result.

    Agreed. It's one specific case in the GOP primary.

    And it may be because Romney has the most powerful SuperPAC in the GOP primary. He would be another good case in point. Without SuperPAC money, Romney loses Michigan and Ohio and it's an entirely different race.

    A couple things to think about:

    1. Transparency- SuperPAC money is not like campaign funding. You don't necessarily know who is spending. And it's nothing for a billionaire to dump huge amounts into a race. Shoot, $1 million could win you a House seat easily.

    2. The Supreme Court decision in Citizens' United hinges on the idea that the SuperPACs cannot coordinate with the campaigns. This is a farce and everyone knows it. So it seems that the Supreme Court decision relies on a joke ... In a sense, they said that that much corporate money would be a bad thing for our elections but ... if SuperPACs don't coordinate with the campaigns, it's ok. Right ...

    Anyhoo, food for thought ...

    I would even go so far as to say that, while SuperPACs would unlikely be able to turn a loser into a winner, it IS possible that they could turn a winner into a loser.

    Why? Not sure I grok this.

    -David

  39. [39] 
    Michale wrote:

    Why? Not sure I grok this.

    I was trying to avoid mentioning anything about Obama.. We were having such a nice conversation w/o my run o' the mill Obama bashing, I didn't want to spoil it. :D

    But the instance I thought of when I mentioned this is Obama's SuperPAC and Maher's 1 million donation..

    Maher's donation is probably the ONLY donation that Obama's SuperPAC can brag about..

    And being there is such baggage accompanying Maher's donation, it's possible that Obama's SuperPAC could actually drag Obama down...

    I agree it's unlikely. But it's one of the other rarely mentioned dangers of a SuperPAC. If a candidate is so identified with and tied to a SuperPAC (as Obama is with his SuperPAC) anything that discredits the SuperPAC invariably could discredit the candidate...

    Michale.....

  40. [40] 
    Michale wrote:

    Lemme ask ya'all something... I am very sincere in this question....

    I keep seeing Left-Wing headlines stating that Republicans want to take away women's "rights"...

    By denying women free contraception, exactly what "right" is being taken away???

    I mean, is there a Constitutional Amendment I am unaware of that says Americans are guaranteed sex w/o consequences???

    I can just see the pick-line now...

    "Hay baby.. You wouldn't want to deny a fellow American their Constitutional right to sex, would ya???"

    :D

    But seriously...

    What "right" is being taken away by saying that women have to pay for their contraception???

    Michale.....

  41. [41] 
    akadjian wrote:

    But the instance I thought of when I mentioned this is Obama's SuperPAC and Maher's 1 million donation.

    Ok. I understand where you're coming from now.

    Part of me thinks that Maher is doing this to bring attention to SuperPACs themselves in a similar manner to the Colbert SuperPAC.

    Why do I say this? Because I believe Maher could have donated anonymously.

    The thing with SuperPACs is that if you accept the argument that anyone can donate however much they want for whatever reason, and that they can do it anonymously, it's hard to come back and say that some certain person's money is somehow not valid without sounding inconsistent.

    That said, what I'd like to see more from the progressive side (or any side for that matter) is what would a better system look like. A system which would limit the influence of big money on elections.

    -David

    p.s. Obama's SuperPAC wins the most poorly named SuperPAC award hands down: Priorities USA Action

    Really? Who came up with that name?

  42. [42] 
    Michale wrote:

    That said, what I'd like to see more from the progressive side (or any side for that matter) is what would a better system look like. A system which would limit the influence of big money on elections.

    How about a system where we completely do away with the Donation System. Where all media outlets are required to donate $XXX.XX to each and every qualified candidate for the campaign and absolutey ZERO donations can be accepted. Any campaign caught accepting donations would be removed from the election.

    This would take ALL the money out of elections and would have the added benefit of eliminating lobbyists as well. At least lobbyists before the fact....

    p.s. Obama's SuperPAC wins the most poorly named SuperPAC award hands down: Priorities USA Action

    Really? Who came up with that name?

    I never even knew the name of Obama's SuperPAC...

    PUSAA

    BBBBwwwhahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

    Now THAT's funny... :D

    Michale

  43. [43] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    I agree it's unlikely. But it's one of the other rarely mentioned dangers of a SuperPAC.

    here's another rarely mentioned danger: it makes politicians even MORE dependent on soft money donations from corporations and the uber-rich. therefore, it becomes even less likely than before that any congress critter will ever do anything in the interest of the general public. for example, let's say a few movie and recording execs were unhappy about the outcome of the SOPA legislation. they can now anonymously put a media hit on any candidate who vocally opposed it.

  44. [44] 
    Michale wrote:

    Putting on my Partisan hat again (I have worn this thing a LOT more than I ever thought I would..)

    Déjà Vu: Obama's Military Actions in Syria May Be Impeachable
    http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/11139-deja-vu-obamas-military-actions-in-syria-may-be-impeachable

    What is it about Democrats that they just beg to be impeached???

    Michale.....

  45. [45] 
    Michale wrote:

    here's another rarely mentioned danger: it makes politicians even MORE dependent on soft money donations from corporations and the uber-rich. therefore, it becomes even less likely than before that any congress critter will ever do anything in the interest of the general public. for example, let's say a few movie and recording execs were unhappy about the outcome of the SOPA legislation. they can now anonymously put a media hit on any candidate who vocally opposed it.

    Can't argue with the logic....

    Michale.....

  46. [46] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    Hell, if if only 5% of those web pages have legitimate complaints (which is a HUGE benefit of the doubt, considering it's Bill Maher we're talking about) that would STILL leave 1.4 MILLION legitimate complaints…

    Well, I got 54 results when I did the search, but then knowing how to search I kept the quotes on to avoid pages where the terms existed but were not directly related. Here is an example:

    Search for Michale is a dumbass gets 1,060,000 results. Wow for a fairly obscure name that's a lot of results. It must be true! Wait, wait, lets try it bracketed in quotes "Michale is a dumbass". Zero results. Dam. Well, I'll leave it to Michale to tell us which method is valid…

    The ONLY difference in the two case is that, in Rush's case, he was at least partially correct..

    This is simply a statement of fact, not an indication of support for Rush's crude humor..

    Expand on this, I'm curious on how Rush is even in the slight bit correct. Only Rush mentioned condoms. The pill and other hormone based birth control is the same cost per month whether the woman has sex once a month or five times a day. Unless you agree that a woman should not be able to control her own reproductive health…

    Being paid to have sex is also wrong. The woman is paying for it through premiums just not the co-pay, and potentially the insurance companies will save money in the long run due to less pregnancies. We will see about this, but that is at least what the medical group behind this law seems to think.

    I find it very telling that out of a much larger bill that covers a wide array of preventive medicine only contraceptives were singled out and only on moral grounds. Nothing on the science or economics of contraceptives or even mention of the rest of the bill.

  47. [47] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    On an unrelated note, I thought This [http://www.theatlantic.com] was pretty funny...

  48. [48] 
    Michale wrote:

    Search for Michale is a dumbass gets 1,060,000 results. Wow for a fairly obscure name that's a lot of results. It must be true! Wait, wait, lets try it bracketed in quotes "Michale is a dumbass". Zero results. Dam. Well, I'll leave it to Michale to tell us which method is valid…

    Ouch!! And the ref takes a point away... :D

    But your logic is flawed...

    Do a search for "Michale" and "Dumbass".

    1.3 million instances of the words Michale and Dumbass mentioned on the same web page...

    Now, giving me the same benefit of the doubt that I gave Maher (5%) that is 65,000 web pages that MIGHT indicate that Michale is, indeed, a dumbass..

    But one has to factor in the relative celebrity of "Michale" and "Bill Maher"...

    At THAT point, the numbers take on more relevant meaning..

    What exactly are you trying to say?? That Bill Maher DOESN'T have a tendency to attack Conservative women in obscene and perverse ways???

    Expand on this, I'm curious on how Rush is even in the slight bit correct.

    If you do the math of $1000 a year for contraception and assume the contraception is condoms, then the math indicates that a woman spending $1000 a year would be having sex 5 times a day...

    Any person having sex five times a day could certainly be labeled as "promiscuous"...

    Especially when one considers that I know of no man alive who could have sex five times in a 12 hour period. (although many of us would like to think we could :D) Therefore, it is a logical conclusion that the woman who is having sex five times a day is using multiple partners...

    In that case, the term "slut" is definitely an accurate label.

    Of course, all of the afore assumes that Sandra Fluke was telling the truth in her testimony that she has spent $3000 for contraception (Third Year Georgetown Student $3000/3 = $1000 a year) and wasn't just blowing smoke up everyone's arse...

    What?? You say maybe she was using the pill instead of condoms???

    $9 a month (County Health Department) for 12 months = $108 per year....

    So, condoms it is...

    Any woman having sex 5 times a day with (likely) multiple partners is a "slut"... And a woman we would like to meet!!! :D

    (Sorry, that was crude... :D)

    . The woman is paying for it through premiums

    That may be how it IS now. But, with Obama's new policy, the woman WON'T pay for it thru premiums..

    You and I will be paying for it thru premiums..

    So, my question (above) must be repeated...

    WHY should everyday Americans have to pay for women's contraception???

    Michale.....

  49. [49] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    What exactly are you trying to say?? That Bill Maher DOESN'T have a tendency to attack Conservative women in obscene and perverse ways???

    No, I'm saying that the total number of results in a Google search does not in and of it's self support an argument.

    There are many other forms of hormone based birth control and the more modern ones that are still covered by IP protections and thus don't have generics can be much more expensive.

  50. [50] 
    Michale wrote:

    On an unrelated note, I thought This [http://www.theatlantic.com] was pretty funny...

    It IS pretty funny...

    Until one actually thinks about what is being said...

    Women who use birth control FIVE TIMES A DAY *ARE* sluts. Just as any man who uses birth control FIVE TIMES A DAY is a slut..

    College people are snobs??? They ones sucking off mommy and daddy's or the government teats certainly are...

    Poor people sucking off government teats instead of making an effort??? Yes, they deserve to be poor...

    *I* was poor.. I have had to spend $x.04 in food stamps, to make $100 to cover the rent.. I have had to GIVE BLOOD to get food money for the week..

    *I* have been poor.. But I pulled myself out of it, started up a SmartCard company and made 3.8 mil my first year.. That fell thru but did I go whining to the government about how poor I was?? No... I found a niche in an industry that I am good at and can provide comfortably for my wife and my kids who need a help now and again...

    This country has so many opportunities that ANYONE with more than two brain cells to rub together and the inclination to put forth some elbow grease can make it...

    But it doesn't help that the government makes it so easy to be lazy, so easy to be to be "poor"...

    Hell, there are MANY instances where million dollar lottery winners are STILL receiving food stamps!!!

    As for Union Workers.. Yes..There ARE Union workers who are thugs and I can post the police reports to prove it..

    The bible trumps the Constitution??? How is that any worse than the UN or the Arab League trumps the Constitution???

    Global Warming may not be a hoax, but it certainly is a Con....

    Auto industry going bankrupt?? If our auto industry wants to join the 21st century, then going bankrupt is the only way to do it..

    Other than all that..

    Yea, it's hilarious... :D

    Michale.....

  51. [51] 
    Michale wrote:

    No, I'm saying that the total number of results in a Google search does not in and of it's self support an argument.

    I disagree..

    Where there's smoke, there is usually fire.. Or Greg smoking a cigarette.. :D (a thousand quatloos to anyone that can pinpoint the reference.. :D)

    Even if you allow 99% of the listings are bogus (a ridiculous assumption considering it IS Bill Maher we are talking about) or redundant, then that still leaves 280,000 references...

    Using your example of Michale and Dumbass (interesting side note.. GOOGLE asked me if I meant Michael Dukakis instead of Michale Dumbass... hehehehehehehehehe) Using that example at 1%, there are only 13,000 instances where Michale and Dumbass appear in the same web page...

    Thirteen thousand people on the planet think I am a dumbass???

    "Yea.. I can live with that."
    Keeanu Reeves, THE REPLACEMENTS

    :D

    There are many other forms of hormone based birth control and the more modern ones that are still covered by IP protections and thus don't have generics can be much more expensive.

    If Sandra Fluke needs special contraceptives, then she is not a proper example of women needing contraceptives and therefore her testimony is false and misleading...

    Michale.....

  52. [52] 
    akadjian wrote:

    How about a system where we completely do away with the Donation System. Where all media outlets are required to donate $XXX.XX to each and every qualified candidate for the campaign and absolutey ZERO donations can be accepted. Any campaign caught accepting donations would be removed from the election.

    I like the thought. Media outlets donating is where I think your system would run into trouble. In the current system, the media has everything to gain by encouraging as much spending on elections as possible. It's a great moneymaker. Hell, the classifieds or subscriptions sure aren't making 'em any money!

    I'm with you though. I like the idea that each person gets X amount of money. You'll just never see the media arguing for it.

    How nice would it be to get rid of lobbyists? Maybe I'll start a lobbying firm to get rid of lobbyists :)

    -David

    p.s. PUSAA - I know, it's laughable even in acryonym form, right?

  53. [53] 
    Paula wrote:

    Chris W. you mention hypocrisy and indicate that 'both sides are guilty". That is certainly indisputable. But I'll go you one better and say that just about everyone is hypocritical at one time or another, indeed, hypocrisy is a very normal human behavior. Bottom line, people are inclined forgive the transgressions of people they like and condemn the same of people they don't like. (Read, among other things, Drew Westen's book "The Political Brain" which opens with a group of studies which illustrate this exact pattern. There are numerous other books and studies showing how people "feel" first, then rationalize their feeling afterwards.)

    I would go so far as to say that "hypocrisy" is the default human position, and to overcome hypocrisy people have to first become conscious of it, then honestly assess their thoughts and feelings about the issue. This is a level of processing that we rarely engage in (if ever), and certainly isn't something we can go through for everything we react to, and, of course, we don't. But often we do become very clear about certain issues, depending on their importance to us -- context is very important, knowledge equally so.

    In the case of Limbaugh vs. Maher, I think context counts. With respect to these incidences re: the c-word, what Maher was doing was calling these women a nasty name. He was insulting them. Had he called them a less offensive name these episodes would have been seen as business-as-usual comic rants. As far as I know (and I could well be wrong, I didn't follow any of this closely) he has never "apologized" for these rants. Had he done so I think his apology would have been for the word, not the thought. But, apparently the offense was not deemed significant enough by enough people to generate a 2-week and counting controversy.

    Limbaugh's 3-day slanderfest was seen differently, for reasons I noted earlier. The context was entirely different. (Some claim that Sandra Fluke's work as a contraceptive activist means it's open season but I don't agree. She was an unknown figure on the national stage and she didn't reference her sex life at all, Limbaugh's tirades were base on complete misrepresentations of her testimony, etc.) Limbaugh tried to apologize for the words, but what people were objecting to was the thoughts - the whole constellation of thoughts embodied by his words. They also objected to the fact that this wealthy and powerful figure was demonizing this woman and that he had no compunction about it. It was predatory, bullying behavior, made much worse because it went on for 3 days. Had he confined himself to one show I think chances are it would have faded away; just another Limbaugh rant. It was he who kept it alive, to the point where non-fans, and anti-fans, heard about and read the transcripts and suddenly a whole lot of people outside his normal audience were activated.

    (Also important to note the timing: just a few weeks after the Komen debacle and within days of the nauseating Issa senate hearing and protests in Virginia etc. )

    And here I part company with Maher, and with all the whiny right-wingers who suddenly feel "censored". While Limbaugh has a right to say what he wants, I and others have a right to voice displeasure at what he says. There's no law that says Limbaugh has a "right" to have advertisers; there's no law that says advertisers don't have a "right" to cease sponsoring him if they choose.

    Limbaugh, FOX, and all the hate jocks around the country have gotten used to getting away with nastiness, unchecked. It just happens that now, with the web and Social Media, there is a mechanism available that enables pushback, and people are pushing back.

    As Chris W. noted, Maher has paid prices in his life for things he's said. If people think Maher should have paid a higher price for his language, well, maybe the problem is that everyone has been desensitized -- thanks in large part to the work of America's hate industry, of which Limbaugh is the leading light. On all levels, we reap what we sow.

  54. [54] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    If Sandra Fluke needs special contraceptives, then she is not a proper example of women needing contraceptives and therefore her testimony is false and misleading...

    Well, if that is true, then the basic point that contraceptives as preventive care will save the insurance companies money and thus reduce your premiums has even more evidence for being correct. Women having more sex and saving us money, sounds like a win-win all the way around...

  55. [55] 
    Michale wrote:

    David,

    I'm with you though. I like the idea that each person gets X amount of money. You'll just never see the media arguing for it.

    True....

    Maybe we can appeal to their sense of patriotism....

    ................

    Sorry, I had to pick myself up off the floor from laughing so hard.... :D

    p.s. PUSAA - I know, it's laughable even in acryonym form, right?

    I can imagine the late-night comedy routines around it.. :D

    Unfortunately, I am an old fart.. I don't think I have seen anything past 2100hrs in years... :D

    Bashi,

    Women having more sex and saving us money, sounds like a win-win all the way around...

    The possibilities are definitely intriguing... :D

    Paula,

    Limbaugh, FOX, and all the hate jocks around the country have gotten used to getting away with nastiness, unchecked. It just happens that now, with the web and Social Media, there is a mechanism available that enables pushback, and people are pushing back.

    What about the LEFT-Wing "hate jocks"??? People like Maher, Maddow, Matthews, LouisCK???

    How do they figure into your theories???

    Michale.....

  56. [56] 
    dsws wrote:

    Hell, if if only 5% of those web pages

    Taking a percentage would mean that doubling the amount of smoke-screen doubles the amount of fire. That's exactly the attitude from the right that I described.

    There are however many legitimate hits are out there. Then the talking points get issued, and there are about 28 million -- no matter how many there were before.

    [43] nypoet22:
    it becomes even less likely than before that any congress critter will ever do anything in the interest of the general public

    No such thing. Different members of the public have different interests, and there's no satisfactory way of putting them together into one.

    [44] Michale:
    Putting on my Partisan hat again (I have worn this thing a LOT more than I ever thought I would..)

    We can just think of you as a partisan Bartholomew Cubbins.

    [46] BashiBazouk:
    Well, I got 54 results when I did the search, but then knowing how to search I kept the quotes on

    I think I got 46. But I decided not to use that.

    Search for Michale is a dumbass gets 1,060,000

    Heh. I didn't think of that one.

    [51] Michale:
    a thousand quatloos to anyone that can pinpoint the reference.

    Google says Brady Bunch season 2 episode 14.

  57. [57] 
    Michale wrote:

    dsws,

    There are however many legitimate hits are out there.

    As long as we are agreed that there ARE legitimate hits out there, my point is shown...

    We can just think of you as a partisan Bartholomew Cubbins.

    Yer gonna make me Google, ain'tcha?? :D

    Google says Brady Bunch season 2 episode 14.

    Give the man a thousand quatloos! :D

    Did the "Greg" give it away?? Or, like me, did you always think of that episode when you heard the phrase, "Where's there's smoke"?? :D

    Michale....

  58. [58] 
    Michale wrote:

    We can just think of you as a partisan Bartholomew Cubbins.

    Oooooooooooo :D

    In Illuminati and Jewish writings he is one of several Archangels left on earth to battle in the apocalypse.
    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bartholomew_Cubbins

    So, yer saying I am sort of a Dean Winchester....

    Dean Winchester hunts demons, spirits and other supernatural creatures with his younger brother Sam.
    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dean_Winchester

    Yea, I can live with THAT too... :D

    Michale....

  59. [59] 
    Michale wrote:

    Paula,

    The problem you will have in defending your position is your belief that the Left-Wing ideologue is, somehow morally/ethically "better" than the Right-Wing ideologue...

    This belief is illogical, considering the over-whelming mountain of evidence that proves, beyond ANY doubt, that there really is no difference between the two Political Ideologies..

    Leaders of both ideologies crave money and power (more of the latter, less of the former) and will use ANY means necessary to achieve their goals.

    Following these power hungry politicians are the "useful idiots" on both sides of the aisle who are convinced that they are "god's chosen ones" and those opposing them are demons incarnate...

    And then there are people like me who sit back and just shake their heads sadly at all the political machinations going on and look wistfully to a wise and logical sentiment...

    "Can't we all just get along?"
    -Rodney King

    :D

    Michale.....

  60. [60] 
    Paula wrote:

    Michale:
    "What about the LEFT-Wing "hate jocks"??? People like Maher, Maddow, Matthews, LouisCK???"

    First, Maher and LouisCK are comics; and neither has the influence enjoyed by Limbaugh on both the repub party and the media. They do comedy about politics and their intentions are to stir people up. They certainly ruffle feathers and you may or may not agree with their material. There is an indefinable line between "parody" and "non-parody" and we can debate all day long about where the line is.

    Rachel Maddow and Chris Matthews are not "comics"; nor do they engage in hate speech. Rachel has an openly-declared progressive worldview; Matthews tries to embody a position of "I just report the news" neutrality, with varying degrees of success and failure. If anything, Rachel is more fact-based and objective than Matthews specifically because she wants her show to be about facts, which happen, as they say, to have a liberal bias.

    Rightwingers have decided that pointing out facts is "hate-speech". They're simply full of sh*t on that one.

    Disagreement does not equal hate speech. Pointing out that people who tell lies are lying isn't hate speech. Etc.

    The right wing hate machine is built on lies. and runs on the hate and anger the lies generate. Limbaugh's Fluke slander perfectly exemplifies this -- nothing he said about her had anything to do with her in reality -- he could have/would have said the exact same things about any woman who would have testified on that committee (at least, any young/attractive woman that he'd like to watch having sex).

    The left has struggled with the problem of "what to do about the right wing hate onslaught" for the last 30 years. The basic problem is that there are always a certain number of authoritarian types in the population and authoritarian "leaders" will find ways to attract like-minded followers who then begin to try to impose their points of view on everyone else. They make up for their lack of numbers with their ferocity and willingness to do anything to gain/maintain power or advantage. They don't respect knowledge and they don't believe in empathy -- they believe in might and force and they see anything less as weakness. When unchecked they invariably go too far, but they do damage every step of the way until they are stopped. Because they work covertly as well as overtly it takes a lot of time and a lot of damage for the "not-thems" to recognize their dangerousness, and mobilize effective resistance. (ALEC is a perfect example of right wing covert activity.)

    One of the perennial problems for the "non-right" (which includes a small percentage of highly politically aware people and a large percentage of a-political people) is that we're simply not wired the same way. Though we recoil automatically when confronted with attacks, we then struggle with what to do with our feelings. We don't want to walk around in a constant state of hostility and anger and we don't want to be "prejudiced" against others. We think they have a right to their beliefs, even if we strongly disagree with those beliefs. So we typically begin by trying to "reach out" because we see that as appropriate and respectful. It takes awhile to penetrate that the other side doesn't give a damn about being respectful and if they could get away with it, some of them would hurt us, imprison us or even kill us. And some do.

    One of the standbyes of the authoritarian arsenal is "dehumanization". Limbaugh, FOX and all the rest engage in dehumanization every day. They portray "not-thems" as lesser, and they accord them no basic decent respect. (Disrespect is the hallmark of the right wing.) Where most of us find ourselves disarmed because we see the humanity in our "enemies" the right wing works very hard to make sure their rank and file do not see our humanity. On the air, dehumanization is confined to rhetoric, but out in the world it declares itself when people beat up or kill gay people; when they attack minorities; when they blow up buildings; when they shoot doctors who perform abortions; when they shoot congresswomen; and, of course, when they engage in war (another topic for another day).

    Eventually enough of the a-political population wakes up and smells the coffee, and becomes engaged. This is when real push back starts to build. Sometimes we engage in behaviors that are similar or the same as the right as we fight back. We struggle to find ways to fight back that literally doesn't reduce us; doesn't compromise our humanity. But it is a difficult, thorny needle to thread: the famous Nietzsche quote: "Be careful when you fight the monsters, lest you become one." is perfect.

  61. [61] 
    Michale wrote:

    First, Maher and LouisCK are comics; and neither has the influence enjoyed by Limbaugh on both the repub party and the media.

    Maher and LouisCK are entertainers... As is Limbaugh...

    The only "influence" that Limbaugh has is tweaking the tail of the Professional Left..

    Limbaugh has absolutely NO authority or sway over the Republican Party...

    "..... and any attempt to prove otherwise is futile because it just ain't so.."
    LT Daniel Caffey, A FEW GOOD MEN

    Matthews tries to embody a position of "I just report the news" neutrality, with varying degrees of success and failure.

    Except when he is "reporting" tingles up his leg... :^/

    Rightwingers have decided that pointing out facts is "hate-speech". They're simply full of sh*t on that one.

    You mean the "facts" like in Sarah Palin is a "cunt" and that her daughter is actually the mother of one of her children??

    Or maybe the "fact" that Palin shouldn't have taken HER 14 YEAR OLD DAUGHTER to a baseball game because she might have gotten fucked by one of the baseball players...

    Are those the "facts" you are referring to???

    Yea, I know I know.. That was just Left-Wing "entertainment"...

    Pretty pathetic form of "entertainment", wouldn't you say???

    But what about the National Guard papers from the Bush era??

    Are THOSE the "facts" you are referring to??

    Disagreement does not equal hate speech. Pointing out that people who tell lies are lying isn't hate speech. Etc.

    Unless, of course, it's the Right pointing out the lies from the Left, eh???

    The right wing hate machine is built on lies. and runs on the hate and anger the lies generate.

    As does the Left Wing hate machine...

    The problem with the Left is that they deny their Hate Machine exists, all the while castigating the Right Wing Hate Machine...

    Limbaugh, FOX and all the rest engage in dehumanization every day.

    You mean how the Left refers to Republicans as "terrorists" simply because of political disagreements..

    Or maybe you are referring to how Matt Osborne (and others) refer to me as a "troll" because I have kicked his cyber-arse in debates from here to HuffPo...

    If you want to talk about how a political ideology "dehumanizes" political opponents, you need only look as far as the Left Wing....

    (Disrespect is the hallmark of the right wing.)

    Oh yes... And the Left Wing is the epitome of respectful discourse, right??? :D

    Com'on.. I know you are an intelligent person. You CAN'T believe that the Left doesn't have an issue with disrespecting people they don't agree with...

    when they blow up buildings;

    Bill Ayers....

    'Muff said..... er.. 'NUFF said... Sorry, my mind was on a previous post.... :D

    when they shoot congresswomen;

    The guy who shot Giffords was a Left Wing Pothead.... He didn't even know who Palin or Limbaugh was...

    and, of course, when they engage in war

    Obama... Libya.... Again... 'Nuff said...

    But it is a difficult, thorny needle to thread: the famous Nietzsche quote: "Be careful when you fight the monsters, lest you become one." is perfect.

    Exactly.. The problem with the Left is that they have concluded that the only way to FIGHT the monster is to BECOME the monster....

    You said so yourself..

    The left has struggled with the problem of "what to do about the right wing hate onslaught" for the last 30 years.

    And now they have found their solution.. To be as evil, as hate-mongering and as pathetic as they accuse the Right Wing of being....

    And then we are back to the Rodney King quote...

    "Can't we all just get along?"

    Michale.....

  62. [62] 
    Michale wrote:

    On a completely unrelated note....

    Report: Broncos could trade Tebow
    http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/denver-broncos-will-trade-tim-tebow-if-they-get-peyton-manning-031112

    Looks like Tim Tebow might be coming home to Jacksonville!!!!

    WOOT!!!!!!!

    :D

    OK, now back to our regularly scheduled Political Mayhem.... :D

    Michale.....

  63. [63] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    Looks like Tim Tebow might be coming home to Jacksonville!!!!

    Is that good or bad? He looked like one of those fluky players that can be masterful one day and completely bomb the next without rhyme or reason to either. I think he needs a good QB mentor to calm him down on the bad days...

  64. [64] 
    Michale wrote:

    Is that good or bad?

    Despite his religious overtones, I like Tebow...

    He seems to be a genuine good person, a'la Shane Falco....

    And he is definitely someone the Jags need.

    The Jaguars management tends to throw good people under the bus... Brunnel, Coughlin, Taylor, Leftowich, Gerrard, Del Rio....

    The Jags need an inspirational leader, someone who can inspire the team to look beyond themselves and their petty desires...

    Tim Tebow just might be that leader....

    Hell, our political leaders need someone like that...

    His QB skills need work, this is true. But they can grow under the right tutelage...

    His leadership skills have already been proven...

    Michale.....

  65. [65] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Leaders of both ideologies crave money and power (more of the latter, less of the former) and will use ANY means necessary to achieve their goals.

    There are significant differences in the 2 parties.

    One is the party of Ayn Rand, which is exactly as you describe - all about power and willing to use any means necessary to achieve their goals. If you don't believe me, read up on some Rand and look at how much institutions such as the Cato Institute, a Rand-based think tank influence conservative policy.

    The other party believes more in inclusion, compromise, and a strong middle class. This party doesn't take self-centeredness as the primary cornerstone of their belief. This party believes that people should have a voice in government as well as corporations. This party will not start another pointless war. This party would not try to sink the economy just to score political points.

    While both parties play politics and by that I mean play to emotions, there are significant differences in the two.

    And then there are people like me who sit back and just shake their heads sadly at all the political machinations going on and look wistfully to a wise and logical sentiment.

    Really? I thought you spent all your time trying to convince people to vote against Obama. Or not vote. Or anything which would help defeat Obama. Of course, I'm just going by your posts ... :)

    There's nothing wrong with this, of course, but I find it funny that you're trying to tell people otherwise.

    -David

  66. [66] 
    dsws wrote:

    In Illuminati and Jewish writings he is one of several Archangels left on earth to battle in the apocalypse.

    That's just plain Bartholomew. If you want to be associated with an archangel, why not go for the obvious and claim your nomenclatural affinity with Michael?

    So, yer saying I am sort of a Dean Winchester.

    Please don't tell me I have to spell out what I was saying.

    Leaders of both ideologies crave money and power

    Of course no ideology can, just by itself, completely remake human nature. That doesn't mean that it's just as good to theorize as part of your ideology that torturing cute fuzzy animals for no particular reason is good, as it is to theorize that torturing any animal is bad but can be justified if it can reasonably be expected to lead to enough benefit to other animals. It's not. The latter is debatable, but the former is flat-out psychotic.

    So it is with ideologies on the right and left. If your ideology is nothing but a sugar-coating around a bunch of flat-out evil things, that's unambiguously worse than if your ideology is a mishmash of high ideals and self-serving rationalizations.

    "Can't we all just get along?"

    Are you quoting the fox talking to the rooster, or the spider to the fly? Your side has far less interest in getting along than mine. Democrats have met Republicans half-way, so many times that every Republican president before George W. Bush would now be basically run out of the Party for ideological impurity, pretty much the way George H. W. Bush actually was.

  67. [67] 
    dsws wrote:

    Really? I thought you spent all your time trying to convince people to vote against Obama. Or not vote. Or anything which would help defeat Obama.

    That's Mr. Cubbins for you, always taking off his partisan hat.

  68. [68] 
    akadjian wrote:

    That's Mr. Cubbins for you, always taking off his partisan hat.

    Well played, sir. You are a punny one indeed.

  69. [69] 
    akadjian wrote:

    BTW- Any NCAA picks? I hate to say it but Kentucky looks awfully good in an easy bracket to make it to the Final 4.

    But it's the most wide open field I've seen in a long time.

  70. [70] 
    Michale wrote:

    The other party believes more in inclusion, compromise, and a strong middle class. This party doesn't take self-centeredness as the primary cornerstone of their belief. This party believes that people should have a voice in government as well as corporations. This party will not start another pointless war. This party would not try to sink the economy just to score political points.

    Oh, now that's just bull crap...

    YOU may believe in those things..

    But there is absolutely NOTHING in the actions of the Democrats that indicates THEY believe in those things..

    You want me to make you a list of all the times that Democrats acted like you accuse Republicans of acting??

    http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/215379-specter-says-obama-ditched-him-after-he-provided-60th-vote-to-pass-health-law

    Start there... If you need more examples, just let me know... Google is rarin' to go... :D

    Really? I thought you spent all your time trying to convince people to vote against Obama. Or not vote. Or anything which would help defeat Obama. Of course, I'm just going by your posts ... :)

    No, you're just going by what you assume my posts are all about...

    I am fully on the record as saying that there really is no difference between Republicans and Democrats..

    It's you that claim Democrats are better.. One only has to read your latest post.. :D

    dsws,

    That's just plain Bartholomew. If you want to be associated with an archangel, why not go for the obvious and claim your nomenclatural affinity with Michael?

    Well, we do share the name, albeit with a diff spelling.... :D So, yea.. I'll accept your designation.. :D Kinda like it, as a matter o fact...

    Your side has far less interest in getting along than mine.

    My only "side" is the "American" side.. Your continuing claim to the contrary will not change that one simple fact...

    Democrats have met Republicans half-way, so many times

    That's so much a load of crap, I am surprised to see it in civilized debate...

    Democrats have been and will always be, looking out for themselves and the Democratic Party...

    In that order..

    Looking out for the country is a distant, a FAR distant third...

    Ya'alls claim that Democrats are somehow better than Republicans is laughable in the face of so much evidence that proves it just ain't so..

    Michale.....

  71. [71] 
    dsws wrote:

    I am fully on the record as saying that there really is no difference between Republicans and Democrats..

    Keep on taking off your partisan hat. About 400 to go.

    Thing is, that line is perfectly in accord with the description, I thought you spent all your time trying to convince people to vote against Obama. Or not vote. Or anything which would help defeat Obama.

    Suppose you were a rabid partisan who will say anything that's to the advantage of your side, and you wanted to make your statements as convincing as possible. Would you admit that your every word is mere partisan boilerplate? Or would you cast yourself as an independent who has impartially considered the question at hand, and has come to agree with the Republican side on that question? (And try to draw attention away from the odd coincidence that you're on the Republican side of every other question too.)

  72. [72] 
    Michale wrote:

    (And try to draw attention away from the odd coincidence that you're on the Republican side of every other question too.)

    That is simply not true and you know that it's not true.

    I could tick off a half dozen issues where I oppose the Republican agenda..

    Religion

    Gay Marriage

    Abortion

    DADT

    Well, there's 4, anyways. I am sure I can come up with a few more...

    Can you give me ONE... JUST ONE... Issue where you oppose the Democrat agenda??

    JUST ONE???

    You can't and we both know it..

    So who is the "rabid partisan" and who isn't??

    I understand why you would have to say that. You have to put a label of your choosing on me because the alternative is you would have to admit, "Hay, he might just be right."

    And, of course, we couldn't have THAT, could we?? :D

    Michale.....

  73. [73] 
    Michale wrote:

    David,

    This party would not try to sink the economy just to score political points.

    I have to agree with you on this.. Democrats won't sink the economy just to score political points.

    They will sink the economy out of either stoopidity or greed...

    Not sure which is better, to be honest. But Democrats have done worse at the economy than the GOP ever did.

    Obama realizes this when he said the Americans were better off under Bush.

    I am also constrained to point out that Obama ALSO said, in 2009, that if he can't fix things in three years, he doesn't DESERVE a second term..

    So, I say we should listen to Obama.... :D

    Of course, I'm just going by your posts ... :)

    Well, going by YOUR posts during the Bush years, I would have thought you would be rabidly against ANY President that would continue torture, keep Gitmo open, expand domestic surveillance programs and greatly expand rendition.. That you would NEVER support a President that was more Bush than Bush..

    I guess we can never go just by what our posts say, eh?? :D

    Michale.....

  74. [74] 
    Michale wrote:

    dsws,

    It occurred to me that the post above to David also applies to your claim about me being a rabid partisan..

    Maybe it's just me, but my definition of a "rabid partisan" would be someone who supports a political leader, even though that leader violates many of the beliefs that they hold dear...

    How many anti-torture or anti-war articles do we see around the Left-Wing blogosphere these days??? A handful??? Less???

    How many did we see during the Bush years?? Hundreds?? DAILY!???

    THAT is what I would consider to be rabid partisanship...

    But that's probably just me, eh? The "rabid partisan". :D

    You seem to define "rabid partisan" as anyone who speaks against yer guy.. :D

    Michale.....

  75. [75] 
    Michale wrote:

    My reasons for how I am vis a vis Obama are personal, not political.

    Therefore the word "partisan", rabid or otherwise, simply cannot apply...

    Michale.....

  76. [76] 
    akadjian wrote:

    You want me to make you a list of all the times that Democrats acted like you accuse Republicans of acting?

    No need. I know what these things are. And you're right, I disagree with them.

    Yet the Dems are the only party which is trying to reverse the giant mess which is laissez-faire economics. They're the only party which is trying to advance a middle class agenda.

    And yes, unfortunately, this is why they get something of a free pass on issues like torture. Because the fight is a hard one and they know they'll be endlessly tried in the media for any efforts to change the culture. What would make it an easier one is if everyone who disagreed with torture/war stood up and lobbied against it. Then we could end it. Instead, all of the money in our country is poured into lobbying efforts to return to another war.

    It's you that claim Democrats are better.

    Close. I claim that, for the most part anyways, the liberal ideas I see would be better for everyone in our country and that conservative ideas will benefit only a small percentage of our country, those at the top.

    You seem to think that somehow I'm saying Democrats are better people. I don't. When I see corruption in them, I hate it as well. But the GOP offers a vastly more corrupt alternative.

    How many anti-torture or anti-war articles do we see around the Left-Wing blogosphere these days??? A handful??? Less???

    So you're against war then? Glad to have you on our side.

    You're greatly needed as there is a huge lobbying effort right now to start another war in Iran. It's being lead by the Israelis and there's lots of propaganda for it in the mainstream media. And ... though there's a lot of people from the left speaking out against it, we could use all the help we can get.

    -David

  77. [77] 
    Michale wrote:

    President Barack Obama's Priorities USA Action, along with the Democratic Senate's Super PAC, Majority PAC, and the Democratic House Majority PAC are combining to form the country's first-ever joint fundraising Super PAC — Unity 2012.
    http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2012/03/12/obamas-super-super-pac

    What could POSSIBLY go wrong???

    I guess the Left is rabidly against the money influence in Elections...

    Unless of course, the money can influence the election in the Left's favor... :^/

    "It's time to ask yourself what you believe"
    -Walter Donovan, INDIANA JONES AND THE LAST CRUSADE

    Michale.....

  78. [78] 
    akadjian wrote:

    I guess the Left is rabidly against the money influence in Elections.

    Then speak out against Citizens' United and speak for election reform! I know you're for it since you've said so here. Now write your Congressman! And whoever else might have a say!

    Yes, politicians will play by the rules until the rules change. Who were these rules brought to us by?

    The people with the money who want elections to be winnable solely by money.

    -David

  79. [79] 
    Michale wrote:

    Then speak out against Citizens' United and speak for election reform! I know you're for it since you've said so here. Now write your Congressman! And whoever else might have a say!

    I have a better idea..

    Tell our leaders if they avail themselves of SuperPACs and SuperSUPERPacs and SuperDUPERsuperPACs, that we simply won't vote for them...

    Isn't that a MUCH better idea???

    I mean, we can write our CongressCritters and express our displeasure till the cows come home..

    But unless it's backed up with some REAL and CONCRETE punitive consequences, do you HONESTLY believe said Critter is not going to mutter, "Sheeya, right! What are you going to do?? Vote against your Party??" and then throw the letter away....

    There has to be some REAL consequences if our leaders don't do what we want...

    But, to date, no one wants to push it that far. Push for REAL change...

    So we keep getting the same greedy leaders who are only out for themselves at the expense of people like you and me...

    It's why you accept a President that still tortures terrorists, still renditions terrorists, still spies on American Citizens and still prosecutes war with the zeal of Attila The Hun.

    It's why I accept a candidate who never met an issue he didn't want to flip flop on.

    We get the leaders we deserve.... :^/

    Michale

  80. [80] 
    Michale wrote:

    Rabid partisan, my left butt cheek!! :D

    Michale.....

  81. [81] 
    dsws wrote:

    I could tick off a half dozen issues where I oppose the Republican agenda..

    Religion

    You favor having Christianity promoted by acts of government, and you oppose freedom of religion for Muslims.

    Gay Marriage
    Abortion
    DADT

    Ok, fair point. I don't specifically remember you saying anything on any of those topics. So it's not that you repeat every Republican talking point, only that everything you say is a Republican talking point.

    Can you give me ONE... JUST ONE... Issue where you oppose the Democrat agenda?

    I think the rise of China is a good thing, and Democrats almost uniformly pander to xenophobia. Most Democrats have gotten on board with the whole teach-to-the-standardized-test mentality of school reform, and I haven't.

    There's no partisan divide where I agree with the Republican side, but that doesn't mean I do agree with the Democratic side. My agenda is almost completely outside the realm of political debate. Where are the Democratic politicians saying we should have a one/two/multi- party system, with proportional representation in the House by eliminating geographic districts? There are none. My recipe for fixing the medical system involves getting the elderly to die a lot more cheaply, and taking money away from treatment toward fundamental research. That's a political non-starter, and accordingly there are no Democratic politicians pushing it. Democrats almost all buy into the idea that a government budget is just like a household budget, so we have to veer toward austerity when the economy is bad, and can afford more spending when the economy is running near full employment. I think that's completely backwards. I think the normal thing to do with names when people get married is to hyphenate, and if they're already hyphenated take the part of the woman's last name that she got from her mother and the part of the man's last name that he got from his father (although of course it should be only a norm, not enforced). Insofar as there's a Democratic position on that, they think the norm should be just what it is, having the couple take the man's last name (although of course it should be only a norm, not enforced). I think there should be more money in politics, not less: there's no way to have an ongoing in-depth debate about the issues on a budget that would cover about a week of newspaper subscription for each voter out of every four years. Democrats, of course, go along with the conventional view that there's too much money in politics.

    I challenge you to find just one issue where I do agree with the Democratic position, rather than just thinking it's much better than the Republican one.

    So who is the "rabid partisan" and who isn't?

    I admit to being partisan. I don't agree with the Democrats on much of anything, but I do think their positions are night-and-dusk better than the Republicans'. I say that in the great battle between mediocre and evil, all it takes for evil to prevail is for good people to do nothing -- but that doesn't mean I think mediocre is good.

    You say you're an independent, but everything else you say is a Republican talking point.

  82. [82] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Isn't that a MUCH better idea?

    Nothing was ever accomplished by not voting. Excepts letting the opposition win.

    You're right though that progress is only made when pressure is put on our politicians. How was SOMA/DOMA stopped? Public pressure. Why did politicians suddenly start talking about the middle class? Public pressure.

    Similarly, why are our politicians talking about war with Iran? Because lobbying groups are ginning up public pressure for war.

    You can "not vote" if you want to, but I would encourage to vote for what you believe in if you want to see it happen.

    -David

  83. [83] 
    Michale wrote:

    You favor having Christianity promoted by acts of government, and you oppose freedom of religion for Muslims.

    No I don't....

    I favor government NOT telling private businesses, including churches and Christian-oriented businesses what the must and must not do when it is not the government's place to do so..

    As far as freedom of religion for Muslims??

    Yea, I do have a problem with freedom of religion for Muslims when they brutally murder innocent people in the pursuit of that freedom of religion..

    I am funny that way....

    I think the rise of China is a good thing, and Democrats almost uniformly pander to xenophobia. Most Democrats have gotten on board with the whole teach-to-the-standardized-test mentality of school reform, and I haven't.

    I don't mean a policy disagreement... Give me one tenet, one principle of the Democratic Party that you disagree with..

    Just one....

    Put another way....

    Have you ever slammed the Democratic Party in the same manner I have slammed the Republican Party??

    No, you haven't...

    So, again.. Who is the rabid partisan and who isn't??

    You say you're an independent, but everything else you say is a Republican talking point.

    That's only because of the environment we are in, in the here and now..

    If we were of the Mirror Universe and this was a Right Wing blog, I would be taking the positions of the Left more often than not...

    Many (OK, MOST) of the GOP talking points that deal with National Security, Self Defense, Law Enforcement are all valid talking points..

    The GOP Talking Points that deal with social issues??

    Not so much...

    You accuse me of being some kind of Eric Rudolph or Timothy McVeigh, when, in reality I am more of a George Washington or Jack Ryan...

    Hay.. If Obama can compare himself to Jesus and Ghandi, I can certainly compare myself to Washington & Ryan.. :D

    Michale.....

  84. [84] 
    Michale wrote:

    The way I am looking at things, my choice for President will be contingent on who is going to control the House & Senate..

    If the GOP gets control of Congress, I'll likely vote Romney....

    If Dems get control of Congress, I'll likely vote for Obama.. My reasoning being, while our economy is sure to sink further into Greece-like status, at least Obama won't have any opposition to continuing and expanding Bush's Counter-Terrorism policies...

    So, I ask you..

    Does that sound like a "rabid partisan" to you???

    Michale......

  85. [85] 
    dsws wrote:

    Give me one tenet, one principle of the Democratic Party

    Sorry, but it's a political party. It's not a text. It's not a theory. It's not a creed.

    Have you ever slammed the Democratic Party in the same manner I have slammed the Republican Party?

    No, I slam the Democrats substantively, on policy. You slam the Republicans with the vague suggestion that they're just like the Democrats.

  86. [86] 
    Michale wrote:

    Sorry, but it's a political party. It's not a text. It's not a theory. It's not a creed.

    So you can't point to ONE foundation or principle of the Democratic Party that you disagree with..

    Yet I can point to TWO foundations or principles of the Republican Party that I disagree with..

    :D

    No, I slam the Democrats substantively, on policy.

    Which allows you to fool yourself into thinking yer not rabidly partisan.. :D

    You slam the Republicans with the vague suggestion that they're just like the Democrats.

    "Vague", my ass!! :D I give point by point FACTS that prove beyond any doubt that there is no difference between a Republican politician and a Democrat politician..

    Vague??? I got yer "vague" right here, buddy!! :D

    Michale.....

  87. [87] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Dsws-

    In Michale's defense, he's really not a Republican. We disagree on a lot of things, but I think it's more because we have different views of the world.

    Michale is more of a "might makes right" type of person (and Michale, please correct me if I misstate)while I believe more in cooperation and the power of mutual benefit. We each share some of the opposing view (for example, I believe there is a time for might while Michale would likely say there is a time for cooperation).

    But a Republican? That's not the Michale I know. Against Obama? Yes. But he's admitted that and his reasons. Republican? I've seen plenty of evidence that he's being honest when he says he's an Independent.

    Like it or not, Michale puts out there what he believes and I respect him for that. And if I could, I'd clone his tenacity and fight.

    In the spirit of self disclosure, I will say that I am a Democrat, but, like you, am often at odds with the Democratic party and Democratic politicians. And I consider myself an economic conservative.

    -David

  88. [88] 
    Michale wrote:

    Michale is more of a "might makes right" type of person (and Michale, please correct me if I misstate)

    Once again...

    "Yea... I can live with that.." :D

    Although I would probably qualify that to read "Honorable Might Makes Right" and say it's a guideline, not a rule...

    "I have one rule. Never get involved with possessed people... MMMMMMMmm mmmmmmm MMMMMmmmmmm... Well, it's actually more of a guideline than a rule."
    -Peter Venkmen, GHOSTBUSTERS

    Or, if you prefer....

    "First, your return to shore was not part of our negotiations nor our agreement so I must do nothing. And secondly, you must be a pirate for the pirate's code to apply and you're not. And thirdly, the code is more what you'd call "guidelines" than actual rules. Welcome aboard the Black Pearl, Miss Turner ."
    -Captain Barbossa, PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN

    :D

    Michale....

  89. [89] 
    Paula wrote:

    DSWS: to Michale: "You say you're an independent, but everything else you say is a Republican talking point."

    Yep.

  90. [90] 
    Michale wrote:

    Under the REALLY KEWL heading....

    http://vimeo.com/jonatherton/apptag-laser-blaster

    Sign me up for one of those!!! :D

    Michale.....

  91. [91] 
    Michale wrote:

    DSWS: to Michale: "You say you're an independent, but everything else you say is a Republican talking point."

    Yep.

    Really???

    {18} doesn't sound like a Republican Talking Point...

    When I say that the GOP's utterly ridiculous for trying to push a religious agenda, that doesn't sound like a Republican Talking Point..

    When I say that Republicans are as evil and greedy and unprincipled as Democrats, THAT doesn't sound like a Republican Talking Point..

    Ahhhhhh I see where the confusion is..

    To anyone who would support an Attilla The Hun or a Joseph Stalin as long as they had a -D after their name, it might seem like anyone who thinks or says anything different would be spouting Republican Talking Points...

    In other words, anyone who constantly just spouts Democrat Talking Points might be confused by someone who is not enslaved by any Political Party, who can actually think for themselves...

    Yea.. That must be it.. :D

    Michale.....

  92. [92] 
    Michale wrote:

    But, getting back to the Fluke/Limbaugh/Maher issue..

    "But I bring up the old tale of the poisoned apple -- no, not "Snow White," that's a fairy tale - because the Adam and Eve story is taken literally by half the country and it's no coincidence that the type of tree which god forbade Adam and Eve eating from was the Tree of Knowledge. Rick Santorum homeschools his children because he does not want them eating that fucking apple. He wants them locked up in the Christian madrassa that is the family living room not out in public where they could be infected by the virus of reason. If you're a kid and the only adults you've ever met are mom and dad, and then they're also the smartest adults you've met, why not keep it that way? Why mess up paradise with a lot knowledge? After all, a mind is a terrible thing to open."
    -Bill Maher

    Once again, Maher drags a conservative's kids into the muck...

    Where is the condemnation from the Left???

    Michale.....

  93. [93] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Where is the condemnation from the Left?

    What's there to condemn?

    In the example you listed, Maher is targeting Santorum for being afraid to expose his children to any influence outside of the home.

    I don't see him saying anything derogatory about Santorum's children.

    -David

  94. [94] 
    Michale wrote:

    David,

    Fair enough...

    Now, postulate a scenario where Rush Limbaugh criticized Obama for how he raised his girls..

    What would the reaction be from the Left??

    I can imagine it and I think you can to...

    Kids are off limits... PERIOD... They shouldn't even be MENTIONED in political attacks...

    Michale.....

  95. [95] 
    Michale wrote:

    In the example you listed, Maher is targeting Santorum for being afraid to expose his children to any influence outside of the home.

    Actually, Maher is ridiculing and criticizing Home Schooling...

    Which is ironic because studies show that Home Schooled Kids test better than Public/Private School kids..

    Perhaps our resident Education Expert can chime in... :D

    Michale.....

  96. [96] 
    akadjian wrote:

    BTW, Michale. This whole Maher thing is a perfect example of where many conservatives are losing credibility.

    Why?

    Well, because they're working backwards from a preconceived belief. In brief ... the powers that be among conservative pundits were not happy about the backlash against Rush Limbaugh. So they decided they needed their own backlash.

    What to do? Pick someone else and try to create a scandal out of it. Work backwards to try to find evidence and create a stir which could drown out the Limbaugh controversy or at least make it look like both "sides" are somehow guilty.

    Whereas Limbaugh stuck his foot in his mouth and faced a backlash, this whole Maher thing seems like ginned up, retrofitted propaganda.

    I really don't care about the Limbaugh issue myself, but trying to then say retroactively "well, they do it too!" sounds like a stretch to me.

    I mean, look at how hard you're working to try and turn what Maher said into an attack on children.

    -David

  97. [97] 
    akadjian wrote:

    What would the reaction be from the Left??

    I don't have to imagine it. It happens all the time.

    http://www.politicususa.com/limbaugh-sasha-obama/

    And that's just one instance. There were many more.

    Some people try to make it an issue. But most of us would just like to talk about something more important like ... Idunno, the economy. War with Iran.

    I could really give a rat's @ss what someone deliberately trying to antagonize me thinks.

    -David

  98. [98] 
    Michale wrote:

    David,

    I think you are missing the point on the Maher/Limbaugh issue..

    It's not that the Right is pointing at Maher and saying, "well, they do it to!"...

    The Right is pointing to the entire Left and asking them, "If Limbaugh's attacks on Fluke are so nasty and perverse, why do you (the Left) give a pass to Maher whose attacks are worse??"

    It's not a justification of the Limbaugh attack, but rather pointing out the hypocrisy of the Left for condemning Limbaugh but not condemning Maher...

    I mean, look at how hard you're working to try and turn what Maher said into an attack on children.

    Again, I ask....

    What would the Left's reaction be if Limbaugh dragged Obama's girls into a political attack and condemned how Obama is raising them??

    You and I both know that the Professional Left would blow a head gasket...

    What it all boils down to is one simple concept..

    People in glass houses shouldn't be casting any stones....

    The Left is living in their glass palace yet are casting stones willy nilly....

    That is wrong, plain and simple...

    Michale.....

  99. [99] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Actually, Maher is ridiculing and criticizing Home Schooling...

    No. He's not. Read the quote you posted:

    In the example you listed, Maher is targeting Santorum for being afraid to expose his children to any influence outside of the home.

    His target is those who are afraid to expose their kids to outside thought. Home schooling can be very successful, but typically even home schoolers expose kids to other ideas.

    Many Christian home schoolers, however, are afraid of any outside exposure and it's one of the reasons they believe in home schooling.

    -David

  100. [100] 
    Michale wrote:

    I don't have to imagine it. It happens all the time.

    http://www.politicususa.com/limbaugh-sasha-obama/

    And that's just one instance. There were many more.

    And what was the reaction of the Left???

    There is something sick and pedophilic about Rush Limbaugh’s desire to see President Obama’s nine year old daughter groped. Where is the outraged tweet and Facebook post from the Mama Grizzly on this? You can bet that there won’t be one, because the right has never had an issue with attacking the children of Democratic politicians, but heaven forbid that anyone dare to point out that Sarah Palin’s adult no talent oaf of a daughter doesn’t belong on Dancing With The Stars, a show which she voluntarily appeared on and put herself in the public eye for, and all hell breaks loose.

    It speaks volumes about the true morals and values of the right that they not only condone, but they also embrace Rush Limbaugh’s child molester fantasies about President Obama’s daughter, but I guess the family values end when the children involved belong to Democrats or the TLC cameras stop rolling.

    You prove my point for me. (Thanx for the research :D)

    The Left went ballistic, accusing Limbaugh of pedophilia and calling him a child molester etc etc etc....

    Where are those accusations from the Left against Bill Maher???

    {{{{{{{chiiirrrrrrppppp}}}}} {{chiiirrrrpppp}}

    It's cricket city... The Left is completely silent, thereby stating unequivocally that when a Right Wing entertainer drags a Democrats kids into a political attack, it's molestation and pedophilia.

    When a Left Wing entertainer drags a Republicans into a political attack, there is absolutely nothing wrong with it...

    THAT's the double-standard, the hypocrisy that the Right is decrying in the here and now..

    And they have a point...

    I think anyone here would agree that there IS a double standard amongst the Left in this regard.. There IS blatant hypocrisy on this issue from the Left...

    That's all I am saying...

    Michale.....

  101. [101] 
    Michale wrote:

    Lemme ask you something, David..

    Do YOU think what Limbaugh said about Fluke was any big deal???

    That it was anything more than an entertainer pandering to his audience??

    Michale.....

  102. [102] 
    Michale wrote:

    No. He's not. Read the quote you posted:

    Apparently a LOT of Home Schooling Parents feel differently.. :D

    http://www.cafemom.com/group/115890/forums/read/16172621/Bill_Maher_Attacks_Santorum_s_Kids_Homeschooling

    Michale....

  103. [103] 
    Michale wrote:

    March 13, 2012

    Reid: Poll finding 80 percent of Americans not better off ‘so meaningless’

    http://dailycaller.com/2012/03/13/reid-poll-finding-80-percent-of-americans-not-better-off-so-meaningless/

    What's so hilarious about this is that, if the poll said that 80 Percent of Americans said they ARE better off, Harry would swear by the poll and accept it as gospel...

    And ya'all wonder why I can't stand politicians of ANY Party..... :^/

    Michale.....

  104. [104] 
    Michale wrote:

    It's interesting about that quote from the article that David posted...

    One part really stands out...

    "but heaven forbid that anyone dare to point out that Sarah Palin’s adult no talent oaf of a daughter doesn’t belong on Dancing With The Stars, a show which she voluntarily appeared on and put herself in the public eye for

    Now, exchange 'Sarah Palin's adult no talent oaf of a daughter' (ouch.. The Left really likes to cut into Conservative's children, don't they??)... Anyways, replace that with "Sandra Fluke" and....

    Look at that...

    It FITS......

    Thereby once again proving that hypocrisy is, indeed, alive and well in the Democratic Party...

    Michale.....

  105. [105] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Do YOU think what Limbaugh said about Fluke was any big deal? That it was anything more than an entertainer pandering to his audience?

    But I thought Rush didn't pander? I thought he was the "voice of truth".

    What Rush does is try to push people's buttons. The only thing that's surprising is that anyone is really surprised that people pushed back.

    People have the right to object to Rush. Just as people have the right to object to Bill Maher.

    If you take what Rush Limbaugh said and put it into the context of everything Rush has said about women, Rush comes out looking pretty poorly.

    And I think this is some of what people are reacting to. Finally, he just said something which crossed the line which he's been pushing for years.

    If you take Bill Maher's comments and put them into the context of Bill Maher and his beliefs about women, Bill Maher comes out looking a lot more like he's joking.

    Context matters.

    That's why when Bill Maher says the word "children" you have to look at the rest of what he says.

    -David

  106. [106] 
    Michale wrote:

    But I thought Rush didn't pander? I thought he was the "voice of truth".

    Who said that???

    Rush is an entertainer.. Like Maher..

    Anyone who thinks he is more than that needs to have their head examined...

    What Rush does is try to push people's buttons. The only thing that's surprising is that anyone is really surprised that people pushed back.

    Agreed... Now replace "Rush" with "Maher" and.... Look at that... It's STILL true... :D

    If you take what Rush Limbaugh said and put it into the context of everything Rush has said about women, Rush comes out looking pretty poorly.

    Again... Replace "Rush" with "Maher" and it STILL fits... :D

    If you take Bill Maher's comments and put them into the context of Bill Maher and his beliefs about women, Bill Maher comes out looking a lot more like he's joking.

    Oh bull crap...

    There is absolutely NO difference between Rush and Maher, except how the Left perceives Rush...

    Michale.....

  107. [107] 
    Michale wrote:

    Saying that Rush Limbaugh has some policy sway over the Republican Party is like saying Jack Bauer has some sway over the Bush/Obama Counter-Terrorism policies....

    It's wishful thinking...

    Nothing more....

    Michale....

  108. [108] 
    akadjian wrote:

    There is absolutely NO difference between Rush and Maher, except how the Left perceives Rush.

    Rush advocates for policies and positions towards women which are anachronistic.

    Maher does exactly the opposite.

    Context matters.

    -David

  109. [109] 
    dsws wrote:

    Michale is more of a "might makes right" type of person

    That's entirely compatible with being Republican, or at least a whole lot more Republican than he admits to.

    It's not a tenet of the Party: like the Democratic party, the Republican Party is a political party, not a text or a theory or a creed. As such it doesn't have tenets, any more than the Democratic party does.

    What they have is constituencies and brands. Might-makes-right is fairly compatible with both major-party brands, but distinctly more so with the Republican.

    I admit to favoring Democratic politics over Republican, although I don't actually agree with most Democrats on most policy. Michale denies favoring Republican politics over Democratic, despite doing so in the vast majority of his statements (the only consistent exceptions being the denials themselves).

    Sure, he doesn't toe the Party line on every last sub-point, but that's not a meaningful criterion.

  110. [110] 
    dsws wrote:

    "Yea... I can live with that.." :D

    Although I would probably qualify that to read "Honorable Might Makes Right"

    Ok. What do you take "honorable" to mean?

    This seems like the time, out of everything you've posted on here, that I'm most likely to actually learn something. That you're most likely to change my mind somewhat.

    My expectations aren't high. I expect to hear a bunch of self-serving pap, amounting to "my side is honorable".

    But when someone is panning for gold, they expect each rock to be an ordinary worthless rock, not the one nugget that pays for the whole expedition. If I actually find something you're right and I was wrong about, that would make it worth all the dross I've read.

    Whatcha got?

  111. [111] 
    Michale wrote:

    David,

    Rush advocates for policies and positions towards women which are anachronistic.

    Maher does exactly the opposite.

    Exactly

    They both are entertainers to a political audience... PERIOD...

    They are both sides of the same coin..

    dsws,

    It's not a tenet of the Party: like the Democratic party, the Republican Party is a political party, not a text or a theory or a creed. As such it doesn't have tenets, any more than the Democratic party does.

    Oh bull carp...

    There around foundational principles of both Partys. Both Partys have very basic things that they hold dear..

    For Republicans, it's god and Jesus.

    For Democrats, it's abortion and anti-torture.

    The idea that neither Party has any basic belief structure is ludicrous to the point of absurd..

    Michale denies favoring Republican politics over Democratic, despite doing so in the vast majority of his statements (the only consistent exceptions being the denials themselves).

    Ex-squeeze me?? Baking powder??

    I never denied any such thing..

    I have always stated that, when it comes to National Security, Self-Defense and Law Enforcement issues, I am most assuredly on the Right side of the scale (and, incidentally the right side as well). But when it comes to social issues, I am most assuredly on the Left side of the scale..

    It's like the 3 blind men and the elephant..

    Depending on which issue we are discussing would determine whether or not I am Left Wing or Right Wing...

    Sure, he doesn't toe the Party line on every last sub-point, but that's not a meaningful criterion.

    Really?? That is the ONLY criteria for an Independent..

    :D

    My expectations aren't high. I expect to hear a bunch of self-serving pap, amounting to "my side is honorable".

    Well, we really can't have this discussion until you do away with the notion that I have a "side"...

    I don't... My "side" is the United States Of America...

    Now, assuming you can make that mental leap, here is what I mean by "honorable might"..

    Superman.

    Michale.....

  112. [112] 
    dsws wrote:

    [110]
    Whatcha got?

    [111]
    ...

    Ok, as I thought: nothing.

  113. [113] 
    Michale wrote:

    As far as the Sandra Fluke issue goes??

    Looks like it's the Left that's feeling the heat..

    Axelrod was slated to go on Maher's show... Seems the Political Pressure is getting to Democrats

    David Axelrod bails on Bill Maher
    politico.com/blogs/media/2012/03/axelrod-bails-on-bill-maher-117387.html

    The Alabama Democratic Party has removed all references to Maher off their website...

    Alabama Democrats scrub Bill Maher fundraiser off website
    dailycaller.com/2012/03/08/alabama-democrats-scrub-bill-maher-fundraiser-off-website/

    And remember a couple days ago, some little Weigantian Birdie said that, contrary to popular belief that Rush was going down, Rush is actually laughing all the way to the bank..

    We learn today that Rush is, indeed, laughing. Apparently, he was laughing all the way to a charity golf tourny, but he was indeed, laughing. :D

    Rush Limbaugh on Tuesday laughed at Democrats for having tried to use the radio host’s now-infamous “slut” comment to their political advantage, gloating about recent polls showing President Barack Obama’s approval numbers tanking while taunting, “They thought I was finished.”

    “Remember, one week ago, they thought it was over. One week ago, they thought for one day, there was a Santa Claus. Normally, they don’t believe in Santa Claus, but they did,” Limbaugh said at the beginning of his three-hour afternoon show. “They thought I was finished. They thought you [the listeners] were vanquished, and Obama was elevated to heights that would make him unbeatable.

    He added, “And don’t doubt me when I tell you they are in shell shock.”

    “Obama lost ground with women. I can’t begin to tell you the dismay and the shock and probably panic that exists in the White House and in the salons of the elites of the Democratic Party over this,” he said. “They didn’t even consider this a possibility. This never entered their mind. This was going to be the end — not just of me, folks … the end of talk radio.”
    politico.com/news/stories/0312/73935.html#ixzz1p5Q00Ndp

    You see, this is the problem with the Professional Left. They are still living in 2008 and think that all of America is behind them 110%...

    Does it make me a Republican because I simply LOVE to see the Professional Left hoisted by their own petard??

    Probably not.. Because I always love to see the Right hoisted by their own petard as well..

    Hmmmmm I guess that makes me independent of either political party...

    Whooodaaa thunk it?? :D

    Michale

  114. [114] 
    Michale wrote:

    Ok, as I thought: nothing.

    I guess the mental leap was a leap to far. :D

    Michale....

  115. [115] 
    Michale wrote:

    Wanna beat Rush and Maher into the ground some more?? :D

    Michale.....

  116. [116] 
    Michale wrote:

    Hay CW,

    Looks like someone in DC reads CW.COM!! :D

    'Long shot' bill would cut off Congress' pay if no budget deal is reached
    WASHINGTON – It might be dismissed as an election year gimmick by the big shots who run Capitol Hill, but frustration over Congress' failure to pass a budget since 2009 has given surprising momentum to a bill that would cut off lawmakers' pay if they can't -- or won't -- pass a budget blueprint.
    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/03/14/long-shot-bill-would-cut-off-congress-pay-if-no-budget-deal-is-reached/#ixzz1p5Ua0ze4

    :D

    I was gonna make some snooty remark about no budget since 2009, but I figured why piss on yer parade..

    :D

    Michale.....

  117. [117] 
    Michale wrote:

    dsws,

    Since the "Superman" explanation was a little too murky for ya, I decided to make it a bit simpler.. :D

    ??? ???? ???????? ??? ????????????; ??? ???? ???????? ??? ???????. (The dead remember our indifference; the dead remember our silence.) I came here tonight to be congratulated. But today, when I visited the Red Cross camps, overwhelmed by the flood of refugees fleeing the horror of Kazhakstan, I realize I don't deserve to be congratulated. None of us do. The truth is we acted too late. Only when our own national security was threatened did we act. Radek's regime murdered over 200 000 men, women and children and we watched it on TV. We let it happen. People were being slaughtered for over a year and we issued economic sanctions and hid behind the rhetoric of diplomacy. How dare we? The dead remember: real peace is not just the absence of conflict, it's the presence of justice. And tonight I come to you with a pledge to change America's policy. Never again will I allow our political self-interest to deter us from doing what we know to be morally right. Atrocity and terror are not political weapons. And to those who would use them, your day is over. We will never negotiate. We will no longer tolerate and we will no longer be afraid. It's your turn to be afraid.
    -President James Marshall, AIR FORCE ONE

    Better? :D

    Michale.....

  118. [118] 
    Michale wrote:

    I guess CW.COM doesn't like Russian/Cyrillic characters that much.. :D

    Michale.....

  119. [119] 
    Michale wrote:

    Bill Maher,

    http://newsbusters.org/sites/default/files/main_photos/2012/March/Maher%20Tweet.jpg

    The gift (To Republicans) that just keeps on giving... :D

    Michale.....

  120. [120] 
    akadjian wrote:

    For Republicans, it's god and Jesus.

    For Democrats, it's abortion and anti-torture.

    I think this is interesting, Michale. Because what you've listed are the "distractions". Or what I'd call distractions.

    By this I mean the things that tweak people's emotions and are designed to split the electorate.

    Abortion and God play to the religious. Pro choice plays towards women. Anti-torture plays towards ... well there's not a clear demographic here, but it's definitely a "hot button" issue.

    The other interesting thing is that all the points you've listed, even for the Dems, are a conservative view of Dems rather than how I think of Dems.

    By this I mean that conservatives will tell you that they are the party of God, family, and country. And then they'll tell you that Dems are pro-abortion hating, anti-war, anti-terrorist wimps.

    If I were to talk about Dems I certainly wouldn't lead with abortion or anti-torture.

    I guess what I'm saying is that, are you sure you know what Dems stand for?

    I think Chris and the people here are much more representative of the left. And how often do we talk about anti-torture or abortion?

    It comes up from time to time, sure. But I'd much rather talk about the economy or how to create jobs.

    Guess what I'm saying is, don't believe everything you hear about liberals.

    Similarly, I've learned not to believe everything I hear about conservatives. For instance, I learned that you're not a big believer in religion. Believe it or not, there was a time when this came as a bit of a surprise. (It shouldn't have given your trekkie posts, but it's because, like you said, conservative marketing associates conservatives with God.)

    -David

  121. [121] 
    Michale wrote:

    I guess what I'm saying is that, are you sure you know what Dems stand for?

    Considering the anti-torture issue, I am pretty sure that DEMS don't even know what Dems stand for. :D

    I think Chris and the people here are much more representative of the left. And how often do we talk about anti-torture or abortion?

    Well, under the Bush years we talked about it a LOT.. Not so much the abortion by the anti-torture.. During that time, you couldn't throw a rock w/o hitting a dozen anti-torture articles and commentaries.. A DAY...

    Now, the only time you can read about anti-torture or expanded domestic spying or rendition is if you follow Glenn Greenwald...

    Similarly, I've learned not to believe everything I hear about conservatives. For instance, I learned that you're not a big believer in religion. Believe it or not, there was a time when this came as a bit of a surprise. (It shouldn't have given your trekkie posts, but it's because, like you said, conservative marketing associates conservatives with God.)

    My examples that I have put forth above where more examples of Democrat and Republican politicians and those of the "Professional" Left & Right...

    Not rank and file Democrats or Republicans..

    I would wager that the vast majority of Americans who claim to be Democrat or Republican are actually independents..

    That goes for most people here...

    At least, as *I* define an "Independent"...

    Michale.....

  122. [122] 
    Michale wrote:

    I read a book one time called THE LAST CAESAR

    It was about a President who went off the deep end and tried to make this country a dictatorship. No allusions to our President today.. :D

    But there was a passage at the beginning of the book. The President was about to speak to sailors aboard an Aircraft Carrier. His Chief of Staff was discussing arrangements with the Carrier Commander and said something to the effect of "Captain, I want you to insure that all weapons on your men are unloaded. With emotions running high and all, we don't want to take any chances."

    I always thought that was such a sad commentary on that country's leadership... How utterly pathetic it must be for that administration to be so scared of it's own people that they would have to make sure our service men and women are disarmed in their presence...

    I *THOUGHT* it was fiction...

    In a sign of the nervousness surrounding Mr. Panetta’s trip, the Marines and other troops who were waiting in a tent for the defense secretary to speak were abruptly asked by their commander to get up, place their weapons — M-16 and M-4 automatic rifles and 9-mm pistols — outside the tent and then return unarmed. The commander, Sgt. Maj. Brandon Hall, told reporters he was acting on orders from superiors.

    “All I know is, I was told to get the weapons out,” he said. Asked why, he replied, “Somebody got itchy, that’s all I’ve got to say. Somebody got itchy; we just adjust.”
    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/15/world/asia/panetta-visits-afghanistan-following-massacre.html?hp

    I weep for the future...

    Michale.....

  123. [123] 
    Michale wrote:

    http://supportyourlocalgunfighter.com/wp-content/uploads/Barack-Obama-American-Flag.jpg

    I have to admit, there is something REALLY creepy-looking about that...

    Michale.....

  124. [124] 
    akadjian wrote:

    I weep for the future...

    Well, after what just happened over there, I can understand why people are nervous.

    I think they likely went too far, but I can understand the nerves.

    -David

  125. [125] 
    akadjian wrote:

    I would wager that the vast majority of Americans who claim to be Democrat or Republican are actually independents.

    I'd agree with that. I think it's why people get so frustrated when they can't work together.

  126. [126] 
    Michale wrote:

    Well, after what just happened over there, I can understand why people are nervous.

    Yea, I can understand the nerves too.. Better than most..

    But it's utterly devastating to morale to have ANY indication that you are not trusted by your own leaders...

    Especially so blatant an indication...

    My guess is the order came from Panetta or one of his staff. A civilian..

    No one in the military would have ordered such a thing...

    Michale.....

  127. [127] 
    akadjian wrote:

    I know he's a "liberal puppy killer" but this is funny ...

    http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-march-13-2012/the-vulgar-games

    "First of all, comedians don't wear helmets ..."

    -David

  128. [128] 
    Michale wrote:

    I guess what it all boils down to is labeling people is the sole province of the Left..

    So the Left can call themselves "comedians" and say ANYTHING they want about the Right and it's OK...

    But the Left also get's to label anyone on the Right as they see fit and those they label are evil....

    Allow me to refer you to my post way WAY up there.. So far up there, I am too lazy to scroll up and find the number..

    Rush Limbaugh is an entertainer. He says things that he knows his audience will like. Because his audience are Right Wing people of various levels of fanaticism, he invariably attacks the Left in various levels of vulgarity...

    Bill Maher is an entertainer. He says things that he knows his audience will like. Because his audience are Left Wing people of various levels of fanaticism, he invariably attacks the Right in various levels of vulgarity...

    These are the facts of the issue...

    Bill Maher is no more "right" or "justified" in calling Sarah Palin a cunt than Rush Limbaugh is "right" or "justified" in calling Sandra Fluke a prostitute..

    Both entertainers do what they do, say what they say to pander to their respective audiences...

    There is absolutely NO actual/factual difference between them..

    Anyone who CLAIMS that one is different than the other is simply making such claim to further a partisan agenda....

    These are the facts of the issue...

    And they are indisputable...

    Michale.....

  129. [129] 
    Michale wrote:

    Having said all the afore....

    http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-march-13-2012/the-vulgar-games

    I have to admit there were some funny parts of this...

    I just wish that Stewart wouldn't make humor at the expense of fellow Americans..

    But if they picked on someone OTHER than fellow Americans, then the Left wouldn't find it funny...

    It's a dilemma, to be sure...

    Michale

  130. [130] 
    dsws wrote:

    [125]
    I'd agree with that. I think it's why people get so frustrated when they can't work together.

    Most people who claim to be independents actually vote reliably one way (if they vote at all). That's not very independent of them. People like the idea of being "independent", so they describe themselves as "independent" if they can come up with a rationalization for it.

    There's no corresponding motivation for people to describe themselves as preferring one major party over the other, when they actually don't. Being labeled "partisan" has a strong negative connotation.

  131. [131] 
    Michale wrote:

    Being labeled "partisan" has a strong negative connotation.

    There's a reason for that.... :D

    Michale.....

  132. [132] 
    akadjian wrote:

    I just wish that Stewart wouldn't make humor at the expense of fellow Americans.

    Did you watch the same segment I watched?

    In my version, Jon was poking fun at the tactics FoxNews uses to manipulate people. I don't recall him poking fun at any Americans. Not even Americans who watch FoxNews.

    He did make fun of Ted Nugent. I remember that. But Ted was talking about shooting the President. I'm having a hard time feeling sorry for the 'Nuge.

    There is absolutely NO actual/factual difference between them.

    Again, context matters.

    Let me illustrate by using the word 'cunt'. In and of itself, it is a harmless word. Sure, it sounds dirty, but I'm not putting any women down or trying to raise myself up through the use of it. I'm simply saying the word. That's the context.

    On the other hand, were I to say something like "Maybe those cunts should mind their place and stay in the kitchen," you might think differently of me. You might think: what an asshole. Especially if you were a woman.

    2 different contexts. 2 entirely different meanings.

    Now if you place Rush's comments in the context of Rush, a man who has fought most of his life for a philosophy that treats others (gays, lesbians, people of color, women, plants, etc, you get the idea) as somehow not equal, you have context A.

    Bill Maher, on the other hand, has firmly stated his belief in equality and so you have context B.

    Two very different situations.

    Me personally, as I've said, I don't really care what Rush says. He can say it all he wants. But to try to come out and say "I'm just an entertainer ..." as an excuse is bullshit. Actions have consequences. If you don't want to be treated like an asshole, maybe you shouldn't act like one.

    As Jon Stewart points out ... look at Michael Richards ... look at Tracy Morgan. And Limbaugh has been acting like an asshole for 30 years ... more context.

    Now to Jon's credit, he makes fun of Maher for his Sarah Palin rant. I personally, when I listened to that was offended. For me though, the context tells me that Maher is going after Palin. The context that Maher fights for equal rights. The context that Maher is not going after women. Still, the fact that Maher said what he did was in my mind wrong. I can't and won't defend him on that.

    But if I recall, Maher did face a backlash at the time. Perhaps not quite as bad as Rush. But Maher doesn't have the history Limbaugh does. And every show Maher has isn't putting some culture down.

    Let's be honest, Fox is bringing Maher up now just to defend Rush and try to confuse the issue.

    "Look ... this isn't about Rush ... it's about liberals ... remember ... it's always about liberals ... or immigrants ... or Muslims ... so go back to sleep"

    You see it in Fox's hypocritical statements. First, they say Limbaugh is just a comedian. Then they say Maher is trying to hide behind the "helmet of being a comedian".

    So Fox, lemme get this straight ... you're attacking Maher for what you defended Limbaugh for ... uh, yeah. Sure.

    -David

  133. [133] 
    Michale wrote:

    Again, context matters.

    We'll just have to agree to disagree..

    When you treat women like shit, context don't matter one iota...

    *IF.... If there is an issue of "context" it favors Rush...

    According to her own testimony (assuming it was truthful) Sandra Fluke IS a slut...

    But beyond that minutia, Maher and Limbaugh are simply two sides of the same coin...

    When you denigrate a fellow human being, a fellow American, in such gross and perverse terms, context don't mean diddley squat...

    By claiming, by some convoluted manner of "logic" that what Maher said was not as bad as what Limbaugh said, one is simply putting forth a partisan agenda...

    So Fox, lemme get this straight ... you're attacking Maher for what you defended Limbaugh for ... uh, yeah. Sure.

    Fox isn't "attacking" Maher..

    Fox, and everyday Americans incidentally, are attacking the LEFT for being brazen and unapologetic hypocrites...

    And, apparently, the Left is feeling the heat...

    How else do you explain Axelrod very publicly bailing on appearing on the Maher show??

    How else do you explain the Democratic Party in Alabama scrubbing any reference to Maher...

    How else do you explain Louis CK cancelling his gig for Obama et al??

    Americans are fed up with the hate-mongering hypocrisy and they are making their displeasure known...

    And the Democrats are seeing that and back-pedaling furiously....

    Nothing else fits the facts...

    Michale.....

  134. [134] 
    akadjian wrote:

    By claiming, by some convoluted manner of "logic" that what Maher said was not as bad as what Limbaugh said, one is simply putting forth a partisan agenda.

    No, it's not.

    By simply saying that when one uses the word "children" in a sentence, one is attacking children is ignoring all context.

    Similarly, to say that when one uses the word 'cunt' in a sentence, one is attacking women is ignoring all context.

    Context matters.

    -David

    BTW- How come the Right never went after Ted Nugent for attacking the President? They sure the hell went after the Dixie Chicks for "attacking" the President. And all the Dixie Chicks said was that they were ashamed George Bush was from Texas. They weren't talking about shooting the President. Where's the patriotic outcry from the Right?

  135. [135] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Wouldn't that make the Right "brazen and unapologetic hypocrites"?

  136. [136] 
    akadjian wrote:

    When you treat women like shit, context don't matter one iota.

    But that's just it. Bill Maher fights for women. Bill Maher only treated Sarah Palin like shit. Not women. Rush Limbaugh is the only one who believes in treating women as inferior people.

    That's context, my friend.

    I don't expect you to admit it, but it's the truth.

    -David

  137. [137] 
    Michale wrote:

    This Sandra Fluke issue is about one thing and one thing only..

    It's not about Limbaugh being mean to a woman who has a LOT of sex..

    It's not about a foul-mouth Left-Winger who never meet a conservative he didn't want to attack or insult...

    This issue is not about ANY of that...

    This issue, solely and completely, is about a small but vocal segment of Americans who think that it's perfectly OK to attack another segment of Americans in the most vile and disgusting manner possible, yet turn around and whine and cry when their own are attacked in a vile and disgusting manner..

    This issue is about one very simple, very straightforward and very well known mantra....

    PEOPLE IN GLASS HOUSES SHOULD NOT THROW STONES..

    In the here and now, THAT is what the Sandra Fluke issue is about...

    Period....

    Now, one can throw in equivocation, one can throw in context, one can argue what the meaning of 'is' is... People can bring up Fox News and MSNBC and MediaMatters all they want... They can talk about sponsors leaving and sponsors begging to come back.. They can talk about Home Schooling, molestation and pedophilia....

    People can do all those things, talk about all those things and absolutely NONE of them have any relevance, ANY relevance whatsoever, to the central issue..

    PEOPLE IN GLASS HOUSES SHOULD NOT THROW STONES..

    That is the issue here. And no amount of justification or mitigation will change that one simple fact...

    PEOPLE IN GLASS HOUSES SHOULD NOT CAST STONES....

    Or, if you prefer a more biblical reasoning...

    LET HE WHO IS WITHOUT SIN CAST THE FIRST STONE....

    No matter which parable you choose, there is absolutely NO doubt that THAT is what this issue is all about...

    Michale....

  138. [138] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    According to her own testimony (assuming it was truthful) Sandra Fluke IS a slut...

    I call bullshit. Please, the direct quote of Sandra Fluke where she says shes a slut.

  139. [139] 
    dsws wrote:

    “A friend of mine, for example, has polycystic ovarian syndrome, and she has to take prescription birth control to stop cysts from growing on her ovaries. Her prescription is technically covered by Georgetown’s insurance because it’s not intended to prevent pregnancy.
    “Unfortunately, under many religious institutions and insurance plans, it wouldn’t be. There would be no exception for other medical needs. And under Sen. Blunt’s amendment, Sen. Rubio’s bill or Rep. Fortenberry’s bill there’s no requirement that such an exception be made for these medical needs.
    ...
    Despite verifications of her illness from her doctor, her claim was denied repeatedly on the assumption that she really wanted birth control to prevent pregnancy. She’s gay. So clearly polycystic ovarian syndrome was a much more urgent concern than accidental pregnancy for her.
    “After months paying over $100 out-of-pocket, she just couldn’t afford her medication anymore, and she had to stop taking it.”
    http://www.buzzfeed.com/boxofficebuz/transcript-of-testimony-by-sandra-fluke-48z2

    See, she flat-out says she is ...

    ... by Rush's criteria.

  140. [140] 
    dsws wrote:

    A hundred dollars isn't a very big part of a person's budget unless they live in the town of LowCostOfLiving, Nebraska. But some people are not very good at budgeting. Those people lack "honorable might". They should die from it, because their friends "really" are "sluts".

    </sarcasm>

  141. [141] 
    Michale wrote:

    Bashi,

    I call bullshit. Please, the direct quote of Sandra Fluke where she says shes a slut.

    We've been over this before.. Didn't you pay attention???

    Fluke stated that a woman can spend $3000 for contraception. One can logically assume that she is referring to herself. Further, since she is a third year Georgetown student, the math would indicate that she is spending $1000 a year on contraception...

    Further delving into the math, and assuming that the contraception she uses is condoms, $1000 worth of condoms equals out to approximately five condoms a day..

    ANYONE (male or female) having sex 5 times a day can accurately be described as being VERY sexually active.. Which is a nice way of saying they are a slut..

    Further, if you postulate that there ain't a man on the planet who can have sex 5 times in a 12 hour day (I'll even postulate that she is having sex during school hours)... Therefore, logically, she must be using multiple partners..

    So, a woman (or a man) who has sex 5 times a day with multiple partners could accurately be described as a slut...

    Which is fine... I really don't care if she is having sex 5 times a day, 50 times a day or once every 7 years...

    My position is why the hell should I have to pay for her ability to have consequence free sex???

    dsws,

    Despite verifications of her illness from her doctor, her claim was denied repeatedly on the assumption that she really wanted birth control to prevent pregnancy.

    Then the problem is her insurance company..

    Maybe she should go with a different insurance company...

    Maybe she should talk to her insurance agent's supervisor..

    Maybe she could stop having sex....

    There are MANY avenues that this mythical "friend" can go thru..

    Why must we immediately assume that the BEST course of action is to make ALL Americans pay for consequence free sex???

    But some people are not very good at budgeting. Those people lack "honorable might". They should die from it, because their friends "really" are "sluts

    So, because these people aren't very good at budgeting, we should just give it to them for free..

    I wonder how that would work in a grocery store.. "Sir, I am really very bad at budgeting my money.. Could you give me these steaks and ribs for free??"

    I mean, using your reasoning, I would DIE from starvation because I lack budgeting skills. So, the ONLY logical recourse here is to give me all my food for free...

    Ya know, I think I would just DIE if I don't get that sweet cherry 1971 El Camino...

    http://image.hotrod.com/f/10119715/hrdp_0803_25_z+custom_street_racing_cars+1971_chevy_el_camino_ss_trailer_pull.jpg

    Since I can't budget very well, would you pay for it for me???

    Here's a thought.. Apparently it's a radical idea...

    If a woman can't afford VITAL medication because she lacks budgeting skills, SEND HER TO A FRAKIN' FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT CLASS!!

    Jesus H Chreest on a crutch!!

    She can't budget very well and will die without her vital medication. So let's just give it to her for free and we'll all pay for it!!

    THAT's the BEST solution ya'all could come up with!!???

    SERIOUSLY????

    Michale.....

  142. [142] 
    Michale wrote:

    David,

    Context matters.

    It doesn't really matter what you or I think...

    What would the average American voter say??

    If they were told a Right Wing celebrity called a Left Wing woman a slut and a Left Wing celebrity called a Right Wing woman a cunt, do you think the average American voter would care about "context"..

    Somethings are simply wrong, regardless of context..

    But that's just it. Bill Maher fights for women.

    I call Bull Carp.......

    Bill Maher doesn't fight for "women"...

    Bill Maher fights for LEFT WING women...

    Pure unadulterated political bigotry...

    Bill Maher no more fights for "women" than Joseph Stalin fought for people...

    Stalin fought for HIS kind of people..

    Maher fights for HIS kind of women...

    There's your context...

    Michale.....

  143. [143] 
    Michale wrote:

    Regardless of all of the afore, ya'all can be sure of one thing..

    When the General Election starts going fast and furious, the GOP is going to beat the Obama campaign over the head unmercifully with Maher's One Million Dollar donation to the Obama campaign...

    And THAT will resonate with Independents and NPAs..

    Speaking of political ads that write themselves..

    The GOP is also going to slam the Obama campaign unmercifully over his SecDef's decision to disarm our troops before he spoke to them...

    So, right there, you have two large constituencies (women and the military) that these ads are going to resonate with...

    Obama's very VERY hard job (winning re-election) is gonna get a whole lot harder...

    Michale.....

  144. [144] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    We've been over this before.. Didn't you pay attention???

    Not only did I pay attention but proved the condom crap was wrong. Hint: hormone based birth control still under IP protection can cost a lot. I guess it was you not paying attention.

    Basically you are making up facts then labeling someone based on those made up facts. There is a name for that: it's called slander. And that is why Rush is in trouble, not the specific vulgar words he used.

    My position is why the hell should I have to pay for her ability to have consequence free sex???

    Which I also covered. According to the medical group behind this law, it would save, not cost you money. To which if you were to remember you replied in a way that did not pose disagreement...

  145. [145] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    The GOP is also going to slam the Obama campaign unmercifully over his SecDef's decision to disarm our troops before he spoke to them...

    Did not read the updated story? There was a good reason for this and it had nothing to do with fear of violence from American troops...

  146. [146] 
    Michale wrote:

    Basically you are making up facts then labeling someone based on those made up facts.

    Which "fact" did I "make up"?? I made some logical assumptions based on Fluke's testimony...

    I realize that the Left, in general, has a problem with logic and tends to see it as "made up" stuff...

    Basically you are making up facts then labeling someone based on those made up facts. There is a name for that: it's called slander. And that is why Rush is in trouble, not the specific vulgar words he used.

    If this were true, the I and Rush would be sued by Fluke six ways from Sunday..

    Since there isn't even any MENTION of a lawsuit, there is not any factual content to your assertion..

    Of course, you can always pitch in with Allred and claim Rush (and me) violated the law and you can push for criminal action..

    Good luck with that. Lemme know how it works out for ya?? :D

    According to the medical group behind this law, it would save, not cost you money.

    That's like when my wife tells me she "saved" a whole bunch of money because the shoes and dress she bought was on sale... :D

    What it all boils down to is Fluke wants Americans to pay for her contraception so she can have consequence free sex on the public's dime...

    If yer so eager to have this, why not send a check to Fluke for $1000 and cover her contraception for the next year... Good idea, huh?? :D

    Michale....

  147. [147] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    Unless you have looked at Sandra Fluke's medical records, assuming condoms is "made up". dsws [139] posted another part of Fluke's testimony that proves that exact point.

    If this were true, the I and Rush would be sued by Fluke six ways from Sunday..

    Not everything is litigated. Or can be.

    That's like when my wife tells me she "saved" a whole bunch of money because the shoes and dress she bought was on sale... :D

    And what does this have to do with anything? Another example of your "facts"?

    What it all boils down to is Fluke wants Americans to pay for her contraception so she can have consequence free sex on the public's dime...

    No, what it all boils down to is she is supporting legislation that purportedly would save the public money and all the critics can come up with are arguments based on morals. Interesting none of them attack the science or economics of the issue...

  148. [148] 
    Michale wrote:

    Bashi,

    Did not read the updated story? There was a good reason for this and it had nothing to do with fear of violence from American troops...

    A "good" reason by whose definition??

    US and Afghan forces have attended MANY briefings with Administration officials.. The Afghans have ALWAYS been disarmed and the US Forces kept their arms..

    ALWAYS.....

    Until now...

    Now matter HOW you try to spin it, it's a slap in the face to our troops..

    Michale....

  149. [149] 
    Shevek57 wrote:

    Hmmmm, I believe one could replace every vacuous Michale comment in this thread with

    "Wuh-wuh-wuh-waaaahhhhhhhhh!!! Bill Maher and Rush Limbaugh are EXACTLY the same. Except Maher and the Democrats are worse!! But I'm not partisan! Look at that shiny object over there! Wuh-wuh-waaaahhhhhh!!! Gurgle, gurgle, burp, fart."

    and the information content would remain the same.

  150. [150] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    Heh.

  151. [151] 
    Paula wrote:

    Hey Guys; Michale's comments in 141 show him to be utterly unworthy of debate. Anyone that uses that kind of "reasoning" really can't be taken seriously. David, dsws and Bashi have all made excellent points though -

    Separate from his incapacity to reason (and his inability to grasp the concept of "context"), I find the ease with which he accuses Sandra Fluke of being a slut to be perfectly emblematic of the wholesale lack of respect that characterizes the hard right. In addition to the inaccuracy of the "slut" allegation, note that the argument, like so many right wing arguments, is that Sandra Fluke is "bad" and therefore her argument is irrelevant. People like Michale always start by attacking the person, not the argument, and then, if called, begin wildly trying to address the actual argument using misinformation, lies, appeals to authority, etc.

    However, Michale offers the value of letting us know what today's right wing talking points are, enabling us to be up to date on current attack lines without having to watch (god help us) FOX, or listen to hate radio or visit right wing websites...

  152. [152] 
    Michale wrote:

    As usual, the Hysterical Left cannot argue the facts or the reality, so they must resort to nothing more than personal attacks..

    Paula & Shevek,

    Allow me to translate your posts..

    "I have no factual counter argument so I will simply resort to childish and immature name-calling."

    Thank you for your acknowledgement of my superior intellect...

    {{Now, if THAT's not being someone's Huckleberry, NOTHING is... :D}}

    The simple fact here is, ya'all don't have ANY argument besides "context" "equivocation" and trying to define what the meaning of 'is' is..

    But I have to admit.. It's astounding...

    On EVERY single issue, EVERY SINGLE ONE, where the Left are on one side and the Right are on the other..... The Left is always on the correct side of the issue and the Right is always on the wrong side of the issue..

    EVERY TIME

    And some of you have the unmitigated gall to call *ME* rabidly partisan!??

    Seriously????

    Well, it's nice to see that, for those of the hysterical Left, ya'all are playing true to form..

    When the facts are against you, make shit up. When reality is against you, attack the messenger...

    My "faith" in the hysterical Left is maintained.. :D

    Michale.....

  153. [153] 
    Michale wrote:

    Paula,

    People like Michale always start by attacking the person,

    You mean, like you did from day one???

    Like that???

    Regardless, you called it totally wrong on how bad Rush got "hurt" by all this.. Matter of fact, *OBAMA*'s poll numbers took a hit from this, not Rush's. Rush's audience is UP from all this.. :D

    No matter how ya'all try to spin it, the average American voter sees right thru all the felgercarb...

    They know that a man calling a woman a cunt is as bad, if not worse, than a man calling a woman a slut...

    And no amount of whiny "equivocation" or studious expressions of "context" will change that one simple fact..

    Americans know that Maher is as bad as Limbaugh.. And they will remember in November...

    That rhymes and YOU know it!! :D

    Michale.....

  154. [154] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    When the facts are against you, make shit up. When reality is against you, attack the messenger...

    Just like your entire Sandra Fluke argument?

  155. [155] 
    Michale wrote:

    Just like your entire Sandra Fluke argument?

    I already asked you. What part did I "make up"???

    You didn't answer so I assumed you had nothing...

    Michale....

  156. [156] 
    Michale wrote:

    And no amount of whiny "equivocation" or studious expressions of "context" will change that one simple fact..

    For the record, I am sure ya'all can figure out who was whiny and who was studious... :D

    Michale.....

  157. [157] 
    Michale wrote:

    Shevek,

    "Wuh-wuh-wuh-waaaahhhhhhhhh!!! Bill Maher and Rush Limbaugh are EXACTLY the same. Except Maher and the Democrats are worse!! But I'm not partisan! Look at that shiny object over there! Wuh-wuh-waaaahhhhhh!!! Gurgle, gurgle, burp, fart."

    You mean as opposed to MOST of the Peanut Gallery around here whose arguments consist of a noun, a verb and "Everything is the Republicans fault!!!">/B>

    Remember what I said above about people, glass houses and stones??

    "{You} chose...... poorly"
    -Knight, INDIANA JONES AND THE LAST CRUSADE

    Michale.....

  158. [158] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    I already asked you. What part did I "make up"???

    You didn't answer so I assumed you had nothing...

    You mean other than demonstrating that other forms of birth control can cost $1000 per year, as was indicated in the testimony it's self?

    I will repeat it a second (third?) time. You don't know what form of birth control she uses or how much it costs per use. Therefore you accusing her of being a slut based on condom use is entirely made up. How many more times am I going to have to repeat this?

    Habla ingles?
    Parlez-vous anglais?
    Spreekt u Engels?
    Sprechen Sie Englisch?
    ?? ????? ????????
    ????????? ?? ?????????
    ?????????

  159. [159] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    Side note, other character sets show up in preview but not in the posted comment...

  160. [160] 
    Michale wrote:

    You mean other than demonstrating that other forms of birth control can cost $1000 per year, as was indicated in the testimony it's self?

    Fluke made no such reference in her testimony..

    Perhaps you can provide some examples...

    Therefore you accusing her of being a slut based on condom use is entirely made up.

    No, it's a reasonable and logical assumption based on the fact that Fluke didn't mention any "special" birth control needs...

    If she had, then we wouldn't be having this discussion..

    You are assuming facts not in evidence...

    How many more times am I going to have to repeat this?

    Probably as many times as it takes it to sink in for YOU, that you are making assumptions without ANY basis in fact..

    When a women discusses contraception, she is usually referring to condoms of pill... If she is discussing something out of that norm, she would usually specify so...

    I have been with my lovely wife for 30 years and this subject does come up often.. Granted not as often as it used to, but... :D

    The point is, you are grasping at imaginary straws to defend Fluke..

    Let's stick with what was said, mmm K?? :D

    Side note, other character sets show up in preview but not in the posted comment...

    Yea, I had the same problem when I was trying to explain to dsws what honorable might is.. It didn't like Cyrillic characters...

    Michale.....

  161. [161] 
    Michale wrote:

    Tell ya what, Guys....

    Let's try this...

    Ask ya'alls wives or significant others if the context would matter in a situation where a guy called a woman a "cunt"....

    If ya'alls wives or SOs are anything like MY wife, I would advise ya to DUCK, after asking the question.. :D

    But go ahead.. Ask them if, in that circumstance, would "context" matter??

    I am trusting ya'all to be honest about their reaction....

    Michale.....

  162. [162] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    Fluke made no such reference in her testimony..

    Perhaps you can provide some examples...

    From dsws post 139, second reference to:

    “A friend of mine, for example, has polycystic ovarian syndrome, and she has to take prescription birth control to stop cysts from growing on her ovaries. Her prescription is technically covered by Georgetown’s insurance because it’s not intended to prevent pregnancy.
    “Unfortunately, under many religious institutions and insurance plans, it wouldn’t be. There would be no exception for other medical needs. And under Sen. Blunt’s amendment, Sen. Rubio’s bill or Rep. Fortenberry’s bill there’s no requirement that such an exception be made for these medical needs.
    ...
    Despite verifications of her illness from her doctor, her claim was denied repeatedly on the assumption that she really wanted birth control to prevent pregnancy. She’s gay. So clearly polycystic ovarian syndrome was a much more urgent concern than accidental pregnancy for her.
    “After months paying over $100 out-of-pocket, she just couldn’t afford her medication anymore, and she had to stop taking it.”

    The short of it: prescription birth control can cost more than $1000 a year as per Sandra Flukes testimony which you evidently did not read but are happy to make assumptions about...

  163. [163] 
    Michale wrote:

    prescription birth control

    If it's for a cyst or other type medical issue, THEN IT ISN'T BIRTH CONTROL is it???

    My wife has had a LOT of problems with cysts and such in her life.. She never obtained "birth control" to address the issues.. She always got medication specific to that illness... And she NEVER referred to it as "birth control"...

    And, as I pointed out to dsws, if this imaginary friend has this problem with the insurance company, there are MANY avenues that she can use to remedy the problem. I mentioned several..

    Addressing that ONE SPECIFIC problem by giving all women free contraception on the public's dime is ludicrous.. It is totally and completely absurd..

    It's like saying that, because ONE guy in BumFuq Kentucky has a medical problem that requires he maintain a boner for 3 hours, because of that one unique problem, ALL MEN in the country should get free viagra on the public's dime..

    Ludicrous, isn't it??

    Well so is the Fluke's claim that all women should get free contraception on the public's dime because of this one unique issue...

    Regardless of all that side issue, the simple fact remains..

    Rush is a scumbag for calling Fluke a hooker to please his audience. Maher is a scumbag for calling Palin a cunt to please his audience...

    Anyone who claims otherwise is simply serving a partisan agenda...

    Michale.....

  164. [164] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    If it's for a cyst or other type medical issue, THEN IT ISN'T BIRTH CONTROL is it???

    Does it at the same time prevent getting pregnant? Then's it's birth control. Plus, if you had read her testimony you would know that much of it was about this kid of use.

    And still nothing on the science and economics of preventive care. Interesting.

    Rush is a scumbag for calling Fluke a hooker to please his audience. Maher is a scumbag for calling Palin a cunt to please his audience...

    Aww, switching from slut to hooker to avoid calling yourself a scumbag?

  165. [165] 
    Michale wrote:

    Does it at the same time prevent getting pregnant? Then's it's birth control.

    I saw a Bird once.... It was red..

    I guess that means ALL birds are red, right??

    Same sort of tortured and illogical "logic"..

    As I said above ad nausuem, it sounds like this imaginary friend's insurance company dropped the ball... The way to fix that is NOT by just giving away the stuff for free on your's and my dime..

    Regardless of ALL of that, according to Fluke's own testimony, NONE of this has even HAPPENED yet..

    “Unfortunately, under many religious institutions and insurance plans, it wouldn’t be. There would be no exception for other medical needs. And under Sen. Blunt’s amendment, Sen. Rubio’s bill or Rep. Fortenberry’s bill there’s no requirement that such an exception be made for these medical needs.

    So, Fluke is talking about her imaginary friend in an imaginary society where some bill or legislation might prevent this woman from getting imaginary life saving medication.

    Imagine that... :^/

    And still nothing on the science and economics of preventive care. Interesting.

    It was too moronic to address so I was giving you an out..

    Using that reasoning, everyone should get all sorts of free medical stuff because it could be considered preventive...

    Hay, I really need a new car because if I walk I could get hit by a car and amass all sorts of medical bills...

    Ya wanna know what the BEST "preventative care" would be???

    A little common sense and some sense of responsibility...

    Unfortunately, that seems to be in REAL short supply amongst the Left Wing...

    Aww, switching from slut to hooker to avoid calling yourself a scumbag?

    Naw, it's just easier to spell than prostitute.. :D

    Michale.....

  166. [166] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Rush is a scumbag for calling Fluke a hooker to please his audience. Maher is a scumbag for calling Palin a cunt to please his audience.

    But this doesn't tell the whole story though, does it?

    Throughout his life, Rush has advocated for a philosophy that treats women (and gays, and lesbians, and people of color, and liberals, and basically any group Rush can pick on) as unequal.

    This issue, solely and completely, is about a small but vocal segment of Americans who think that it's perfectly OK to attack another segment of Americans in the most vile and disgusting manner possible, yet turn around and whine and cry when their own are attacked in a vile and disgusting manner.

    That's about the best description of Rush Limbaugh I've ever seen. First, he attacks. Then, he whines "well, I'm just a comedian".

    Notice how you don't see Bill Maher whining "I'm just a comedian".

    -David

  167. [167] 
    Michale wrote:

    Ask ya'alls wives or significant others if the context would matter in a situation where a guy called a woman a "cunt"....

    Well, I got the ball rolling on this. I asked a good friend of mine who has a cell phone store right next to my computer shop. She is very religious and, while I don't know her political status, I would assume she is conservative..

    The exact question was:

    "Is there any context possible where it "OK, "understandable" or "permissible" for a guy to call a woman a "cunt"

    I got an emphatic and heartfelt "Hell no!!"

    OK Maybe she ain't THAT religious.. :D

    Now, I am going to ask my wife next.. If I never post here again, you'll know she beat me to death... :D

    Michale.....

  168. [168] 
    Michale wrote:

    But this doesn't tell the whole story though, does it?

    It does as far as Joe Q American is concerned..

    I am honestly taken aback that you would think that "CONTEXT" is somehow important in this issue...

    It's like saying that "context" is important when a white guy calls a black guy a "n*gger" out of anger or for entertainment purposes... ...

    In EITHER case, "context" SHOULDN'T matter one damn bit...

    The fact that context DOES appear to matter to some is just... very disheartening...

    Michale...

  169. [169] 
    Michale wrote:

    Notice how you don't see Bill Maher whining "I'm just a comedian".

    Are you SURE about that???

    Don't make me GOOGLE!!! :D

    Michale.....

  170. [170] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    It was too moronic to address so I was giving you an out..

    So the Institute of Medicine is moronic?

    as President Obama himself explained it on February 10: "As part of the health care reform law that I signed last year, all insurance plans are required to cover preventive care at no cost….We also accepted a recommendation from the experts at the Institute of Medicine that when it comes to women, preventive care should include coverage of contraceptive services such as birth control. … we know that the overall cost of health care is lower when women have access to contraceptive services… we decided to follow the judgment of the nation's leading medical experts and make sure that free preventive care includes access to free contraceptive care."

    You may disagree but then you would be arguing the actual issue and not just When the facts are against you, make shit up. When reality is against you, attack the messenger...

  171. [171] 
    Michale wrote:

    Bashi,

    Oh, because *OBAMA* said it, that makes it right???

    The Institute of Medicine said nothing about FREE contraceptive care..

    Obama and the Democrats threw that in because they haven't spent enough trillions yet...

    My point still stands.. If you make that kind of stuff "free" where do you draw the line??

    After this country surpasses Greece in the most fraked up economy race???

    You still have yet to refute the single most important question in YOUR entire point...

    WHY should birth control be paid for by you and me???

    Michale.....

  172. [172] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    WHY should birth control be paid for by you and me???

    Because it is medical care used by a large proportion of the population.

  173. [173] 
    Michale wrote:

    Throughout his life, Rush has advocated for a philosophy that treats women (and gays, and lesbians, and people of color, and liberals, and basically any group Rush can pick on) as unequal

    And Bill Maher does the EXACT same thing to conservatives and Republicans...

    You mentioned something about a difference???

    There is none..

    Michale.....

  174. [174] 
    Michale wrote:

    Because it is medical care used by a large proportion of the population.

    So is treating broken bones. So are ER visits. So are flu shots. So are tit jobs.

    None of those are free. Well, they WOULD be if ya'all and Fluke had ya'alls way...

    Hint: This is where you change your criteria... :D

    Michale....

  175. [175] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    Because it is scientifically proven preventive medical care used by a large proportion of the population.

    There you go.

  176. [176] 
    Michale wrote:

    Because it is scientifically proven preventive medical care used by a large proportion of the population.

    So, you are advocating that ANYTHING that would prevent medical issues in the future should be paid for by the taxpayers...

    Is THAT an accurate assessment??

    Michale.....

  177. [177] 
    akadjian wrote:

    And Bill Maher does the EXACT same thing to conservatives and Republicans.

    No. He doesn't. Bill Maher believes that conservatives are wrong on most issues. That's his show.

    Unequal? No.

    It's like saying that "context" is important when a white guy calls a black guy a "n*gger" out of anger or for entertainment purposes.

    It is important. But again I think you're missing something.

    I'm not saying that what Maher said about Palin was right. What I'm arguing is that you can't infer that Maher hates women and thinks women are unequal to men. With Rush? It's a different story.

    And this is likely why there's not as much rage towards Maher as Limbaugh. Limbaugh and the right advocate for policies that take away rights for women. Their right to choose to have an abortion, for example. Can't women decide for themselves? Apparently not say religious conservatives (the majority of whom are men - btw).

    I'm not defending Maher for calling Sarah Palin a 'cunt'. All I'm saying is that the reason are upset about Limbaugh likely has more to do with it than just this one instance.

    -David

    BTW- If it bothers you so much when someone calls someone else a name, how come you only speak out against Maher?

    You say it's because you're trying to point out the hypocrisy.

    But then you say you're doing it because it's just offensive.

    Well, if it's just offensive, why not speak out against Limbaugh as well? Why not speak out every time someone says a bad word?

    Which is it?

  178. [178] 
    Michale wrote:

    David,

    I'm not saying that what Maher said about Palin was right. What I'm arguing is that you can't infer that Maher hates women and thinks women are unequal to men. With Rush? It's a different story.

    I never claimed that Maher hated women.. I never claimed that Rush hated women..

    I am simply saying that what Maher said about Palin is as reprehensible and disgusting as what Rush said about Fluke...

    I am also willing to wager that, if you ask ANYONE woman, at least any woman who is not a kool-aide drinking fanatical hysterical Left Wing ideologue.. (Sorry, Paula, that lets you out.. :D), I will wager a million quatloos that they will agree with me. That any man who calls a woman a cunt for ANY REASON is reprehensible and disgusting..

    YES, that means John McCain too...

    You see.. Any man who calls a woman a cunt out of anger or to entertain is disgusting, regardless of their political affiliation...

    I would say the EXACT same thing whether we are discussing a Republican or a Democrat...

    And those of you who AREN'T kool-aide drinking fanatical & hysterical Left Wing Party hacks (you know who you are :D) damn well know it..

    THAT's what makes me different from the vast majority of Weigantians...

    I condemn the Right as well as the Left.. Ya'all (with a couple exceptions) only condemn the Right..

    Well, if it's just offensive, why not speak out against Limbaugh as well? Why not speak out every time someone says a bad word?

    I HAVE spoken out against Limbaugh as well. Scumbag, pandering and a host of other names...

    But people in here have actually DEFENDED Maher for what HE said..

    And THOSE people have the unmitigated gall to call ME a 'rabid partisan'. Those same people who slam Limbaugh and praise Maher...

    And *I* am the 'rabid partisan'???

    How frak'ed up is THAT!?? :D

    But I am glad to see we finally agreed on what the issue was about and that Maher should be condemned for what he said, just as Limbaugh should be condemned for what HE said...

    When someone attacks someone else in so vile and perverse of a manner, context doesn't matter one iota...

    I am a simple man.. Many things for me are black and white.. No shades of gray whatsoever...

    Terrorists should be tortured for intel, then killed.

    Child molesters should be summarily executed...

    People who hurl racial slurs should be condemned..

    And any man who calls a woman a cunt should NOT be defended or approved of in any way, shape or form. They should be resoundingly condemned for being the most ungentlemanly of savages.....

    Black and white.. No equivocation, no subtleties, no shades of gray, no context...

    Simple...

    It's how I like things...

    Michale.....

  179. [179] 
    Paula wrote:

    "WHY should birth control be paid for by you and me???"

    This really annoying "whaaaa people are taking MY money" argument is another piece of right wing claptrap, and every sniveling sh-t that makes that argument needs a sh-t pie in the face.

    People pay for their effing health insurance. They pay for it directly, through premiums, and indirectly through the loss of wages they experience because employers are paying for part of their health insurance. Employers also get tax breaks to help offset the costs of health insurance. I am a single payer advocate and would be a lot happier if we removed employers from the equation altogether, since, among other things, it leads to this exact kind of nonsense whereby sanctimonious types can work to impose their religious hangups on the rest of us. It also opens the door to employers being able to interfere in
    people's lives in ways that are extraordinarily offensive as well as disgustingly reactionary.

    I think we should totally decouple health insurance from employment and offer people 2 choices: you can pay into a Medicare for all if you want to, or you can buy private insurance. I think private insurers should have to compete directly and if they can't make enough money they should go out of business and all the complete morons out there who find the notion of Medicare for all offensive can pay for their medical care themselves. There are millions of Americans who would gladly participate in a Medicare-like system and I'm fed up with NOT being able to do that because a bunch of idiots run around screaming about socialism and never bother to grasp the actual facts involved.

    But until that happens we're stuck in a system that involves employers and the last thing we need is for a bunch of imbeciles deciding that they are "offended" at the notion of contraception being part of insurance plans that they have nothing to do with.

  180. [180] 
    dsws wrote:

    I think we should totally decouple health insurance from employment

    Me too.

    Medical coverage is a cost of having medical services. But under our system it looks on paper like a cost of having people be employed. Customers would be willing to buy some amount of stuff for the cost of making it, including the actual costs of having people employed (transportation, value of alternative use of their time, etc.). Under our system, the price also includes the cost of providing medical coverage. People still buy most of what they otherwise would. It's not as though anyone is going to go on a hunger strike because lunch costs half a buck more. But some of it, they don't buy at the higher price, even though it would have been worth more than the actual cost of production. That's not optimal. That's a deadweight loss.

  181. [181] 
    Michale wrote:

    Paula,

    People pay for their effing health insurance.

    Apparently you are not up on current events..

    Obama's and the Democrat's latest endeavor is to force insurance companies to give contraceptives to women for "free"....

    That means it's not part of their "effing health insurance"....

    Further I put "free" in quotes because we all know that it won't be "free"... People like me and David and Joshua and CW and Bashi will have to pay for YOUR "free" contraceptives in the form of higher insurance premiums.....

    How great is THAT, eh!?? :D

    And now that the CBO has scored CrapCare to cost TWICE as much as Obama and the Democrats said it would.... Almost two TRILLION dollars...

    Well, let's just add more onto that heap, right??

    Who cares if our economy is going the way of Greece... People gotta have their free stuff, right???

    That was sarcasm, in case you missed it..

    Michale.....

  182. [182] 
    akadjian wrote:

    I am simply saying that what Maher said about Palin is as reprehensible and disgusting as what Rush said about Fluke.

    Let me ask you this: why is calling someone a 'cunt' or a racist slur offensive?

    Did you ever read Huckleberry Finn when you were a kid? Or when you were forced to in Junior High?

    If you think back to Huckleberry Finn, Huck makes friends with an escaped slave by the name of Jim. Now in this book, Twain frequently refers to Jim as a 'nigger'.

    But Huck treats Jim as an equal throughout the book.

    So my question to you would be: why is the word 'nigger' offensive to people?

    Well, it was first offensive to black people because it was a word used by white people to refer to what they thought of as a lower class of people.

    Without this context, the word really isn't offensive. Though people tend to have a gut reaction to it today because that cultural meaning has become ingrained.

    Now let's take 'cunt'. Similarly, what's offensive about it? Well, it refers to a woman's sexual organ or vagina. But vagina isn't really offensive. Though as Julianne Moore says in the Big Lebowski: "The word itself makes some men uncomfortable."

    So why is cunt so offensive?

    It's that it has taken on a degrading connotation. You don't call someone you like or someone you value as an equal a cunt. You generally call someone you dislike a cunt. Unless you're a hipster.

    So back to what you said.

    I am simply saying that what Maher said about Palin is as reprehensible and disgusting as what Rush said about Fluke.

    It's the meaning behind the word that really makes it offensive.

    Huck calling Jim a nigger in Huck Finn loses its offensiveness when in every other way shape and form he treats Jim as an equal.

    It's the context of which you say something which makes it offensive.

    I still think Maher was wrong to say this and I find him a bit of a jackass myself, but I can understand why it's not as big of an issue with people as it was with Rush. Because almost everything Rush says and does shows he's not a big believer in equality.

    Context matters ...

    -David

  183. [183] 
    Paula wrote:

    Michale:
    I have not been able to find a description of exactly HOW this mechanism is supposed to work, My understanding is that the holier-than-thou Catholic institutions are somehow freed from having any of their premium dollars allocated towards contraception (thus freeing those dollars to go for their anti-gay and pedophelia cover-up efforts) but the insurance company will still have to provide contraception without copays to women. I assume you're moaning because you think that in lieu of whatever dollars the church would have paid you will now have to kick in, in the sense that your premiums go into the pool which is then spread to pay for everything.

    Maybe so - I don't know. (Note- here's an example of someone indicating they aren't in possession of all the facts. Try it sometime.) Insurance companies charge all kinds of dough for all kinds of things at all kinds of levels, and how much is actual costs versus markup is not, at this time, public - though it will be more public once the exchanges are up and running.

    At any rate, what if some sliver of your dollars is allocated to contraception? Cry me a river. The fact that it offends your puritanical instincts or your libertarian selfishness is just too bad. Furthermore, it ain't my choice that the church gets to offload these costs on the basis of their completely sickening "women and sex are evil" position; Obama's mistake was in catering to them at all. He should have said pound sand to the bishops and told them if they wanted to play this game we can all take a good hard look at their tax exempt status and their continued coverups of child rape.

    Contraception access and coverage is something women need AND want, the use of which lowers costs for everyone. But people like you don't really want to lower costs, or improve women's health or lives, you want to be able to pontificate about their sex lives and pronounce them sluts.

  184. [184] 
    Paula wrote:

    David: you are exactly right - context is everything.

    dsws: yep.

  185. [185] 
    Michale wrote:

    It's funny how context only matters when it's used in defense of the Left...

    When context can be used in defense of the Right, all of the sudden, it doesn't matter. :D

    Funny how it always works that way...

    Paula,

    I appreciate you trying to discuss the contraception issue with me in a frank and sincere manner.

    But the truth of the matter is, I really don't care much about it. Yea, I think it sucks that once again, Obama and the Democrats are digging a bigger hole for us taxpayers. But it's gotten so bad that it's reach the tipping point and, for me, it's just overwhelmed my senses. Obama and the Democrats have spent more money (money we don't have) of any president in history... COMBINED...

    I kinda got sucked into the contraception debate as an ancillary discussion to the cunt vs slut issue.

    So, tell ya what. We'll simply agree to disagree that providing free contraception is a GOOD thing for women, but a BAD thing for this country..

    My only real problem with all of this is the hypocrisy of the Left that can say, with a straight face, that it's perfectly OK for a Left Wing entertainer to attack a Right Winger in the most vile and disgusting manner possible yet, it's reprehensible when a Right Wing entertainer attacks a Left Winger in a manner that, while still disgusting, is almost mundane.

    Again, you can argue context and equivocation and what the definition of 'is' is all night long. But, as I told David above, that won't play at ALL with your average American voter..

    I think I can safely say that I speak for ALL Independents and NPAs when I say that both acts are disgusting. But the Left deserves special scorn for the hypocrisy of trying to mitigate or justify Maher's disgusting comments while condemning Rush and his comments..

    That's not just ME talking, that is ALL Independents and NPAs...

    There is absolutely NO DIFFERENCE between what Rush said and what Maher said..

    Apparently, Democrats agree...

    How else do you explain Axelrod bailing on Maher??

    How else do you explain the Alabama Democratic Party scrubbing Maher from their website??

    Note: These are those "facts" that ya'all claim to cherish...

    We'll likely never agree on this issue. But that's OK.. I know that the White House and (at least) Alabama Democrats agree with me on this issue. I know that NPAs and Independents agree with me on this issue.

    And it's the NPAs and Independents who decide elections.

    It's THEM you are going to have to convince..

    To date, they are not convinced...

    Michale.....

  186. [186] 
    akadjian wrote:

    But, as I told David above, that won't play at ALL with your average American voter.

    Perhaps. Nonetheless, it's true. Context matters.

    -David

  187. [187] 
    Michale wrote:

    Just let me finish up by saying that, once again, I am simply gabberflasted at the amazing track record of the Left..

    I have been on CW.COM for going on 6 years now...

    And in all that time, 72 months, 312 weeks, 2190 days the Left has ALWAYS been correct on EVERY Issue where they were opposed by the Right.

    EVERY time, in EVERY instance where the Left was on one side of the issue and the Right was on the other side of the issue, the Left has *ALWAYS* been correct and the Right has *ALWAYS* been wrong...

    I just have to congratulate the Left for such a perfect track record... :D

    Of course, this is the real world and everyone knows that the Left HASN'T been correct on every issue and the Right HASN'T been wrong on every issue. And, although I can't right off the bat recall of any instance, I am sure CW has pointed it out..

    But the fact (there's one of those facts again) of the matter is that, at least according to the majority of Weigantians, the Left has ALWAYS been on the correct side of EVERY issue and the Right has ALWAYS been on the wrong side of every issue..

    So, CONGRATS to the Left for a perfect record. At least on "paper", so to speak.. :D

    Michale

  188. [188] 
    Michale wrote:

    Perhaps. Nonetheless, it's true. Context matters.

    I get it. In this issue, in YOUR opinion, context matters...

    The Independents and NPAs of this country don't see it that way.

    And it's the Independents and the NPAs that the White House and the Democrats (at least the Alabama variety) are listening to..

    Michale...

  189. [189] 
    Michale wrote:

    And it's the Independents and the NPAs that the White House and the Democrats (at least the Alabama variety) are listening to..

    At least on the issue of Rush's and Maher's crude and reprehensible remarks...

    Michale.....

  190. [190] 
    akadjian wrote:

    In this issue, in YOUR opinion, context matters.

    No. It's true. If I were being "political" as you allude, wouldn't I be pandering to the Independents?

    BTW-
    Fox is trying to rewrite history. It looks like many liberal groups such as the National Organization for Women condemned Maher when he said what he did about Palin.

    The difference is that their wasn't a sustained outcry and the media didn't pick up the story. Maybe because they're largely only interested in Left/Right games. I've already discussed why I don't think there was a sustained outcry.

    It's not just saying a bad word. It's the actions and the logic of inequality behind it.

    I'll now return you to your regularly scheduled ranting about the "Left".

    -David

  191. [191] 
    Michale wrote:

    No. It's true.

    Really?? It's true??

    Did "context" matter when the Left accused Palin of encouraging Loughren to shoot Gabby Giffords..

    The Left was all over Palin saying that those "cross-hairs" in Palin's ad pushed Loughren to shoot Giffords. Of course, the Left got egg all over their face when it turned out that Loughren was a Left-Wing Liberal pothead. (Yea, I know. That's redundant. :D)

    But those "cross-hairs" were in the... wait for it.. wait for it.. CONTEXT of a political ad. A marketing tool...

    Did "context" matter then???

    Nope.. Not a damn bit...

    So it seems funny that "context" only matters when it can be used to defend the Left... When it can be used to defend the Right, "context" doesn't matter one damn bit...

    Fox is trying to rewrite history. It looks like many liberal groups such as the National Organization for Women condemned Maher when he said what he did about Palin.

    Got a link???

    I'll now return you to your regularly scheduled ranting about the "Left".

    You mean, as opposed to the ranting x10 about the "Right"???

    :D

    Michale.....

  192. [192] 
    Michale wrote:

    It's not just saying a bad word. It's the actions and the logic of inequality behind it.

    I gotta give you credit, David...

    When I was in BMTS and The Academy at Lackland AFB, I got into a debate with a guy over that movie THE FINAL COUNTDOWN... In the movie, to F-14 Phantoms took out two Class A Mint Condition Japanese Zeros..

    The guy remarked how ridiculous that was. He said that a Zero could easily defeat an F-14.. He made a very compelling argument, but I knew he was totally frak'ed in the head to think that a Zero could actually take out an F-14 in a dogfight..

    After a few minutes of this, the guy started cracking up and I realized I had been had...

    This reminds me of that..

    (not that I think yer frak'ed in the head.. :D)

    You make a very compelling and logical argument, but I know that you are completely wrong about it..

    As I said, your argument is logical, but people don't react to something like this logically. They react emotionally as it is an emotional topic..

    We'll just have to agree to disagree that context matters in something like this..

    It doesn't... And you can ask anyone (especially a female) and I bet they would agree with me...

    Michale.....

  193. [193] 
    akadjian wrote:

    BTW, for the record I'm going to stop arguing with you because when it comes down to what I really care about, I think we're much more on the same side than it would appear.

    And that is the issue of equality.

    All this other stuff is just talking about what some other people said and how it's being spun by some folks.

    But when it comes down to it, I don't think you personally are against equality. That is, you yourself are certainly not a Rush Limbaugh.

    So I can agree to disagree on all the other stuff because I think, again, that context matters and in your case, I've seen, like you've said to others here, that you're sometimes at odds with conservatives when it comes to issues of equality.

    Or in your words, you're an independent as you've argued.

    Here's where I think progressives can improve. On issues we care about, we need to sometimes recognize better when people are on our side and try to focus on what's most important.

    To me, it's equality. Not Maher or Limbaugh or what some idiot talking heads are saying. This stuff is fun to debate with you so I thank you for doing so without us ourselves getting into the name calling.

    But at the end of the day, when it comes to what I really care about, equality, I think you share many of the same feelings I do. I think that because I've heard you argue against conservatives on some of their social issues around equality. So I really don't want to fight with you anymore.

    And I'd encourage others here to recognize this about you and to consider it in their discussions.

    -David

  194. [194] 
    akadjian wrote:

    As I said, your argument is logical, but people don't react to something like this logically. They react emotionally as it is an emotional topic.

    Truer words were never said.

    And that's what gets me about the media and the political parties is that they use this and often stir the pot and pit people against each other rather than looking at things objectively.

    Happy almost St. Paddy's Day! Hope there's a green beer in your future.

    -David

    p.s. Why did the leprechaun wear two condoms?

    Answer: Oh, to be sure, to be sure!

  195. [195] 
    Michale wrote:

    p.s. Why did the leprechaun wear two condoms?

    Answer: Oh, to be sure, to be sure!

    Hehehehehehehehehehehehe

    Now THAT was funny!!!! :D

    And that's what gets me about the media and the political parties is that they use this and often stir the pot and pit people against each other rather than looking at things objectively.

    I couldn't agree more....

    And I'd encourage others here to recognize this about you and to consider it in their discussions.

    That's kind and generous of you.

    Thank you.

    Michale.....

  196. [196] 
    Michale wrote:

    Thank you for your acknowledgement of my superior intellect...

    {{Now, if THAT's not being someone's Huckleberry, NOTHING is... :D}}

    I am amazed that no one jumped on this.. :D

    Allow me to do the honors...

    "Kahn.... I'm LAUGHING at the superior intellect."
    -Admiral James T Kirk, STAR TREK II, The Wrath Of Kahn

    :D

    Michale......

  197. [197] 
    dsws wrote:

    But at the end of the day, when it comes to what I really care about, equality, I think you share many of the same feelings I do.

    Really? You're a might-makes-right guy too?

    With the caveat, that is, that the might has something-or-other attached to it, characterized by a fiction tailor-made to help prop up "our side"'s morale in troubled times, where an all-powerful guy-from-the-sky stands for "our side"'s group identity.

  198. [198] 
    Michale wrote:

    With the caveat, that is, that the might has something-or-other attached to it, characterized by a fiction tailor-made to help prop up "our side"'s morale in troubled times, where an all-powerful guy-from-the-sky stands for "our side"'s group identity.

    You DO realize that Superman stands for "Truth, Justice and the American way" right??

    So, yea.... Superman stands for my "side's" identity...

    Because my "side" is the America and the American people...

    Your "side" is only the American people that are Democrats...

    Michale.....

  199. [199] 
    Michale wrote:

    I am also constrained to point out that your "side" is a VERY small part of the American people.

    What?? 20-odd percent of Americans identify themselves as liberal??

    And wasn't it your "side" that got shellacked in the 2010 midterms?? :D

    If you want to pick "sides".... Maybe yer side ain't the best choice, eh??

    I am just sayin'... :D

    Michale.....

  200. [200] 
    Paula wrote:

    Michale:
    "So, tell ya what. We'll simply agree to disagree that providing free contraception is a GOOD thing for women, but a BAD thing for this country.."

    OK - I'll give you a point for an effort to reach out. But here's the thing -- you need to get your facts right. There's nothing "free" about contraception - it gets paid for and the women who will receive it will be paying for their medical plans. It is no more "free" than is any other coverage.

    Second, contraception reduces costs, so why is it "bad for the country"? It doesn't cost more, it brings the overall tab down, just like preventative medicine keeps minor problems from becoming major problems requiring more expensive interventions. I don't think you really want to make a "moral argument" against contraception, but your leaders do, so you go along with it without thinking through the implications.

    Similarly, last light there were already several debunkings online about the Repub claim that the CBO's report showed that the ACA was going to cost some billions more than originally projected. The short and simple is that the CBO report added one more year's worth of costs in order to project out a full decade - ie. previous report covered 9 years, this covered 10. In actual fact, it looks like reductions will be higher than expected.

    Check this out: http://www.tnr.com/blog/jonathan-cohn/101741/cbo-obamacare-cost-deficit-lie-double-price-fox

    You really need to start expanding your information sources if you want to be taken seriously. You get your data from sources that traffic in distortion, misinformation and lies. So long as you rely on them you will continually make claims that are verifiably false (as well as contradictory, inconsistent, and morally indefensible).

    You certainly have the passion - why not try going for some precision as well?

  201. [201] 
    dsws wrote:

    The short and simple is that the CBO report added one more year's worth of costs in order to project out a full decade - ie. previous report covered 9 years, this covered 10.

    I'm not finding that. It looks like both the previous "gross cost of coverage expansions" ($1.445T) and the new number ($1.496T) refer to the period 2012-2021.

    Check this out ...

    That column also includes a link to the CBO report in question: http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/03-13-Coverage%20Estimates.pdf

  202. [202] 
    dsws wrote:

    I'm not finding that.

    Oh, there it is. There's another ten-year estimate, but with a different ten years: it leaves out a year during which nothing has phased in yet, and instead puts in a year at the end. It's the same effect as comparing a nine-year period with a ten-year period, but nominally they're both ten-year estimates.

  203. [203] 
    Michale wrote:

    Paula,

    I honestly appreciate how we can discuss this now..

    OK - I'll give you a point for an effort to reach out. But here's the thing -- you need to get your facts right. There's nothing "free" about contraception - it gets paid for and the women who will receive it will be paying for their medical plans. It is no more "free" than is any other coverage.

    But you are not correct here..

    An Obama Victory: Co-Pay Free Birth Control Becomes a Reality For Women

    Yesterday the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) required all new health insurance plans to cover birth control for women, annual well-woman exams, breastfeeding tools, and a range of other services without co-pays, co-insurance or a deductible as a part of the Affordable Care Act.
    http://colorlines.com/archives/2011/08/maybe_the_protracted_debt_ceiling.html

    "Co-Pay Free" means there is no co-pay, which means there is NO out of pocket expense, which means it's "FREE" for women.

    Insurance companies, by order of the President, CANNOT charge women for these services..

    So, what the Insurance Companies will do is raise the price of everyone's insurance to offset the cost...

    Which, I guess, COULD be construed as saying the women are paying for it.

    But so is everyone else...

    Michale.....

  204. [204] 
    Michale wrote:

    It's interesting to note that the Obama Administration has switched gears on CrapCare...

    Up until now, they have always defended CrapCare under the Commerce Clause..

    NOW they're thinking, "Oh crap.. The Commerce Clause won't do it for us.."

    Now, The Necessary and Proper Clause is the catch of the day...

    What's REALLY pathetic is that the ONLY reason they are changing tactics is to appeal to the one possible swing vote on the SCOTUS??

    Get that??

    The Obama is not arguing CrapCare on the merits, but rather is appealing to ONE Jurist on the SCOTUS...

    Me thinks that desperation has doth crept in.... :D

    Michale.....

  205. [205] 
    Paula wrote:

    Michale:

    "Co-Pay Free" means there is no co-pay, which means there is NO out of pocket expense, which means it's "FREE" for women."

    "So, what the Insurance Companies will do is raise the price of everyone's insurance to offset the cost...Which, I guess, COULD be construed as saying the women are paying for it."

    You got it!!!!

    Yes, women are paying for it. The whole thing started because Obama/The ACA want these types of services included in all policies -- wants them to be considered baseline services that should automatically be part of coverage. Part of the ACA's goal has been to create baselines that all insurance companies would need to adhere too - there has to be a starting point shared by all so that people are not paying for insurance only to find out that something they need isn't covered. Insurance companies have played all kinds of games for years and customers have been powerless.

    I don't know what items are going to generate co-pays but the decision was made, quite rightly in my opinion, that contraception, breast exams etc. should be considered fundamentals in plans for women, just as I imagine (though I don't know this for a fact) that prostate exams will similarly covered for men. (We know that Viagra is.) No one was questioning these decisions until the bishops came along and decided to single out contraception and make an issue of it, which the repubs glommed onto because they knew it would appeal to the evangelical/hard right catholic crowd.

    So, as I said earlier, if "catholic money" won't be used for contraception I suppose that means the difference will be made up somewhere. Perhaps in higher prices, I don't know. Certainly the effort will be made by insurance companies to raise prices as high as they can get away with and they will use whatever excuses they can muster. OTOH, contraception causes an overall lowering of costs, so we will, collectively, save money. So will "everyone" be paying for contraception or will everyone enjoy a savings due to contraception?

    But the immediate point is that "not paying a co-pay" is NOT the same as free. And once you recognize that you have to look at all the arguments that are based on the "she wants her birth control for free" fallacy, and ask yourself why people are making those arguments, and whether people who make arguments based on a fallacy should be trusted.

  206. [206] 
    Michale wrote:

    Paula,

    OK, so you're hanging your hat on that point.. Fair enough.

    It IS a valid point..

    By the increased insurance rates that are passed on to EVERYONE, the women are paying for their contraceptives...

    But, the point *I* am making is that everyone else is too!! And what are all the men getting by paying for ALL the women's contraceptives???

    The are getting broker and broker until they are bankrupt...

    To put it in another way...

    Let's say we have a society...

    In this society, there is an economy where people earn their money thru labor and they use their money to purchase food, clothing and shelter...

    But, in this society, there is a privileged class... Red-Haired people get ALL their food, ALL their clothing and ALL their shelter for free...

    Since the businesses providing this food, shelter and clothing can't afford to give these for free, they charge everyone else a higher rate...

    So, everyone else is paying a HIGHER rate for food, clothing and shelter so red-haired people can have it all for free...

    Sure, that works out great for the red-haired people...

    For a time...

    Because even with charging everyone else a higher rate, the businesses aren't making a profit and they will eventually, go out of business...

    What happens then???

    We don't have to imagine it...

    All we have to do is look to Greece and we SEE "what happens then".....

    Do you WANT to see the US go the way of Greece????

    GO the way of the old Soviet Union??

    Is THAT what the ultimate goal is??? To see how fast this country can go bankrupt???

    Michale.....

  207. [207] 
    Paula wrote:

    And our tiny little window of discussion snaps shut. Leaping from covering contraception to the old Soviet Union? You're joking, right?

  208. [208] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    But, the point *I* am making is that everyone else is too!! And what are all the men getting by paying for ALL the women's contraceptives???

    I don't know about you, but last time I used a condom it worked much better on the man than the woman.

    Just sayin'...

  209. [209] 
    Shevek57 wrote:

    Do you WANT to see the US go the way of Greece???? GO the way of the old Soviet Union??

    Step 1: Lean to the side, raise cheek off of chair;
    Step 2: Click on "Submit Comment" button;
    Step 3: Let her rrrrrrrriiiippppppppppppp!!!!!

  210. [210] 
    Michale wrote:

    Paula,

    Why is it that, when confronted with FACTS that you claim to hold dear, you simply discard logical discussion and attack??

    Do you think that money just grows on trees!??

    Or that you can simply just PRINT money when you run out??

    Oh wait. You support Obama. Of course you believe that....

    Shevek,

    Nice to see you are staying true to form..

    No facts, no logic, no coherence..

    Just attack, attack, attack...

    Are you sure yer not a Republican???

    Bashi,

    Did you pay for it???

    Or was it an Obama freebie??? :D

    Michale.....

  211. [211] 
    Michale wrote:

    CBO says Obama's latest budget would add $3.5 trillion in deficits through 2022
    http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/budget/216397-obama-budget-adds-35-trillion-in-deficits-cbo-finds

    Yea.... Nothing to worry about here...
    FULL STEAM AHEAD...
    There ain't no icebergs around these parts...
    -First Mate I.P. Freely, SS Titanic

    Ya'all are 1000% correct...

    "What could possibly go wrong.."

    I saids it before and I'll says it again..

    I weep for the future...

    Michale.....

  212. [212] 
    Michale wrote:

    Here's the problem with ya'all...

    You think this.....

    http://sjfm.us/temp/crapcare.jpg

    ... is a factual representation of the here and now....

    When are ya'all going to learn that "Hope" doesn't pay the bills..

    Grow up, already....

    Jeeezus...

    Michale.....

  213. [213] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Actually, Michale, the economic argument for contraception is pretty strong.

    As Paula mentioned, the idea is very similar to preventative medicine. A small upfront charge saves a lot down the road.

    In a nutshell, here's how it works with birth control. Contraception = less unintended pregnancies (which studies have shown have a higher cost than intended pregnancies). Equals less abortions (also costly).

    Guttmacher Institute research finds that every public dollar invested in contraception saves $3.74 in short-term Medicaid expenditures for care related to births from unintended pregnancies.

    Similarly, a 2010 Brookings Institution analysis came to the same conclusion, and projected that expanding access to family planning services under Medicaid saves $4.26 for every $1 spent.

    http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/gpr/14/1/gpr140107.html

    Would have to look into this more, but I think there might be a good economic case for it.

    -David

  214. [214] 
    Shevek57 wrote:

    Why is it that, when confronted with FACTS that you claim to hold dear, you simply discard logical discussion and attack??
    "Wuh-wuh-wuh-waaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhh!!! Mommy, the mean girl across the street made me concede a point and now everyone knows I"ve just been flinging my pooh against the wall in this entire thread. Waaaaaahhhhhhhh!!!!"

  215. [215] 
    dsws wrote:

    As Paula mentioned, the idea is very similar to preventative medicine. A small upfront charge saves a lot down the road.

    Whether it saves money or not depends on your baseline for comparison. If you take the "conservative" approach to its illogical conclusion, then the proper baseline is just the cost of the bullet to shoot them after they're born.

  216. [216] 
    Michale wrote:

    David,

    A small upfront charge saves a lot down the road.

    Almost 2 TRILLION dollars is not a "small" upfront charge by ANY stretch of the imagination..

    Oh.. Wait. You were talking about the contraception issue..

    OK.. Great. Since it's such a small upfront charge, why should *I* have to help pay for it??

    Shevek,

    "Wuh-wuh-wuh-waaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhh!!! Mommy, the mean girl across the street made me concede a point and now everyone knows I"ve just been flinging my pooh against the wall in this entire thread. Waaaaaahhhhhhhh!!!!"

    TRANSLATION:I have no logical or rational response to counter your facts so I am simply going to make personal attacks to demonstrate my clueless status.

    Thank you for your acknowledgement of my superior argument..

    :D

    Michale.....

  217. [217] 
    Michale wrote:

    Apparently not ALL women have gotten drunk off the kool-aide....

    http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/03/15/ladies-dont-be-fooled-by-obamas-overtures-have-got-to-break-up-with-him/

    Michale.....

  218. [218] 
    Shevek57 wrote:

    OK.. Great. Since it's such a small upfront charge, why should *I* have to help pay for it??

    Wuh-wuh-wuh-waaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!

    Thank you for your acknowledgement of my superior argument..

    Bwa-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha!!! A "superior argument" bolstered by a link [217] to an opinion piece at Fox News? Fox News!!! Bwa-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha!!! Keep flinging the pooh, Michale! Maybe a six-year-old boy will wander into one of these threads someday and find your "arguments" compelling. Bwa-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha!!!!!

  219. [219] 
    Michale wrote:

    Shevek,

    Seriously.. How long are you going to continue to make an ass of yourself..

    Apparently you are new here to CW.COM... While things do get heated and passionate, we usually draw the line at making personal attacks...

    Hopefully, you can grow up a little and discuss things like a mature adult...

    Michale....

  220. [220] 
    Paula wrote:

    Michale: Just FYI: if you want to pretend you're not a wingnut, NEVER use FOX as a source for anything other than derision. ONLY wingnuts consider FOX legitimate on any level.

  221. [221] 
    Michale wrote:

    Shevek,

    Yes, there is a Republican war on women voters

    http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/03/15/yes-there-is-republican-war-on-women-voters/

    Yer right.. FoxNews is always full of crap, right???

    :D

    You political fanatics are always so predictable...

    :D

    Michale.....

  222. [222] 
    Michale wrote:

    Michale: Just FYI: if you want to pretend you're not a wingnut, NEVER use FOX as a source for anything other than derision.

    Paula,

    See above...

    FNC has man MANY Left Wing commentators...

    How many Right Wing Commentators does MSNBC have?? HuffPo?? Daily KOS???

    ONLY wingnuts consider FOX legitimate on any level.

    And only hysterical & fanatical Left Wing bigots discount ANYTHING coming out of FoxNews.. :D

    Michale.....

  223. [223] 
    Michale wrote:

    And only hysterical & fanatical Left Wing bigots discount ANYTHING coming out of FoxNews.. :D

    I just had an epiphany....

    Hysterically radical Left Wingers (you know who you are.. :D ) these days treat Republicans EXACTLY the way that Democrats treated black people 60-80 years ago.

    It's not so far-fetched that there may be a connection....

    Michale....

  224. [224] 
    Shevek57 wrote:

    Apparently you are new here to CW.COM

    Au contraire, my little partisan polemicist. Just because I only interject a comment or two on rare occasions, doesn't mean I'm not "here."

    But it's okay, I feel your pain. You've had quite a successful run in this thread. You managed to rope in dsws, akadjian(David), Bashi and CW's guest-post-at-Huffington honoree, Paula for several exchanges wherein they actually treated your "arguments" with some level of seriousness. But alas, I feel no obligation to live up to their high standards of discourse. I mean, just look at this latest turd you've flung against the wall:

    Hysterically radical Left Wingers (you know who you are.. :D ) these days treat Republicans EXACTLY the way that Democrats treated black people 60-80 years ago.

    You exhibit (How can I say it politely?) all the intellectual depth of a Kardashian "reality" show. Keep flinging; I enjoy the laughs. Bwa-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha!!!

  225. [225] 
    Michale wrote:

    You exhibit (How can I say it politely?) all the intellectual depth of a Kardashian "reality" show. Keep flinging; I enjoy the laughs. Bwa-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha!!!

    Thank you for providing irrefutable evidence that my theory is, indeed, dead on balls accurate... :D

    Michale.....

  226. [226] 
    Shevek57 wrote:

    Thank you for providing irrefutable evidence that my theory is, indeed, dead on balls accurate... :D

    No, thank you for confirming (as if there were any doubt) that you are, indeed, a partisan Republican polemicist. :)

  227. [227] 
    Michale wrote:

    No, thank you for confirming (as if there were any doubt) that you are, indeed, a partisan Republican polemicist. :)

    How so???

    Oh wait.. I know.. Because I can actually think for myself and am not enslaved by ideological Party dogma..

    You simply have to attempt to drag me down to your level.

    On the other hand, I have to say that I *AM* enjoying my new chew toy.. :D

    Michale.....

  228. [228] 
    Michale wrote:

    Seriously, dood.. You need to chell out a little.. This is all just political discussions that sometime get heated and passionate..

    If you actually took the time to READ what I post, rather than just write me off as some uppity Right Winger, you would likely find we have a LOT in common.

    For example.. I bet we have the same opinion on religion in government. It doesn't belong in any way, shape or form..

    I also bet we have the same opinion on gay marriage. That the ONLY requirement for two people to get married is that they love each other and want to spend the rest of their lives together.. Wouldn't you agree with that??

    So, what's with all the hostility??

    "Your honor, my I have permission to treat Ms Vito as a hostile witness?"

    "Ya think I'm hostile now, wait til ya see me tonight."

    "You two know each other?"

    "Yea, she's my fiancee"

    "Well, that would certainly explain the hostility.."
    -MY COUSIN VINNY

    Seriously.. Have a little fun.. I am sorry if I have said anything that has offended you..

    But I kinda get the feeling that you're offended by my simple existence..

    If that is the problem, well.. It's your problem, not mine..

    "What's with the cat??"
    "Oh yea, the cat. There's a problem with the cat. Sign here, please."
    "What is it?"
    "It's your problem"

    -MEN IN BLACK

    :D

    Michale

  229. [229] 
    akadjian wrote:

    OK.. Great. Since it's such a small upfront charge, why should *I* have to help pay for it??

    For the same reason that I paid and continue to pay for 2 awful wars. That is, because we are a Democracy and this is part of how our country works.

    You seem to want to opt out of the parts you don't like.

    I'll make you a deal though. I'm not sure if I have the power to represent all liberals nor you all conservatives, but this is hypothetical.

    We, the liberals of America, will agree to cover the upfront costs of free contraception if you the conservatives of America will cover the ongoing costs of the wars in Afghanistan and what is left in Iraq.

    Because if you're going to opt out of what you don't like, isn't it fair that we be allowed to opt out of what we don't like?

    -David

  230. [230] 
    Michale wrote:

    We, the liberals of America, will agree to cover the upfront costs of free contraception if you the conservatives of America will cover the ongoing costs of the wars in Afghanistan and what is left in Iraq.

    Here's a counteroffer.. I'll speak for the conservatives even thought I have no right to..

    The conservatives will pay for ALL government activities proportional to conservative representation in our government. The Liberals will pay for ALL government activities proportional to liberal representation in our government.

    Proportions will be determined thusly.

    Presidency will be 50%.
    Senate and House will be 25% each.

    So, in the here and now, Liberals will pay 75% of all government activities and Conservatives will pay 25% of all government activities.

    This is a very fair deal. Since Liberals and Conservatives work so hard to get THEIR representatives in government, once that occurs Liberals and Conservatives should pay accordingly..

    Why should Liberals have to pay for Conservatives antics. And versy vicy...

    We'll have to figure something out for the Independents and NPAs though... Probably something along the lines of their payment responsibility being according to how they voted in the last election.

    Since I voted Democrat in the last two elections, in the here and now, I'm scrooed... :D

    Michale.....

  231. [231] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Why should Liberals have to pay for Conservatives antics. And versy vicy.

    Then own the wars. No deal unless you own what you started :)

    (Hypothetically speaking, of course ...)

    -David

  232. [232] 
    akadjian wrote:

    This is actually an interesting hypothetical experiment though.

    If people had to pay upfront for the cost of war, I think we'd see smarter decisions.

  233. [233] 
    Michale wrote:

    Then own the wars. No deal unless you own what you started :)

    (Hypothetically speaking, of course ...)

    You act as if Democrats have never prosecuted a war before....

    Don't make me Google!!! :D

    This is actually an interesting hypothetical experiment though.

    If people had to pay upfront for the cost of war, I think we'd see smarter decisions.

    Nope...

    Now, if you want to say that politicians who start wars should pay for them out of their own pocket, THEN you might have a smarter decision-making process..

    But THEN, if we go THAT route than the next logical step would be to force anyone clamoring for higher taxes to PAY those higher taxes..

    And so on and so on...

    As an aside, ain't funny how we don't hear much about the "Buffett Rule"?? :D That's because it was discovered that Buffett's companies owe over a billion in back taxes.. :D

    I like the idea of making politicians financially responsible for their bad decisions...

    Of course the downside to that would be politicians would be so scared that they would lose money they wouldn't ever make a decision about ANYTHING...

    Hmmmmm Ya know, considering the here and now, it might be better if politicians didn't make any decisions. :D

    Michale.....

  234. [234] 
    akadjian wrote:

    You act as if Democrats have never prosecuted a war before.

    Nope.

    I just believe if people advocate for positions, they should be willing to own them.

    I see very little of this from those who took us into war. All I see, in fact, is them pushing for another war.

    But THEN, if we go THAT route than the next logical step would be to force anyone clamoring for higher taxes to PAY those higher taxes.

    I'm afraid this wouldn't quite work because the connection between what you buy isn't there, but you might be onto something.

    What I mean by the connection between what you buy is that everyone I know who wants to lower taxes also wants to use the things that everyone else's taxes pay for.

    The Iraq/Afghan Wars were a great example. People wanted the wars, but they wanted to cut taxes at the same time.

    Yet I've never heard anyone owning that decision. In fact, all you seem to hear is more of the same: More wars, less taxes.

    More wars, less taxes is not a good idea.

    -David

  235. [235] 
    Michale wrote:

    I just believe if people advocate for positions, they should be willing to own them.

    I agree completely...

    I see very little of this from those who took us into war. All I see, in fact, is them pushing for another war.

    I am sure YOU would agree that every situation should stand on it's own merits..

    So far, all the Left wants to talk about are the consequences of going to war with Iran..

    No one on the Left wants to discuss the consequences of Iran becoming a nuclear power..

    How come??

    More wars, less taxes is not a good idea.

    Actually one COULD do both if our government was willing to tell the countries we go to war for, "Hay, you assholes need to contribute something to this..."

    But we don't.. We bend over backwards to apologize to these ungrateful savages and end up bankrolling their entire freedom..

    Afghanistan and Karzai are a perfect example. He wants us to leave?? Fine. We should trip the frak out the door and leave his ass blowing in the wind...

    Countries that are governed by savages need to learn that with our help, there comes a price...

    They don't WANT our help?? Fine...

    But that comes with a price, too....

    Michale.....

  236. [236] 
    Michale wrote:

    Karzai and US are the same thing as Obama/Democrats and Wall Street..

    Publicly they attack and berate, but privately they are on their knees begging...

    Michale.....

  237. [237] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Countries that are governed by savages need to learn that with our help, there comes a price.

    So you want to hire the US military out to anyone who will pay for it?

    And ... savages? Really? If you do think they're savages, why would you want to go to war for them?

    No one on the Left wants to discuss the consequences of Iran becoming a nuclear power.

    After all the "crying wolf" which took place and lead us into Iraq, I have trouble trusting this info. For me there is a credibility issue as to a) Iran actually developing nuclear capability and b) would this be the end of the world if they did.

    "Nuclear capability" seems like today's Weapons of Mass Destruction. That is, it seems an awful lot like the latest lie designed to convince the American people of another war.

    The country that really wants us to go to war is Israel. Apparently, they feel they don't have the capability to significantly impact Iran's "nuclear capability" so they want us to do it for them. I don't believe we should be doing their bidding either.

    That aside, and we've gone down this path before, I believe there are better ways than going to war to accomplish nuclear detente.

    -David

  238. [238] 
    Michale wrote:

    So you want to hire the US military out to anyone who will pay for it?

    Not at all.. But if we spill US blood to obtain another country's freedom from tyranny, I would expect a modicum of A> gratitude and 2> financial assistance if possible.

    "Yer gettin' me fer nuthin', you little fuck. A modicum of gratitude would not be out of line here."
    -Joe Pesci, MY COUSIN VINNY

    :D

    And ... savages? Really? If you do think they're savages, why would you want to go to war for them?

    That's a very good question.. Wish I had a good answer...

    Let me think...

    "At the time, it seemed the right thing to do."

    Dunno where that quote came from. Just kinda popped in my head...

    Any help???

    After all the "crying wolf" which took place and lead us into Iraq, I have trouble trusting this info.

    And there you hit the nail on the head.. The agencies themselves have "trouble trusting their info"...

    Or, to be more accurate, they are more reluctant to aire their info...

    For me there is a credibility issue as to a) Iran actually developing nuclear capability and b) would this be the end of the world if they did.

    As to the former, there is absolutely NO DOUBT whatsoever ANYWHERE that Iran is developing nuclear capability...

    As to the latter... Imagine Hitler with nuclear weapons...

    Would it have been the end of the world???

    Very likely...

    "She was right, but at the wrong time. With the A-bomb, and with their V2 rockets to carry them, Germany captured the world."
    -Spock, STAR TREK, City On The Edge Of Forever

    The country that really wants us to go to war is Israel. Apparently, they feel they don't have the capability to significantly impact Iran's "nuclear capability" so they want us to do it for them. I don't believe we should be doing their bidding either.

    But, by NOT doing Israel's bidding, we ARE doing Iran's bidding..

    Hmmmmmmmmmm

    Should we side with Israel or Iran....

    Hmmmmmmmmm

    That's a real toughie.... {/sarcasm} :D

    That aside, and we've gone down this path before, I believe there are better ways than going to war to accomplish nuclear detente.

    If we were dealing with a rational leader and not a present-day Hitler/Stalin, I would likely agree with you..

    But we're not, so I don't... :D

    Michale.....

  239. [239] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Imagine Hitler with nuclear weapons.

    This analogy is flawed because in the case of Germany, the question wasn't just getting nuclear weapons, it was obtaining nuclear weapons before anyone else had them.

    Let's try Stalin instead because this was at least a situation where more than one country had nuclear weapons.

    You know what? The world didn't end because of mutually assured destruction.

    But, by NOT doing Israel's bidding, we ARE doing Iran's bidding.

    Again, why would we do anyone's bidding?

    Or, why shouldn't we at least ask Israel to pay for it if we're going to fight their war for them (FTR, I'd find this detestable, but I'm surprised you didn't suggest making Israel pay for their war).

    And ... why don't we just tell the American public we're going to war for Israel instead of all the manipulative lies?

    -David

  240. [240] 
    Michale wrote:

    You know what? The world didn't end because of mutually assured destruction.

    That's because, on both sides of the equation, there were rational leaders...

    In the here and now, such is not the case vis a vis the West and Iran.

    The Hitler analogy is a LOT more applicable to the situation we find ourselves in today.

    And ... why don't we just tell the American public we're going to war for Israel instead of all the manipulative lies?

    Because we're NOT going to war "just for Israel"...

    A nuclear armed Iran would impact OUR interests as well.

    Obama has said as much.... One of the few areas where Obama and I are in complete agreement..

    So, if you want to argue that a nuclear Iran is acceptable, then you'll be arguing with our President as well as me...

    Lemme know how that works out for ya... :D

    Michale....

  241. [241] 
    akadjian wrote:

    So, if you want to argue that a nuclear Iran is acceptable, then you'll be arguing with our President as well as me.

    I'm often at odds with Obama and I'm ok with that.

    In the here and now, such is not the case vis a vis the West and Iran.

    The leader of Iran uses anti-American sentiment to increase his own political power in Iran.

    Oddly enough, this is the same strategy used by many here in the U.S. to increase their own political power.

    I disagree with both, but if power is your ultimate goal, how is this not rational?

    Again, please don't misstate me here. This is why I see power in and of itself as a corrupting influence. It's the problem with power. But if all you're after is power, wouldn't you believe that the end justifies the means?

    To say that we are "rational" when we do it and they are "irrational" when they do it, is ... ahem ... highly irrational.

    -David

  242. [242] 
    Michale wrote:

    I'm often at odds with Obama and I'm ok with that.

    And yer Independent enough to admit it! :D

    The leader of Iran uses anti-American sentiment to increase his own political power in Iran.

    Just as Hitler used anti-Jewish sentiment to increase his own political power in Germany...

    To say that we are "rational" when we do it and they are "irrational" when they do it, is ... ahem ... highly irrational.

    The difference is, when we do it, we don't advocate genocide or support terrorism....

    That is the big difference that makes ALL the difference...

    Michale.....

  243. [243] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Just as Hitler used anti-Jewish sentiment to increase his own political power in Germany.

    You got it. And I'm sure he thought it was rational too.

    The difference is, when we do it, we don't advocate genocide or support terrorism.

    Genocide I'll give you. But when it comes to terrorism, I'm not so sure.

    I suppose it depends who you ask. If you ask any of the families of the innocent people we killed, I think you'd likely get a response that yes, we do support terrorism.

    Let me ask you this. If what we're doing is so good, how come we have to repeatedly lie to our own people about it?

    -David

  244. [244] 
    Michale wrote:

    You got it. And I'm sure he thought it was rational too.

    Exactly my point..

    AchmedJihadist thinks that HE is being rational...

    Regardless of that, he is closer to a Hitler than he is to a Kruschev..

    Genocide I'll give you. But when it comes to terrorism, I'm not so sure.

    I am....

    I suppose it depends who you ask. If you ask any of the families of the innocent people we killed, I think you'd likely get a response that yes, we do support terrorism.

    That's because they respond emotionally, not rationally...

    Let me ask you this. If what we're doing is so good, how come we have to repeatedly lie to our own people about it?

    While I would contest the idea that we have to "lie" to our own people, if we DID have to lie.....

    The answer is simple...

    "YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH"

    :D

    Most Americans can't be bothered with "the truth"...

    That's because, for the most part, they have been inundated with politicians give their "version" of the truth..

    Michale....

  245. [245] 
    akadjian wrote:

    That's because they respond emotionally, not rationally.

    You mean, like most of America after 9/11?

    The answer is simple... "YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH"

    This is BS. This is what every tyrant, despot or corrupt regime has ever said about their rule.

    When the government starts lying to the people is when democracy starts having problems.

    -David

  246. [246] 
    akadjian wrote:

    It is, in a sense, rule by elites who treat the people like children to be governed.

    It is, a return to a governing royalty.

  247. [247] 
    Michale wrote:

    You mean, like most of America after 9/11?

    Yes, exactly like that..

    However, by and large, Americans don't react emotionally, by wanting to cut someone's head off..

    We're special that way... :D

    When the government starts lying to the people is when democracy starts having problems.

    I would likely agree with you...

    But then that would require we come to some consensus on the Obama Administration...

    Wanna go down that road?? :D

    It is, a return to a governing royalty.

    And here we are.... :D

    Michale.....

  248. [248] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Wanna go down that road?

    You might be surprised ... :)

    -David

  249. [249] 
    dsws wrote:

    Just as Hitler used anti-Jewish sentiment to increase his own political power in Germany.

    You got it. And I'm sure he thought it was rational too.

    Hitler was a genuine fanatic about his "racial" views. He toned down his antisemitic rhetoric somewhat as he was gaining power, and turned it back to eleven after he had consolidated power.

    He was not rational. The whole country was not rational. There were already two superpowers: they attacked one without provocation, despite having a deal that it was in Stalin's interests to keep, and they made little effort to stay out of war with the other. They made sure that any technological breakthrough would favor us and not them, by ensuring that our German scientists were better than their German scientists. They consistently prioritized the war against their own people (gays, Gypsies, and Socialists as well as Jews) over the war against Russia, the British Empire, and the US.

    Not a country engaged in "rational" means to evil ends.

  250. [250] 
    Michale wrote:

    Hitler was a genuine fanatic about his "racial" views. He toned down his antisemitic rhetoric somewhat as he was gaining power, and turned it back to eleven after he had consolidated power.

    And AchmedJihadist makes Hitler look positively gentle and sane...

    Michale.....

  251. [251] 
    Michale wrote:

    You might be surprised ... :)

    Comin' around to the Dark Side, are we?? :D

    Michale...

  252. [252] 
    akadjian wrote:

    He was not rational. The whole country was not rational.

    Dsws (if you're still out there). No argument from me here.

    The point I was going after was never that he was rational, but rather that he likely thought of himself as rational.

    Plenty of horrible things have been done in the name of "rationality". Both sides of almost every situation typically think that their viewpoint is the most "rational".

    The trick is that rational is often akin to relativistic physics in that it depends on location, perspective, and time.

    It would be nice if there were an absolute rationality, but absolute rationality is a little too similar to religion in my book :)

    -David

  253. [253] 
    Michale wrote:

    The point I was going after was never that he was rational, but rather that he likely thought of himself as rational.

    It's human nature to want to believe we are rational..

    However, there are baselines by which an objective observer can reliably determine rationality..

    Such baseline observations indicate that Hitler was, indeed, irrational..

    Some might say a frakin' fruitcake, but such subjective observations don't lend too much to the discussion at hand...

    Those same baseline observations would also indicate that AchmedJihadist is also a "frakin' fruitcake" or "irrational".... Take your pick...

    We shouldn't fall into the trap of excusing or mitigating aberrant behavior, simply because the fruitcake exhibiting such behavior claims to be rational.. Or is a leader of a nation.

    While gray areas DO exist in the here and now, there are also many instances of black and white...

    The leader of Iran is one such instance..

    Michale......

  254. [254] 
    Michale wrote:

    It would be nice if there were an absolute rationality, but absolute rationality is a little too similar to religion in my book :)

    During my military time, we tried to shoot for "close enough for government work"...

    Granted, it kinda loses it's shine in the here and now... :D

    Michale.....

  255. [255] 
    akadjian wrote:

    There are baselines by which an objective observer can reliably determine rationality.

    Do tell ...

    How do you do it, Michale?

    Or do you just say that there are baselines and that you can tell?

    Seems that anyone could claim that they "know" what the baseline is and that anyone not following this baseline is "irrational".

    This is like saying "I'm rational" and anyone who doesn't agree with me is by default irrational.

    I honestly don't disagree. I'm just trying to understand how you're figuring out "baseline". How does this get defined?

    -David

  256. [256] 
    Michale wrote:

    How do you do it, Michale?

    Brutally murdering 6 million Jews would be a tip off for me..

    Saying that you want to wipe out ANOTHER 7.6 million Jews is another good indicator..

    But, I really have a lot of respect for the Israeli people and, specifically, the IDF...

    So I might be biased...

    I honestly don't disagree. I'm just trying to understand how you're figuring out "baseline". How does this get defined?

    While I admit that sometimes it's a murky gray area, the afore mentioned indicators usually stand out for me...

    Seriously though.. Is there ANYONE who honestly believes that AchmedJihadist is, actually, rational??

    I know, I know.... "He's just playing to his people"....

    Well, Hitler was just "playing to his people" too... Until he followed thru...

    Michale.....

  257. [257] 
    Michale wrote:

    Administration grants exemptions on Iran sanctions
    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/03/20/administration-grants-exemptions-on-iran-sanctions/

    Oh yea. Sanctions will stop Iran from developing Nuclear Weapons..

    NOT if we keep exempting every Tom, Dick and Harry....

    Jeeezus....

    Michale.....

  258. [258] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Man, you guys are still at it on this one?

    OK, just a quick warning: there's an automated cutoff for comments of two weeks. And you guys are about two days away from this happening, so if you've got parting shots, now's the time to take them.

    I'm going to read all of these, but I probably won't have time to comment...

    -CW

  259. [259] 
    Michale wrote:

    And you guys are about two days away from this happening, so if you've got parting shots, now's the time to take them.

    Hehehehehehehe That made me laugh...

    But, since you offered... :D

    Mr. President, When Should I Expect Your Call?
    http://www.patheos.com/blogs/bristolpalin/2012/03/mr-president-when-should-i-expect-your-call/

    Palin knocks it out of the ballpark with that....

    So much for Maher's "one off" attack on women...

    Looks like Maher makes a habit of attacking women... Well, at least conservative women..

    Michale......

  260. [260] 
    akadjian wrote:

    While I admit that sometimes it's a murky gray area, the afore mentioned indicators usually stand out for me.

    Whoa, easy there, Michale. Just trying to talk here and you're all "He's Hitler, he's Hitler! Kill, kill, kill!"

    All I'm trying to say is what I said about bin Laden. Go after the right people.

    Bin Laden was a terrorist. We went after him finally.

    On the other hand, the U.S. used "terrorism" to invade Iraq. It was our rational justification. Though this is not why we invaded Iraq. But this is how our government convinced us to go to war.

    They label people as terrorists.

    Let me ask you this, how many people would you kill if our government said you were "preventing terrorism"?

    I'm guessing you'd kill everyone our government labeled as terrorists. Would you kill 100,000 Iraqi civilians in the name of "preventing terrorism"? Would you kill 7 million people if our government said you were "preventing terrorism"? Would you think you were being rational?

    At this point, I don't exactly trust our government (or the Israelis) for that matter because they don't exactly have the best track record.

    This is why I don't believe all of the marketing about Iran. It is designed to bring us into another war. After the last 2 disasters, this isn't looking like such a great idea.

    My parting comment ... Sorry, CW. :)

    -David

  261. [261] 
    Michale wrote:

    Whoa, easy there, Michale. Just trying to talk here and you're all "He's Hitler, he's Hitler! Kill, kill, kill!"

    We were discussing how one could apple baseline observations to determine if a person is irrational despite their claim to the contrary..

    I just gave some examples.. :D

    On the other hand, the U.S. used "terrorism" to invade Iraq. It was our rational justification. Though this is not why we invaded Iraq. But this is how our government convinced us to go to war.

    While the connections were tenuous (at best) there WERE connections between Al Qaeda and Iraq, pre-invasion.

    But the main reason for the invasion of Iraq was the nuclear angle.

    And, at the time, it was the right decision to make.

    At this point, I don't exactly trust our government (or the Israelis) for that matter because they don't exactly have the best track record.

    Taking that stance to it's next logical step, this would imply that you DO trust the Iranian government.

    I mean, those are your choices, whether you like it or not.

    You can side with the US/Israelis or you can side with Iran...

    The choice of NOT taking a side is an option, but that puts you, de-facto, with Iran.

    This is why I don't believe all of the marketing about Iran. It is designed to bring us into another war. After the last 2 disasters, this isn't looking like such a great idea.

    And if the Left is wrong and it's NOT just "marketing"?? What then??

    Does the Left really want a glow-in-the-dark Tel Aviv??

    THAT is the question that the Left needs to ask itself...

    What if Iran *IS* a nuclear threat??

    Let's have THAT discussion, because THAT is the only discussion that matters...

    Michale.....

  262. [262] 
    Michale wrote:

    OK, just a quick warning: there's an automated cutoff for comments of two weeks. And you guys are about two days away from this happening, so if you've got parting shots, now's the time to take them.

    At the risk of being presumptuous (aww hell, when has THAT ever stopped me... :D) maybe you could pick a slow news day and post a short commentary:

    Iran.

    Talk amongst yourselves...
    :D

    Michale.....

  263. [263] 
    Michale wrote:

    We were discussing how one could apple baseline observations to determine if a person is irrational despite their claim to the contrary..

    ACK!!! There I go with Apples and Eskimos again..

    That SHOULD read:

    We were discussing how one could apply baseline observations to determine if a person is irrational despite their claim to the contrary..

    Michale.......

  264. [264] 
    akadjian wrote:

    You can side with the US/Israelis or you can side with Iran...

    So I'm a terrorist too. Great argument. You prove my point about "rationalizing".

    Seems anyone you don't agree with is an Iranian terrorist.

    Since now I'm an Iranian terrorist, does that mean you think our government should go to war against me?

    Repeat: How many people would you kill if our government said you were "preventing terrorism"?

    -David

  265. [265] 
    Michale wrote:

    So I'm a terrorist too. Great argument. You prove my point about "rationalizing".

    I never said that and you know I never would..

    All I am saying is that the people who want to wait want the same thing that the Iranian Government wants..

    Albeit for different reasons, but that doesn't change the fact that the Iranian Government wants time...

    And Obama and the Democrats don't seem to mind giving the Iranian Government exactly what it wants..

    Repeat: How many people would you kill if our government said you were "preventing terrorism"?

    Been there, done that....

    As many as it takes....

    Michale......

  266. [266] 
    Michale wrote:

    Repeat: How many people would you kill if our government said you were "preventing terrorism"?

    Are you saying that, in that situation, I SHOULDN'T obey the orders of my commander in chief, President Obama???

    You HAVE come over to the Dark Side!!! :D

    Michale.....

  267. [267] 
    dsws wrote:

    Since now I'm an Iranian terrorist, does that mean ...

    Since you're now an Iranian terrorist, does that mean you can give up on this non-conversation? I got started replying to him during fund-raiser season, when he promised to donate according to the number of comments he posted. It took me a lot longer to kick the habit than it should have.

    What's your excuse?

  268. [268] 
    Michale wrote:

    Since you're now an Iranian terrorist, does that mean you can give up on this non-conversation? I got started replying to him during fund-raiser season, when he promised to donate according to the number of comments he posted. It took me a lot longer to kick the habit than it should have.

    I am curious...

    What constitutes a "real conversation" in your book???

    A conversation with a person that basically agrees with everything you say??? :D

    Like I said. Just curious....

    Michale.....

  269. [269] 
    Michale wrote:

    I thought Democrats and Lefties were all about not being judgmental??

    Who are you to designate another person's conversations as a "non-conversation"???

    Seems to me that's a pretty Right-Wing thing to do, eh???

    Michale......

  270. [270] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Since you're now an Iranian terrorist, does that mean you can give up on this non-conversation?

    @dsws. Give up? Never :)

    -David

  271. [271] 
    Michale wrote:

    It really bugs me that most people here are so obsessed with motivations that they refuse to address the facts in front of them...

    I realize it's so much easier and (to the lesser mind) much more gratifying to simply call people names instead of address the issues in the here and now...

    But it's also very annoying to people who really want to discuss issues and come to some sort of consensus...

    Michale.....

  272. [272] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Michale,

    Since I know you and have come to find that at heart you're a good person, your style of discussion doesn't bother me.

    But to those not accustomed to your style, many will only see you in "hard charging" mode and not understand that there's more to you.

    In other words, to the uninitiated, you can sometimes sound like a Rush Limbaugh even though you're not a Rush Limbaugh.

    If you're ever interested in helping to ease this (I don't care if you are or not), one thought would be to ease off the hard charge all the time. Or, just try it sometime with someone you disagree with and see how they react. Something maybe to play with.

    On the flip side, I will say that something many liberals/progressives do, especially those coming from an academic background (I myself have to constantly guard against) is a tendency to be dismissive of arguments that sound different from those heard in an academic context.

    This is something I've recognized about myself and something I am to this day working on.

    Or perhaps I'm hallucinating all of this after a long 'effin day at work. Shiite ... what am I still doing up? Stoopid late night calls w/ Singapore.

    While we're not on the subject of good picks, how about the Ohio teams in the tourney?

    Ohio!

    -David

  273. [273] 
    Michale wrote:

    David,

    Thanx.. You raise some good points..

    I do have a certain style about me and it is different than your normal commenter, this I readily admit..

    But for gods sake. I have been here for almost 6 years now... A} People should be used to it and 2} It ain't gonna change.. :D I am too old and set in my ways to change...

    The more I think about it, the more this "Motivations" thing bothers me,

    Not only the fact that motivations seem to play more importance than the actual message, and not only the fact that most people here seem to think that they can discern motivations from the postings..

    No, the one thing that REALLY bothers me is that the assignment of motivations is TOTALLY arbitrary, based on whether or not they agree with the posting...

    In other words, post something like, "BUSH IS A WAR CRIMINAL AND A HITLER AND WANTS TO INVOKE A POLICE STATE" or a variance thereof over and over again and your a deep thinker and a solid patriotic American...

    Post something like, "Ya know, Democrats really have a problem with hypocrisy as evidenced by the Maher/Palen/Limbaugh/Fluke affair and President Obama is more Bush than Bush" or a variance thereof over and over again and your a "rabid partisan", a troll who spends their time having "non-conversations..

    Maybe I am expecting too much from people who actually ARE "rabid partisans"... To be fair, they never pretended to be anything else, so.....

    If you're ever interested in helping to ease this (I don't care if you are or not), one thought would be to ease off the hard charge all the time. Or, just try it sometime with someone you disagree with and see how they react. Something maybe to play with.

    I actually HAVE tried that and it HAS borne fruit... For a time... But then I'll say something they don't like or (again, to be fair) they will say something I don't like and it starts all over again...

    Oh well, it is what it is..

    I guess this is my parting shot. :D

    Thanx for listening...

    Michale.....

Comments for this article are closed.
[Powered by WordPress]