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.....

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

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.....

@dsws. Give up? Never :)

-David

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......

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.....

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?

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.....

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......

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

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.......

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.....

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.....

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

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......

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

Oh yea. Sanctions will stop Iran from developing Nuclear Weapons..

NOT if we keep exempting every Tom, Dick and Harry....

Jeeezus....

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.....

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

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.....

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......

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

Comin' around to the Dark Side, are we?? :D

Michale...

And AchmedJihadist makes Hitler look positively gentle and sane...

Michale.....

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.

You might be surprised ... :)

-David

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.....

It is, a return to a governing royalty.

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

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....

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

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.....

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

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....

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

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.....

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

Publicly they attack and berate, but privately they are on their knees begging...

Michale.....

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.....

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

(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.....

If people had to pay upfront for the cost of war, I think we'd see smarter decisions.

Then own the wars. No deal unless you own what you started :)

(Hypothetically speaking, of course ...)

-David

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.....

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

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?"

"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

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.....

No, thank you for confirming (as if there were any doubt) that you are, indeed, a partisan Republican polemicist. :)

Thank you for providing irrefutable evidence that my theory is, indeed, dead on balls accurate... :D

Michale.....

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!!!

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....

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.....

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.....

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....

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!!!!!

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/03/15/ladies-dont-be-fooled-by-obamas-overtures-have-got-to-break-up-with-him/

Michale.....

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.....

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.

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

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.....

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.....

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.....

Step 1: Lean to the side, raise cheek off of chair;
Step 2: Click on "Submit Comment" button;
Step 3: Let her rrrrrrrriiiippppppppppppp!!!!!

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'...

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.....

"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.

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.....

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.....

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.

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

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?

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.....

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.....

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.

{{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......

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.....

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!

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

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.....

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.....

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

At least on the issue of Rush's and Maher's crude and reprehensible remarks...

Michale.....

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...

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

Perhaps. Nonetheless, it's true. Context matters.

-David

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.....

dsws: yep.

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.

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

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.....

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.

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.

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.....

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?

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.....

There you go.

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....