Author Random Political Thoughts  (Read 481638 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: Politics
« Reply #60 on: March 03, 2012, 09:35:19 AM »
I have to disagree, b_dubb.  She had already put herself out there in the "victim role," claiming that she and her friends would have to work "a whole summer" to pay for their birth control.

Waaaahhhh!


Just another attempt to normalize feminine unaccountability.  We're looking into the world of bottom dwellers.

Re: Politics
« Reply #61 on: March 03, 2012, 09:47:03 AM »
Just another attempt to normalize feminine unaccountability
you want to make women accountable?  but not radio hosts? rush shouldn't be accountable for his personal attacks made against private citizens?

Re: Politics
« Reply #62 on: March 03, 2012, 11:00:30 AM »

my point is this: rush pulls these STUNTS to get attention.  to inject his name into the public discourse.  by doing these STUNTS he further polarizes the issues.  he's furthering his own career at the expense of the quality of public discourse.

Exactly. He (and too many others) do these things because they WORK. Limbaugh got millions worth of free publicity over this from the people (including most of the press) who hate him. The tools advocating the advertising boycott aren't smart enough to realize that his show's advertising is fully subscribed, and it wouldn't surprise me if there were a waiting list.

I'm not sure if he or anyone could negatively affect the 'quality of public discourse' in this country, though. I think it hit bottom years ago.


Re: Politics
« Reply #63 on: March 03, 2012, 11:03:39 AM »
I don't see the little old ladies from her senior living facility getting any congressional time. 

Never say never. Contact Pelosi's office, and maybe she'll have one of her staff write another whiny press conference speech that someone from your Mom's facility can go to Capitol Hill and read, the way she did for that stoogette from Georgetown Law.

Re: Politics
« Reply #64 on: March 03, 2012, 11:28:43 AM »
Rush has a career because he makes these over the top remarks. He joins himself to the discussion. Which does nothing but muddy the water. The woman's remarks were ridiculous and stupid. Calling her a 'slut' was a publicity stunt for Rush. And by doing so he changed the context and made her seem like a victim. Which further serves to polarize discourse.  A reasonable response would havUe been to point out how stupid her ideas were, call her a child and say if you can get into law school you can buy your own damn birth control.
Here's why comments like this piss me off: Rush is a private citizen with a successful radio program which he developed himself. If he wants to call a woman a slut, he can. Freedom of speech is a beautiful thing in America, and its not just for when you agree. He's not a priest and he's free to make this judgment. He didn't cross any boundary, not professionally anyway, and I still can't believe the press' obsession with his comments.... where is their judgment in all this? They are boosting Rush's profile.


As to his advertisers, fuck sleep number! Temperpedic is superior anyway.


What shocks me is the President getting involved. How cheap. Just to get the female votes? If I can't pay for my birth friggin control, I'd make the a$$holes who want to sleep with me pay for it. Are women this fucking desperate and dumb in America in 2012? This woman made a fool of herself and many women by using the public and press' time to voice this. We have serious problems in America, and this isn't one of them.


I actually don't think Rush muddied anything. He did the right thing. If a woman wants money to have sex, there are options. If you don't like his humor or it bothers you, as with Noory, DO NOT LISTEN!

Re: Politics
« Reply #65 on: March 03, 2012, 11:33:07 AM »
you want to make women accountable?  but not radio hosts? rush shouldn't be accountable for his personal attacks made against private citizens?
Accountable how? For what?! He didn't do anything wrong.

Re: Politics
« Reply #66 on: March 03, 2012, 11:36:35 AM »
Here's why comments like this piss me off: Rush is a private citizen with a successful radio program which he developed himself. If he wants to call a woman a slut, he can. This is what we have in America. He's not a priest and he's free to make this judgment. He didn't cross any boundary, not professionally anyway.
he called a woman a slut and a prostitute.  that's slander.
What shocks me is the President getting involved. How cheap. Just to get the female votes? If I can't pay for my birth friggin control, I'd make the a$$holes who want to sleep with me pay for it. Are women this fucking desperate and dumb in America in 2012? This woman made a fool of herself and many women by using the public and press' time to voice this. We have serious problems in America, and this isn't one of them.
the President called her because she had been attacked in the national media by a very public figure.  Limbaugh is not a private citizen.  he is host on a nationally syndicated talk show
I actually don't think Rush muddied anything. He did the right thing. If a woman wants money to have sex, there are options. If you don't like his humor or it bothers you, as with Noory, DO NOT LISTEN!
the woman doesn't want to have money for sex.  which proves my points about limbaugh poisoning public discourse

Re: Politics
« Reply #67 on: March 03, 2012, 11:37:09 AM »
Accountable how? For what?! He didn't do anything wrong.
he called a woman a slut and prostitute. that's slander

Re: Politics
« Reply #68 on: March 03, 2012, 11:46:06 AM »
he called a woman a slut and prostitute. that's slander
Wrong. He did not say that. He said that a person who asks for money to have sex is a prostitute. He said that she's having so much sex that she needs us to pay for it. He said that this is as if she's a prostitute. LOL. slander.

Re: Politics
« Reply #69 on: March 03, 2012, 02:01:05 PM »
I went to my State's caucus today and it was a total joke.  Only 2 other people from my precinct showed up.  I'm not sure why I even went since none of the delegates will be selected or allocated based on the outcome of the caucus.  And the primary was canceled due to "budgetary considerations" by the Secretary of State and the State Legislature.  So in other words, my vote has absolutely no bearing on anything whatsoever.  Fuck this.  Representative government is dead.

http://www.nwcn.com/home/?fId=140958623&fPath=%2Fnews%2Flocal&fDomain=10212

Re: Politics
« Reply #70 on: March 03, 2012, 04:12:00 PM »
Wrong. He did not say that. He said that a person who asks for money to have sex is a prostitute. He said that she's having so much sex that she needs us to pay for it. He said that this is as if she's a prostitute. LOL. slander.
nope. he called her a slut and a prostitute.  he tried to retract the slut remark and called her 'round heeled' which is another way of calling someone a slut.  i went back and listened to the broadcast.  he said it.



Re: Politics
« Reply #71 on: March 03, 2012, 04:35:59 PM »

          Tax payers shouldn't complain about this. Anything that keeps a narcissistic moron( like this spoiled girl is) from reproducing is money well spent.

Re: Politics
« Reply #72 on: March 03, 2012, 06:38:24 PM »
nope. he called her a slut and a prostitute.  he tried to retract the slut remark and called her 'round heeled' which is another way of calling someone a slut.  i went back and listened to the broadcast.  he said it.



The best thing that douche can do for conservatives is shut that colostomy bag he calls a mouth.  The last thing we need is a fucking drug addict making moral judgements on our behalf. 

Re: Politics
« Reply #73 on: March 04, 2012, 12:43:38 AM »
Rush has a career because he makes these over the top remarks. He joins himself to the discussion. Which does nothing but muddy the water. The woman's remarks were ridiculous and stupid. Calling her a 'slut' was a publicity stunt for Rush. And by doing so he changed the context and made her seem like a victim. Which further serves to polarize discourse.  A reasonable response would havUe been to point out how stupid her ideas were, call her a child and say if you can get into law school you can buy your own damn birth control.

I'm certainly not a liberal Democrat, but I think that you made some excellent points. I agree with all of them. Another thing to consider is the fact that the MSM treats Rush like he's an elected or appointed official, like some senator or representative who can influence our government in some meaningful way. They don't even hold their own political allies to the same standards unless they're forced to do so. Did the MSNBC Obama cheerleaders and mouthpieces do exposes on Ayers and Wright? Did they skewer the leftist versions of Limbaugh when they made worse comments? It's ridiculous that Congress would waste time on silly things like resolutions calling for Limbaugh's condemnation. What he said was offensive, but the official reaction is more egregious.   

Re: Politics
« Reply #74 on: March 04, 2012, 02:23:26 AM »
Do you males know that "birth control pills" are a hormone treatment which are indicated for various non-reproductive issues?
Do you know that a main point of Ms. Fluke's testimony was to be about a friend of hers who had needed the pills for the hormone effect, due to an ovarian condition-- and that for lack of the pills (for the hormones only) ended up losing an ovary (which requires major surgery, which costs a lot of money-- for you fiscal hawks)...?

I won't even recount all the people that the Republican party has alienated over the last 30-40 years.  But-- honest to god-- do they REALLY think that alienating women is a winning strategy?

Re: Politics
« Reply #75 on: March 04, 2012, 03:06:05 AM »
Do you males know that "birth control pills" are a hormone treatment which are indicated for various non-reproductive issues?
Do you know that a main point of Ms. Fluke's testimony was to be about a friend of hers who had needed the pills for the hormone effect, due to an ovarian condition-- and that for lack of the pills (for the hormones only) ended up losing an ovary (which requires major surgery, which costs a lot of money-- for you fiscal hawks)...?

I won't even recount all the people that the Republican party has alienated over the last 30-40 years.  But-- honest to god-- do they REALLY think that alienating women is a winning strategy?

It so happens I am acutely aware of hormone replacement therapy for medically necessary conditions. My career is medicine.

However, let's not be coy about this issue - the Obama admin/liberals do not choose to limit discussion/mandates for the medically necessary HRT women who truly need this for serious conditions. Their agenda is clearly to provide a selected segment of society a drug FREE OF CHARGE, which, for the overwhelming majority of whom, is merely a convenience. I find the probability that ANY organization would reject HRT necessary for life-threatening conditions, about as close to zero as conceivable.

The objections by organizations, and individuals such as myself, is restricted to providing FREE CONTRACEPTION to all women FREE OF CHARGE - with contraception being a matter of convenience, NOT necessity.

Ortho-Novum costs ~$35/month. Other generic alternatives are cheaper yet. If a woman (and her partner(s) I might add!!!) cannot afford this minimal amount, to avoid their desire to not have children, I offer that they use other, quite reliable and very inexpensive forms of contraception. If not, keep your fucking legs closed - or buy 6 fewer Starbucks coffees, and buy your own pills. Might I also add there is no "means-testing" for these  mandates. Make $90,000/per year? No problem! Free birth control pills for all!

In the meantime, keep your fucking hands out of my wallet to subsidize your choices. If Obama and his ilk demand such mandates, then start subsidizing - or give me FREE - my life-saving Plavix, which I MUST take daily - which is over $200 per month.

I should also add that for truly poor women - that is, Medicaid eligible - birth control pills are already FREE OF CHARGE, and depending on the state, other forms of contraception are also free.

NOTE: above post not meant to attack the poster, but rather to address the issue generally


Re: Politics
« Reply #76 on: March 04, 2012, 03:11:53 AM »
Do you males know that "birth control pills" are a hormone treatment which are indicated for various non-reproductive issues?
Do you know that a main point of Ms. Fluke's testimony was to be about a friend of hers who had needed the pills for the hormone effect, due to an ovarian condition-- and that for lack of the pills (for the hormones only) ended up losing an ovary (which requires major surgery, which costs a lot of money-- for you fiscal hawks)...?

I won't even recount all the people that the Republican party has alienated over the last 30-40 years.  But-- honest to god-- do they REALLY think that alienating women is a winning strategy?


i just found an article from 2007 that said target is offering a month supply of birth control pills in some states for as little as $4.  i doubt the price has swung much since then.  even if it's increased 100% over the price in 2007, we're still only talking $8, so i don't get this manufacturing of a social problem requiring a government response where, in fact, no social problem exists to begin with.


furthermore, i reject this notion that ms. fluke speaks for "women" or that her position is inherently representative of the views of "women" everywhere or that a failure to cue the violins when she speaks alienates "women."  women have brains, and as such hold a wide array of beliefs on all issues.  like their male counterparts, women are in lockstep over almost NOTHING... be it reproductive issues or anything else.  your entire premise is flawed because it suggests women to be of one mind on these issues, and they are absolutely not. 


this whole birth control issue is being manufactured and manipulated explicitly for the purpose of (the administration and mainstream media hope) bolstering obama's numbers among women in an election year.  the obama administration must perceive its own female constituency to be a collection of brain dead idiots if they expect this phony issue to buy them political power.

Re: Politics
« Reply #77 on: March 04, 2012, 03:18:34 AM »
... Their agenda is clearly to provide a selected segment of society a drug FREE OF CHARGE
"FREE OF CHARGE" here meaning requiring private for-profit insurance companies to include the coverage in their for-profit premiums, right?   Because that = "free," right?

NOTE: above post not meant to attack the poster, but rather to address the issue generally
Back at ya

Re: Politics
« Reply #78 on: March 04, 2012, 03:23:30 AM »
...your entire premise is flawed ...
I stand duly chastened by the boss.   Sorry for being the buzz-killer and seeming like I was standing up for those snobby educated sluts.

Re: Politics
« Reply #79 on: March 04, 2012, 03:51:27 AM »
"FREE OF CHARGE" here meaning requiring private for-profit insurance companies to include the coverage in their for-profit premiums, right?   Because that = "free," right?

Well, I'd offer this rebuttal (which is rhetorical in nature, as I would contend there is no real, rational, legitimate response :) )

Under what Constitutional authority does Congress, or more importantly, unelected bureaucrats from a Federal agency, have the right to interfere in private contract law, mandating what private individuals and companies must provide, at no "cost" to the end-user? Additionally, of course, nothing is free - the costs are merely shifted to consumers of insurance via higher rates. For me, this is clearly an attempt to gain votes of a particular constituency, coercing non-thinking woman into embracing that the nanny-state is wonderful, by mandating otherwise free individuals or companies, to provide goods or services at no cost for this constituency, at the expense of freedom.

For me, this canard has has falsely defined the issue as "women's health" or contraception. Quite to the contrary, I would argue the Federal government has no Constitutional authority to interfere in private contract law, i.e. free individuals entering into private agreements, without coercion for or by the government.

Re: Politics
« Reply #80 on: March 04, 2012, 04:14:43 AM »
I liked the line so much that I copied it:
Well, I'd offer this rebuttal (which is rhetorical in nature, as I would contend there is no real, rational, legitimate response :) )
Under what Constitutional authority does Congress, or more importantly, unelected bureaucrats from a Federal agency, have the right to interfere in private contract law, mandating what private individuals and companies must provide, at no "cost" to the end-user?
How is it "no cost" for beneficiaries who by definition are payers into a private for-profit insurance plan?
Just like "unemployment pay" is "free welfare," right?  Even after it's been deducted from paychecks for the whole term that determines your length and amount of eligibility...?
...I would argue the Federal government has no Constitutional authority to interfere in private contract law, i.e. free individuals entering into private agreements, without coercion for or by the government.
I trust that you have been railing against your state government, if they, like most of them, mandate that you buy car insurance?
 :-* :-*

Re: Politics
« Reply #81 on: March 04, 2012, 05:40:43 AM »
I trust that you have been railing against your state government, if they, like most of them, mandate that you buy car insurance?
 :-* :-*
   


The government doesn't require that I buy a car.  Also, states that do require car insurance only stipulate that a person obtains liability.  Liability is a benefit to other people, and not the insured.  Therefore, the mandate for car insurance is constitutional.

Re: Politics
« Reply #82 on: March 04, 2012, 05:58:15 AM »
The government doesn't require that I buy a car....
I don't know where to start on this.
I guess that y'all are a bunch of people who heard "no taxes" and thought "Libertarian" = "Eden"
Who is supposed to pay for all the stuff you folks want?
I know you all love war, right?
Who is supposed to pay for that?
Users of hormone pills ??


Re: Politics
« Reply #83 on: March 04, 2012, 05:59:27 AM »
I trust that you have been railing against your state government, if they, like most of them, mandate that you buy car insurance? :-* :-*

As a Constitutional "originalist" (the principle of interpretation that tries to discover the original meaning or intent of the Constitution), I support "states rights" via the tenth amendment, the text of which is:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The tenth amendment, upheld by numerous Supreme Court decisions, has as its principle that, the Federal government is limited only to the powers granted in the Constitution (known as enumerated powers), but that, however, the States have rights to pass laws as they see fit under their own constitutions (so long as they do not supersede Federal law). A relevant example would be that, before Roe v. Wade (an atrocious abomination itself with manufactured fantasy derived from the 14th amendment), in the early 1970's for example, since abortion was not a Constitution right, individual states had the rights to pass laws legalizing abortion, or making it illegal. And so it was, as it was legal in New York State (and others) to obtain an abortion, many women traveled to these states, paid their $200, and had an abortion. It was not legal in my state, so many chose to travel to states where it was legal.

Women had access to abortions, (albeit 'less convenient') but it was the State's right to determine its legality. If a citizen does not like the laws of their state, they are, as free individuals, free to move to a state more to there liking. This is what is great about America - to express and act on your views either by electing like-minded representatives, or moving to a place more conducive to your beliefs and what our founding document described as, "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

I have some personal experience with some of these musings: I used to live in a state (Michigan) with oppressive taxes of all kinds, a governor (Granholm) who drove the state to near collapse, and a full-time legislature, whose job it seems, is to protect certain political constituencies, rather than serve the people as a whole. Case in point: my cousin started out "on the line" at Ford Motor Company; became a UAW union steward, became a local city councilman, then became a State representative, got term-limited, then became a State senator. His pay is $71,650 per year, with generous allowances, including $12,000 for "office expenses." His pay is second only to California... and believe me, his position and stature allow him to never pay for a meal, or many other perks, the like of which many of us will never experience.

He is now running for a national political position in the House of Representatives. In my state (not far from Frys Girl), however (where I moved TO to escape high taxes, etc.), we have a part-time legislature which meets every 2 years for a month or two, gets their business done, then goes home to their "real" jobs and families. Our state has a surplus, and an unemployment rate below the national average (~6.2% give or take).

So, perhaps to your surprise, while I do not necessarily agree with mandated car insurance purchases by most if not all states, I do defend their Constitutional right to do so pursuant to the tenth amendment. The Federal government is limited by enumerated powers, as envisioned by our Founding Fathers as a representative republic, with Federal power explicitly limited so as to avoid tyranny. I personally feel we are living in a soft-tyranny, and recommend "Men in Black" (describing the utter idiocy of many Supreme Court decisions), "Liberty and Tyranny," and "Ameritopia," all written by Mark Levin. I'd also recommend almost anything by Milton Friedman, where he eloquently describes the nature of free economic markets, individual liberty, and the role of government.

Damn! That was way longer than I intended. Loquacious is my middle name. I'm exhausted so pardon any grammar errors.

Re: Politics
« Reply #84 on: March 04, 2012, 08:14:59 AM »
I watched her testimony. It was ridiculous. I watched her testify that a woman and her husband wanted birth control but that they had to go without it because of the cost. Wow. The problems of 2012. As to the uterine fibroid issue, birth control is a very bad way to treat this problem. Jumping on a trampoline is better and more effective. I'm serious. My mom had this problem, which is why I know. She did the hormone/birth control route, and she wanted to die. These pills are poison anyway.


Ultrasound is the best, but it costs too much and insurance companies do not cover it. Instead of figuring out these challenges: making it so medical treatments incorporate safe, effective technology to cure illness, the left is still clinging to these dusty old debates about birth control and women's bodies being the issue of the day.


This mandate is illegal and even if it were to pass, it is ridiculous to squeeze in this kind of unnecessary prescriptions. Catastrophic is it.


As to Ben Shockley's posts, they are typical of liberal contributions in most things. Irrelevant and meaningless. "You all like war right, who pays for that?" Even if that were true, and it is not, at least in the case of little old me, is it RIGHT?! So we spend irresponsibly on one thing, so we may as well do it on other things.

Re: Politics
« Reply #85 on: March 04, 2012, 08:23:36 AM »
you disagree that her remarks were ridiculous and stupid? 


Sorry.  I wasn't clear--I was disagreeing with the part where you said Rush made her a victim. 

My point was that she had already put herself out there as a victim--and I would add that she had help.  She probably doesn't even realize she's being used by the left. 

I agree that Rush is hyperbolic.  That's his schtick, of course.  But it often doesn't help things. 

Re: Politics
« Reply #86 on: March 04, 2012, 08:25:30 AM »

Just another attempt to normalize feminine unaccountability.  We're looking into the world of bottom dwellers.

I liked Mary Catherine Ham's comment on about infantilizing women by painting them as people who couldn't possibly get their own birth control without help from the government. 

Re: Politics
« Reply #87 on: March 04, 2012, 08:28:15 AM »
Never say never. Contact Pelosi's office, and maybe she'll have one of her staff write another whiny press conference speech that someone from your Mom's facility can go to Capitol Hill and read, the way she did for that stoogette from Georgetown Law.

Heh heh.

My mom would rather shoot herself than have anything to do with Pelosi. 

Re: Politics
« Reply #88 on: March 04, 2012, 08:31:45 AM »
The legal employment market is pretty shitty, even for Georgetown grads. I don't blame Sandra Fluke for letting Nancy Pelosi pimp her out for this dumb cause if it means she going to end up with a job after passing the bar.


Not really relevant, but I got a gay vibe from Fluke. Wouldn't that be funny if it turns out.......

Re: Politics
« Reply #89 on: March 04, 2012, 08:33:47 AM »
he called a woman a slut and a prostitute.  that's slander.the President called her because she had been attacked in the national media by a very public figure.  Limbaugh is not a private citizen.  he is host on a nationally syndicated talk show

So I'm just wondering--does the same reasoning hold true for those in the media who said horrible things about Breitbart immediately after his death?  Things like, "Fuck him!  I'm glad he's dead!" (paraphrasing, but close).  Should the president call Breitbart's wife and children and apologize to them because their late husband/father was attacked in the national media by public figures?