Democrats & Liberals Archives

The Unbearable Rightness of Being

The problem for Rush Limbaugh is that he can satisfy no-one in particular by backing down the way he has, or his supporters by apologizing like he should. What he said was more offensive than he ever truly considered, and worse yet, he and his political movement have made backing off of any comment, stupid or not, fairly difficult and painful.

Why is it necessary that women be sluts or prostitutes if they take birth control? Of the two women I know for sure take it, one is a happily married woman, and the other is taking it for hormonal regulation. Sure, a woman can take it or use it to support such a lifestyle, but most women don't.

And that includes, as Republicans have discovered to their chagrin, most Catholic women, and definitely, most protestants. Unfortunately, Rush and others have crossed their bridge to the nineteenth century, and decided the only reason why a woman would want to prevent conception is either to keep herself in business long term, or enable her to sleep with a lot of men outside of marriage.

It never enters into their minds that in a modern age where children are expensive to raise, many people want to be prepared to raise them under the right circumstances. They're not off-base for wanting that. When Elizabeth Warren did research into what caused most bankruptcies for women, the answer didn't come out shoes or dresses or whatever else.

The common thread between most of them was having children.

Times have changed, folks. Cohabitation is common, even expected before marriage. It's more expensive to raise children. Most of us live in suburban or urban environments. Doctors and pharmaceutical companies now understand the hormonal shifts that accompany conception.

If the Republicans think they can turn back the clock on the Sexual Revolution, undo the hated slippage of sexual mores that greeted the next few decades, they're kidding themselves. If they fear it that much? Well, I'd say growth into adulthood and recognition of the consequences of alternative relationships turned off many from free love. Love has a way of binding people, of bringing to natural emergence the forces that encourage monogamy. We do tend to want that person all to ourselves. We would rather wait and choose who we have children with, and only have them when we're prepared to raise them.

Too many on the Right look at the contraception debate, much less the abortion debate, with a kind of heroes and villains perspective, casting the woman who seeks to control her reproduction as the worst of womanhood, the whore, the baby-killer. They never stop to think that to many, an embryo or a fetus is not developed enough to be a full person, or that a person might have a purpose in contraception other than heedless hedonism, that the person they're criticizing might just have morals and moral reasoning of their own, and not dark intentions at heart.

Well, whether or not you believe that, many people see themselves as the heroes, and balk at being attacked like that. Romney might not have helped himself by saying that those weren't the words he would have used, because it wasn't just the words "slut" or "prostitute" that got women up in arms about this, it was the underlying commentary on what women's management of their own reproductive systems reflected.

You were basically telling many of American's women that they were loose, mercenary lovers who would drop their pants for any man. I don't know how things go in your neck of the woods, but around where I come from, that's a bit of an insult. I doubt, hopefully, that what Romney meant was that he would choose kinder ways to call women loose whores. But you know, that's what his words amount to.

Rush Limbaugh was questioning the sexual morals of Sandra Fluke, on account of her seeking out and supporting the seeking out of contraception. Unfortunately for Rush, especially with his sponsors, there are a lot more people in the subset of the American population that he's turned his entertainer's mike on this time. I don't see where he has Romney's excuse of just being a lily-livered politician who doesn't want to stand up to the Right Wing's number one rated pundit. Rush is that pundit, and he picks his positions for the sake of controversy-garnering attention.

Unfortunately, too many people take what he and his imitators say at face value. Over time, the efforts of Limbaugh and others have transformed the GOP into a party whose platform is primarily based on having a rhetorically violent disagreement with Democrats and Liberals. It's also, though, turned the GOP into a party that has no consistent mind of its own, and no place for its leaders or voters to stand, other than in disagreement with their fellow American, sometimes even hostility.

For Limbaugh, observing the social standards of decent, logical, fact based analysis of where your position should land is a loser.

One, that soon means the issue is settled, and you have a consensus. No more controversy!

Two, that means you can be defeated if you have your facts wrong. If you don't have to rely on facts, just the feeling that you're right, you can be much more flexible.

Three, that means sometimes accepting a non-absolute level of antagonism with Democrats and liberals, which makes it easier for Democrats to influence Republicans.

All in all, Limbaugh can't afford to be inoffensive. He hasn't built himself on a foundation of moderation, he's built himself on stampeding people over to the far right, and building a siege-mentality driven community of thought with himself at the center. He wants to be an opinion leader, and so do many of the politicians and pundits who follow his lead. If folks step outside, and see that the rest of America isn't out to get them, or America for that matter, then people are going to see Rush for the manipulative, self-serving provocateur that he is.

Or, if they're not prepared to see their idol back down, they'll wonder why he doesn't stick to his guns and fight off the enemy, why he's giving in.

Rush's problem is the party's problem in general. Rush's counterparts, looking to create an electorate that is as fanatically opposed to the Democrats as they are fanatically loyal to the Republicans, have conditioned the followers willing to stay into becoming purists intent on taking the party all the way to the far right. If they don't behave as purists, then the Republicans out there have their back against the wall in terms of the next election.

But of course, not everybody's a purist, and while having a fanatical base is useful sometimes, it comes at the price of severely narrowed options and appeals to voters. And if you've turned off to many other voters, left too many people behind, well then you have the balancing problem from hell: gain the center without losing your base, with much of what you would do to keep your base endangering your center, and vice versa.

I've been telling Republicans this for the past few years, but they've been confident that they could have their cake and eat it, too, mostly I imagine by having folks like Limbaugh blacken the names of the liberals out there, turn people against them.

At some point, though, the oppositional nature of the GOP has to come back to bite it. It's just inevitable. Democrats and Liberals are not some exotic form of life, they're about half the country, and their party membership doesn't set the limit of who agrees with them on certain subjects. If you don't have a subject to unite people on, that people agree with your policy on, you'll find it very hard to hold on to majorities, either official or operational (like, say, with passing a bill). Already, we've seen Tea Party Representatives split their party's vote in Congress over their purist hatred of liberal policy, sending their leaders back to the drawing board, ironically to bring even more concessions to the liberals into the deal so that darn thing passes.

America is a Democratic Republic, with the power of the people delegated to their Representatives, Senators, and the President, who in turn delegate it to others. At every turn, the Constitution requires people to share power. Sure you can elect a hard-right ideologue who doesn't know the mean of the world compromise, but that poor fellow can't force everybody else to do things his way, and if he doesn't make the deals, his real world influence on policy will be next to nothing. Politics in a representative democracy is a game of numbers. You can't count on simple political willpower to buffalo everything through.

For me, the philosophy's always been this: what's the closest I can get to what I want, with the votes my party has? Whatever that is, I support the best possible outcome. Trick is, of course, there are some situations where the best possible outcome isn't any good at all. That's when I start pushing for change in personnel. That's where a lot of people do the same, too.

I think Republicans misread what people were reacting against in 2010. I think what people were angry about was the failure of the government to work together to solve the pressing problems of the day, and turning to Republicans was perhaps a nod to earlier times, when Republicans and Democrats reached compromises and forged policy that seemed to work well for both sides. Unfortunately, what they got out of it was a series of needless, stupid hostage situations, and a pack of Republicans unwilling to compromise with anybody.

Some analyze the situation, and wonder how the Republicans could have lost support so quickly, how they could fail to take advantage of the political situation, how they could have delivered the clown car of mediocre or worse candidates that they're fielding now. Well, I think, the way they set things up, they couldn't do anything else. They got back Republicans to the fold, and conservative-leaning independents essentially by promising that they would compromise on nothing. Not only was that a promise they could never keep in a republic like ours, it meant that they handed control of the party to the wing least willing to do the frustrating real world work of governing, especially in Congress. They gave themselves no room to respond to the rest of Americans, no room to better center their party.

Now, on contraception, they're paying for it, because they picked a topic they thought would appeal to most conservatives, but which it turns out alienates many women, and as the rhetoric gets closer to the old-fashioned, pre-women's lib rhetoric that lurks under the surface, the number of people it alienates and mystifies grows.

Republicans, have unwittingly, through bad politics, and worse policy positions, built the opposition much more effectively than Democrats could have done by themselves. That is perhaps the most dramatic irony of Republican's recent missteps: through their purism and unwillingness to back down or concede any defeats, they have strengthened the very movements they hoped to make themselves invulnerable to.

Posted by Stephen Daugherty at March 6, 2012 7:31 PM
Comments
Comment #337730

Stephen

The issue is not birth control. In most states, birth control can be had for free or for very little money. In Washington (where Georgetown University sits) a woman can buy a supply of birth control for about $9 a month, less than 30 cents a day.

Anybody who can afford to attend Georgetown Law School, where tuition is around $50,000 a year, can afford 30 cents a day. This is not about access. It is about government telling people what to do.

I do give credit to the Obama folks for manufacturing this crisis. Rush fell into the trap.

There is a general principle here. Should government dictate all these parts of your life? Shouldn’t we pay for our own expenses when we can?

I take lipitor for high cholesterol. This is certainly an important medicine. My insurance pays for part, but not all. Ironically, the co-pay is around $10, very similar to the cost of birth control. Shouldn’t we demand that it be free to “save lives”? Where do we stop with these demands?

I am bald. It hurts my self-esteem. My insurance won’t pay for hair transplants. It also won’t pay for laser surgery to correct vision. It doesn’t pay for a dental crown, nor for many other things. Isn’t it terrible that government denies these things to me?

Posted by: C&J at March 6, 2012 9:35 PM
Comment #337734

Obama didn’t create the controversy. Republicans looking to wedge voters from him on religious matters did it. Only they were so behind the times that they didn’t even realize how outdated their assumptions were. Blaming Obama for manufacturing a crisis is silly, though you could blame Rush for making it so easy for Obama to whack him with the club of public opinion.

The question on preventative medicine was one of saving the system money overall A pregnancy costs more than those pills, so why not mandate coverage for something cheap to prevent something expensive?

Also, something to consider here: government isn’t mandating that people take birth control, it’s requiring insurance providers to pay for it at no cost to the consumer. It’s funny how Republicans these days talk about people’s freedom, when the people they’re talking about are the corporate persons.

As far as the preventative options go, if you really look at it, only the Statins might fall in that category All the rest reflect either a cure for an existing condition, or a vanity treatment that prevents nothing but self-inflicted low self-esteem.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 6, 2012 10:25 PM
Comment #337735

Stephen

$9 a month.

I am not advocating denying anybody birth control. I think that if a person wants to use it, it is probably better if they do not reproduce. But I don’t think that the government should force others to pay for it if they think it is wrong.


I am in favor of greater choice and pluralism. Not everyone should be forced to do the same things by government (or anybody else for that matter.)

Posted by: C&J at March 6, 2012 10:30 PM
Comment #337737

I explain that, the church doesn’t have to pay for it at all in plans for its own church workers, the folks who work directly for the organization. I explain the exception carved out for church related organizations that shift the cost to insurance companies who already have to pay for everybody else.

The only room you have left is to make this an option for nobody, and that itself is a serious rollback of the current rights of women with insurance.

You have to deny somebody some rights in order to have your people be entirely economically disconnected from what they consider so sinful.

Isn’t that taking it a little far?

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 6, 2012 11:05 PM
Comment #337738

Stephen

So you think it is an absolute right for this particular medication to be provided free and that even the low price is too much to ask? And you believe that people need not take responsibility for paying for even inexpensive medicines?

There is no reason to make this an option for nobody. The idea that it is all or nothing reflects the totalitarian impulse I found so distasteful in the Obama program. Why cannot we allow some diversity, pluralism and choice?

My insurance covers some things and not others. I have a dental option, which I do not take because I think it costs too much. Should government mandate that we all take the same.

Posted by: C&J at March 6, 2012 11:30 PM
Comment #337741

C&J-
Absolute right? What is it about these turned-to-eleven strawmen these days?

The courts hold that it is a legal right to have contraception included in women’s health plans, which exceptions carved out for religious institutions, but not for religious-affliated institutions. That’s on simple coverage, which legislation recently supported many Republicans in the Senate would have let employers simply cast aside.

The ACA simply states that there be no copay for it.

Maybe you don’t need the money, but for many of us, a few more dollars a year is a blessing.

I think it’s a rather more totalitarian approach that allows employer to deny individuals the choice they’ve had for quite some time, in the name of giving their employers more freedom.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 7, 2012 12:28 AM
Comment #337742

mandated contraceptive benefits without co-pay are going to reduce insurance premiums (or at worst, minimize increased costs due to other unrelated expenses), reduce unwanted pregnancies, reduce abortions, reduce future welfare recipient numbers…
the benefits of this mandate are so over-whelming I just can’t wrap my head around any reason for opposing it.
except of course, the medieval thinking of the catholic church.
Absolute right to contraception without co-pay? no of course there’s no ‘absolute right’. Just like there’s no ‘absolute right’ to freedom of speech, the right to bear arms, habeus corpus… if you check your local death penalty laws, you’ll find there is no ABSOLUTE RIGHT to life.

welcome to 21st century America. if you don’t like it, perhaps Iran has laws more to your liking.

Posted by: thom houts at March 7, 2012 1:16 AM
Comment #337743

Thom and Stephen

If this is such a good thing, why not mandate that all women take birth control pills?

As I wrote above, I am in favor of women having access to birth control. I am in favor of poor women having access and like you I would be delighted if we could by birth control avoid future welfare recipients (although I think it very un-PC for you to bring up that argument). But I also believe in choice and pluralism.

We can come to different conclusions and make different choice. Government may decide what is good for us and mandate that we have it. I suppose if we believe in the supreme wisdom of political leaders, that might be a good idea. Do you believe in that?

I am not much concerned with the underlying issue. In fact, as I have repeated many times, I think it is a good thing to have easy access to contraceptives. If you don’t want to have a kid, I certainly support you not contributing those genes to the next generation. I am concerned with the precedent that government should mandate particular benefits despite significant moral opposition. I believe that women should have the choices. We all should have as many choices as possible. I don’t think we need government to mandate that we all make the same choices.

Posted by: C&J at March 7, 2012 1:32 AM
Comment #337746

“I don’t think we need government to mandate that we all make the same choices.”
huh?
that’s an impossible leap you’ve made
The ACA no co-pay contraception benefit DOESN’T mandate that we all make the same choices… it mandates that we all have the same selection of choices to make, regardless of our financial circumstances. No one is forcing anyone to get contraceptives… no one is forcing anyone to use contraceptives.

this is NOT the slippery slope that was when flouride was added to everyone’s water… this is the slippery slope that was when women got the vote… they didn’t have to… but if they wanted to they could.

(please spare us your hyperbolic rhetoric “If this is such a good thing, why not mandate that all women take birth control pills?” have you forgotten that OURS is the party of ‘CHOICE’?

Posted by: thom houts at March 7, 2012 4:35 AM
Comment #337747

“I don’t think we need government to mandate that we all make the same choices.”
huh?
that’s an impossible leap you’ve made
The ACA no co-pay contraception benefit DOESN’T mandate that we all make the same choices… it mandates that we all have the same selection of choices to make, regardless of our financial circumstances. No one is forcing anyone to get contraceptives… no one is forcing anyone to use contraceptives.

this is NOT the slippery slope that was when flouride was added to everyone’s water… this is the slippery slope that was when women got the vote… they didn’t have to… but if they wanted to they could.

(please spare us your hyperbolic rhetoric “If this is such a good thing, why not mandate that all women take birth control pills?” have you forgotten that OURS is the party of ‘CHOICE’?

Posted by: thom houts at March 7, 2012 4:36 AM
Comment #337749

C&J-
Because that would be an invasion of medical privacy, which we’re not supposed to do in this country. See, women always have the choice of whether they’re going to have kids or not at a given point. One laughable part of some Right-Wing Pundit’s talk about birth control pills is how you’re supposed to take more of them if you’re having more sex. Sorry fellows, doesn’t work that way.

Contraception is not a good or a bad thing, it is a choice. Some people will regret not having kids, or not having them sooner, and some will be glad that they could have their children when they wanted to, but not also lose having a love life with their spouse in the meantime. But one thing for sure, it will prevent unwanted and unexpected pregnancies, not to mention actual abortions.

As for your un-PC argument?

Let me shock you here, and tell you that nothing you’re saying is shocking. The only thing that would be shocking is if you said something bigoted like that the poor are unusually promiscuous, or something like that. Part of the whole argument of the pro-choice movement is that people who can’t afford to have children don’t have to go through unwanted pregnancies, and the stagnating effect they can have on a person’s future. Contraception is probably a more agreeable compromise along those lines as you don’t have to agree with abortion to agree with contraception.

Let me be politically incorrect: the folks who promote abstinence only sex-ed are fools. Teens do still have sex, still do get pregnant after they learn the birds and the bees. You got all these “technical virgins” who essentially have every other kind of sex besides the good old fashioned kind. They still fornicate, commit what you could still term sodomy, though the term got applied mainly to homosexuals thanks to inconsistent enforcement.

Teaching about contraception improves STD prevention, reduces the number of pregnancies, and avoids the shallow mockery of real abstinence that modern kids practice.

But really, the Darwinian angle? It’s sounds tough, but it really misunderstands evolution, especially for human beings. It’s not merely numbers of children, it’s quality of life for those children. You need to promote the health, social status, and psychological well-being of your kids. If you have ten kids, but they’re sickly, unlikely to find spouses to have productive relationships of their own (in more than one sense of the term), or unlikely to parent well… well, then you’re like one of those invertebrates that has many children with the notion that having so many would mean you’d have survivors as disease and other misfortunes killed the rest.

But if you pick and choose when you have the children, then you can have fewer, but be more likely to see them live to adulthood, have more resources to lavish on each, more attention to pay to each. We humans, ourselves, trade large litters of children like other animals have for a single baby we take care of better with our greater intelligence.

So I think it’s take your pick, when it comes to evolution. Neither strategy is entirely good, nor entirely bad from a true Darwinian perspective. Each has its advantages and its pitfalls, but given the fact that in modern times, in the United States, it takes greater financial resources to properly raise and care for a child, the advantage may be greater now for those who take artificial control of their reproductive cycles.

And about the last part? For the last time, government isn’t mandating the choice to seek contraception, just that when you make that choice, your insurance pays for it all. It already pays for much of it, this just raises the insurance company’s share to a complete one. Given how cheap you insist that the drugs are, and how expensive you’d probably conceded having children is, it is arguable that this preventative care actually saves insurance companies money.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 7, 2012 6:54 AM
Comment #337750

I think I should clarify a comment before it gets out of hand: No, I was not saying people who have lots of children are invertebrates themselves, or should be respected as such (say like being bugs to squash). I should have also pointed out that fish and frogs also have many children in order that some may survive predators and other misfortunes in order to reproduce.

My only line of comparison is one that follows along that which C&J were pushing, which was that having more kids equals better evolutionary success. I made the comparison and talked of the different strategies in order to expose the pseudoscientific basis of his argument, that simply having more children was not the only way one could work to make sure one’s genes continue towards the future.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 7, 2012 7:10 AM
Comment #337752

I value the right in which we have freedom of speech. I really think that people are extremely sensitive about everything these days! Rush has always been over the top and he will always be this way….. In the words of the very funny Kevin Hart, “Say It With Your Chest!”

Posted by: Who Will Lead Us? at March 7, 2012 7:38 AM
Comment #337755

I see that several reponses refer to “free” contraceptives. Whether or not there is a co-pay, the drugs are not “free”, just that their co-pay cost to the customer is to shifted to other areas. I think that is the crux of the Catholic Church’s objection; they see that they are being required to subsidize something they object to morally.

As far as the arguement that contraceptives incur less long term cost than pregancy, my intuition tells me that is probably true; however, I wonder why the insurance conmpanies have not offered contraceptives co-pay free to encourage their use and reduce their cost of doing business?

By the way, I would be fine with the Federal government offering “free” contraceptives to all takers, I just don’t think any organization should be forced to participate.

Posted by: Mike in Tampa at March 7, 2012 8:21 AM
Comment #337756

And the spinning keeps going. Sigh.

Rush didn’t say women who take birth control are sluts, he went off on this because Fluke expects somebody else to pay for her “free” contraception.

Fact is that no woman, Fluke or any other, has been or would have been denied contraception or contraception coverage.
A fact that is intentionally ignored in order to prey on the fears of women for political gain.

Posted by: kctim at March 7, 2012 9:24 AM
Comment #337758

Speaking of spin kctim it seems your doing it yourself. Sigh.

Rush and others that make the phony claim of paying for the birth control of others are wrong. This false assumption really doesn’t help the debate does it?

Posted by: j2t2 at March 7, 2012 9:38 AM
Comment #337760

This is all for political gain and nothing more. If we are to allow one type of pill or procedure without a co pay, we should allow ALL types of medical procedures and medications without a co pay and mandate that insurers pay for it. The problem I see is that liberals want to put the RESPONSIBILITY FACTOR on someone else instead of their own self. It’s a sad state in this country when people will NOT act responsibly or take responsibility of their actions on themselves but want someone else to be responsible for their actions.

Posted by: KAP at March 7, 2012 9:57 AM
Comment #337761

Really J2? Dang. But, I am big enough to admit when I am wrong, so I apologize.

Please educate me and tell me where I am wrong so that I do not make the same mistake twice:

I thought an insurance policy consisted of a group of people who paid into the policy and that money was used to help pay for the costs of things the policy covered?
Are you suggesting that the premiums I pay are used to pay for only my costs? That none of my premiums help pay for the costs of others?

That goes totally against the lefts claims that government ran universal health care would create a huge pool of people to help each other out, doesn’t it?

Posted by: kctim at March 7, 2012 10:05 AM
Comment #337766
I thought an insurance policy consisted of a group of people who paid into the policy and that money was used to help pay for the costs of things the policy covered?

kctim, sigh. I agree with your general statement here. However I have never received a statement from an insurance company breaking out how each and every penny of the premium I paid was spent. You nor I know if you paid for you and yours or more. However we do know that the people you complain about are paying into the same group policy. Why would you automatically assume you are paying for their particular Doctor’s bill or prescription?

It seems to me you have more of an issue with the higher costs charged by the insurance company as you feel some of the money may be used to benefit someone else in a given year. Yet by definition an insurance plan is taken to keep costs down for all. If you have an individual plan you are paying for what the insurance company deems is the risk they take for someone your age and with your particulars.


Are you suggesting that the premiums I pay are used to pay for only my costs?

I am suggesting that the person you complain about is also paying into the same plan. Why would one think they are paying for your Viagra whilst you pay for their birth control? All who pay also pay the salaries and perks of those employed at the insurance company not to mention the overhead. Hell kctim, you even pay for the guy investigating you to see if they can get out of paying your claim. Your paying for the shareholders return on their investment. But not only are you paying the person you object to paying for is also paying as well.

That none of my premiums help pay for the costs of others?

No kctim I am saying prove where the amount you pay goes. You automatically assume it is for the birth control for the girl down he street and not for the Viagra for the old guy down the street. Yet you don’t know this. Why wouldn’t the girl down the street be paying for her own as she is paying premiums as you are?

That goes totally against the lefts claims that government ran universal health care would create a huge pool of people to help each other out, doesn’t it?

Not really kctim. Your point that younger guys in good shape, who usually pay smaller premiums, help to pay for the older people with major health problems is accurate,IMHO. But they usually don’t need birth control do they? For all we know the lady your complaining about may be paying for someone just like you who is younger and healthy but has been in an accident, as the younger ones are more apt to do, but then isn’t the young guy also contributing to the group plan?

Posted by: j2t2 at March 7, 2012 11:32 AM
Comment #337767
If we are to allow one type of pill or procedure without a co pay, we should allow ALL types of medical procedures and medications without a co pay and mandate that insurers pay for it.

I agree KAP. If the doctor prescribes it the insurance should accept it. Why let the corporate money hounds determine your health care.

The problem I see is that liberals want to put the RESPONSIBILITY FACTOR on someone else instead of their own self. It’s a sad state in this country when people will NOT act responsibly or take responsibility of their actions on themselves but want someone else to be responsible for their actions.

Of course with you guys it is always blame the liberals or the government or both, KAP. Yet the insurance companies are the poor victims that are just trying to make a buck. Why not expect the insurance companies to show some corporate responsibility to those that buy their product not to the executives of the corporation?

Such a lack of personal responsibility to expect health care insurance you pay for to pay for healthcare.

Posted by: j2t2 at March 7, 2012 12:40 PM
Comment #337768

Mike in Tampa-
They’re not being forced to pay for anything, the insurance companies are. The Catholic Church is not responsible for what insurance companies do with their revenues, any more than a synagogue’s members are responsible for any violations of dietary law that the companies that prepare their Kosher foods commit on their other food processing lines.

That is, if the Catholic Church minds its own business. We could shape our whole culture around preventing any kind of moral dilemmas for the church, but that’s not really the American way, is it? They pay, not subsidize, pay the insurance company for the insurance that they’re willing to pay for, covering the cost for the parts of the plan that everybody else would pay, and not the contraception parts. The insurance company, which has no sectarian loyalties, pays for contraception coverage. Or, put another way, everybody else subsidizes contraception coverage that the Catholic Church and its outside concerns don’t have to pay for. They don’t pay for it at all, just the other stuff. You could make the abstract argument that they would be responsible by proxy for it, due to the fact that their premiums go into the same pot of money as everybody else’s but by that logic, American business leaders are subsidizing churches through their commerce, and should have a right to refuse to employ certain people because they cannot in good conscience give money to the Catholic church, to protestant denominations, or perhapse to whatever non-Christian or Atheist organization that a person belongs to.

Rather than take this attitude, we establish that our religion is none of our employers’ fricking business, unless it is precisely concerned with the church. After all, the Catholic Church doesn’t have to ordinate atheists as bishops in order to avoid discrimination laws, nor, in a more profane setting, does a strip bar have to hire male strippers in order to avoid complaints about its hiring practices.

What the insurance company does with their money is their business, literally and figuratively. The Catholic Church should rest assured that whatever the cost of that coverage is, on top of everything else, it’s not paying for it. Instead it’s paying for all the rest of the coverage that it doesn’t object to.

Taken to its logical extreme, the Catholic Church being able to stick it’s head into other people’s businesses in order to keep from “subsidizing” sinful behavior could have it rather grossly invading the privacy of the average individual. Should it follow the doctors in its hospitals to make sure they’re not spending it on pornography, condoms, or abortions for their girlfriends or wives? Should they force their employees to compensate them in return for any dinner meals they have on fridays that don’t have fish as the meat?

Or should the Church mind its own business, once you get outside those doors, once it stop being a question of their money? You know, at the end of the day, people on the right will find folks on the left minding their own business on religion a lot more when the folks on the right mind their own business on people’s private lives. There’s room enough in this country for everybody, if we’re not pushing each other around.

kctim-
You unfortunately have that law that just died in the Senate, so no matter how ambiguous you think Rush Limbaugh was about Sandra Fluke.

Which… Well, read for yourself:

What does it say about the college coed Susan Fluke [sic], who goes before a congressional committee and essentially says that she must be paid to have sex? What does that make her? It makes her a slut, right? It makes her a prostitute. She wants to be paid to have sex.

She’s having so much sex she can’t afford the contraception. She wants you and me and the taxpayers to pay her to have sex. What does that make us? We’re the pimps.
The johns, that’s right. We would be the johns — no! We’re not the johns. Well — yeah, that’s right. Pimp’s not the right word.
OK, so, she’s not a slut. She’s round-heeled. I take it back.

He’s being very disingenuous. The image for round-heeled woman comes from the woman having her legs up in the air. Long story short, it’s another way of saying she sleeps with a lot of men.

You talk of spin, but hell, he came right out and said it, didn’t he? he called her a slut and a whore for wanting birth control pills. He played to some of the worst, most degrading stereotypes a person can apply to a woman in this culture.

Worse than that, he followed that then, and in the next few days with a series of such rancid comments. This wasn’t merely one slip up, this was a smear campaign on his part, even nastier than I knew of.

And for what? Expressing her belief that it should be made freely available, and citing costs associated with it.

This was part of her argument:

She then discussed the consequence of such policies, anecdotally citing a friend with polycystic ovary syndrome. While the condition was “covered by Georgetown insurance”, getting treatment was difficult because of the policy. According to Fluke, her friend was denied coverage, even with a verified condition from her doctor. She also added that this is not a rare event for women with these medical conditions under insurance plans that did not cover contraception. She then stated that she wanted equal treatment for women’s health issues and did not see the issue as being against the Catholic Church.

But no, Rush turns it to a question of her character, and a rather vicious one at that. Would you stand for somebody saying that about your daughter?

Your problem here is that your people just can’t be straight with you, and yet you still trust them as sources. Their sins are documentable, their excuses weak at best. This wasn’t mere poor word choice, this was defamation on a consistent basis, and until he started losing advertisers, he didn’t apologize for anything.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 7, 2012 12:49 PM
Comment #337769

J2
You can try to over analyze everything so that it supports your opinion all you want, but the “general statement,” that we are all paying for each other, is fact and is all that matters.
You don’t need a “statement” detailing how all the costs break down to know that every person who pays for a product is helping to support everybody else who pays for that product. Therefore, you cannot guarantee that one persons money is not paying for something they do not support.

“You automatically assume it is for the birth control for the girl down he street and not for the Viagra for the old guy down the street.”

I assume nothing of the sort. There is no mandate saying that an insurance company must pay for Viagra and I am free to choose a plan that does or does not.

“Why wouldn’t the girl down the street be paying for her own as she is paying premiums as you are?”

Because, as you have admitted, insurance does not work that way. If my policy covers birth control, the money I pay into that policy is helping cover her costs. If it covers CT’s, the money she pays into the policy covered my CT’s.
That is how insurance works, it is proven. The burden is on you to prove that what I pay does not support what I am against.

Government intrusion is the only issue I have with the higher costs insurance companies are forced to charge. Government mandates coverage for something or somebody, and premiums go up in order to compensate. You blame insurance companies for making more than you think they should, I blame government for sticking its nose where it does not belong or has a right to.
Pretty much the argument between left and right.

“For all we know the lady your complaining about…”

Contrary to the talking points to promote the lie, this is not about ‘complaining about women,’ it is about freedom of choice. I don’t care about birth control for women, I care about not being forced to support what goes against your beliefs.

Other than the obvious political theater and the desire for government to control your health care, I don’t get why the left is so against choice like this.
As Phx8 said, birth control coverage can save insurance companies money and most people I know understand this. Insurance companies are about offering a service and making a profit. They are very smart about this kind of thing.
So why do you not think they wouldn’t just keep things the same and keep offering policies with or without birth control coverage for individuals to freely choose from? Do you really fear that birth control will be magically banned if government doesn’t mandate everybody pay for it?

Posted by: kctim at March 7, 2012 1:21 PM
Comment #337770

Stephen Who pays the premiums for the Health insurance? I give you a hint, It’s the employer. So indirectly the Catholic Church or religious institution is paying for the services provided by the insurer. The employee is only paying a small share of the coverage in most cases.
J2, What is specificly wrong with taking responsibility of your own actions? Why do you want someone else to take that responsibility for you? It’s not the insurance companies responsibility to govern your sex life or your bad habits it is YOUR responsibility yet you want someone else to pay for your irresponsibility.

Posted by: KAP at March 7, 2012 1:54 PM
Comment #337771

Stephen

“he called her a slut and a whore for wanting birth control pills”

No he didn’t, and cut and paste from mediamatters explains why you believe he did.
Have you bothered to read what led up to the moment mediamatters is spinning? It was over her statements about being provided birth control. Hell, if you want to be honest with yourself, even the mediamatters attempt to cut and paste in order to condemn fails.

- She wants you and me and the taxpayers to pay her to have sex -

Her and the fake forum set up to promote her views would not have even been news if she wasn’t demanding somebody else should pay for contraception.

Yes, Rush was wrong when he left the valid complaint against her wanting “free” contraception and leaped to her character. He is an activist and should have known better. She is an activist and was hoping he would. My heart doesn’t bleed for either one of them.

“Your problem here” is that your people know most people could care less about paying for another persons contraception, so you have to scare up peoples support by falsely claiming the right wants to take away contraception and thinks all women who use it are sluts and prostitutes.
This tactic may have worked later on in the year around October, but this early in the year gives people to much time to learn the facts.

As far as my daughter, she has been taught the Constitution and personal responsibility, so she does not believe in somebody else paying for her contraception and it is highly doubtful she will be an activist for it as Ms. Fluke is.

Posted by: kctim at March 7, 2012 1:56 PM
Comment #337773

So indirectly the Catholic Church or religious institution is paying for the services provided by the insurer.

The fact that it IS indirect kills your argument. I had to indirectly pay for the Iraq war, which killed thousands upon thousands of innocent people, even though my religion says “though shall not kill.” In reality, that has nothing to do with religious freedom and neither does this.

It’s not the insurance companies responsibility to govern your sex life or your bad habits it is YOUR responsibility yet you want someone else to pay for your irresponsibility.

I’m confused. What “irresponsibility” and “bad habits” are you talking about? At first I thought you meant sex, but that wouldn’t make sense. Sex isn’t a bad thing and people who use birth control to control birth seem pretty responsible to me. And certainly you can’t think that people who take birth control for other medical reasons are bad people simply because they happen to use it. So please clarify.

Posted by: ROseSTem at March 7, 2012 3:50 PM
Comment #337775

Why is it ok for Shultze, Maher and others to use vile language toward specific females?

This is truly a double standard.

The left should be ashamed of themselves for such a double standard.

The whole arguement is that a Georgetown student can get birth control pills for free at a PP clinic. This is for those brats that pay 50K a year for tuition.

This is all about freedom of choice and not having the government tell us what we can and cannot do. It has nothing to do with anything else.

Maranatha

Posted by: tom humes at March 7, 2012 3:58 PM
Comment #337776


“She wants you and me and the taxpayers to pay for her having sex.”

He wants you and me and the taxpayer to pay for him having sex.

Is Rush getting is Viagra courtesy of the taxpayers? Are there priests that are doing the same.

Another one sided argument that is typical of Republicans.

Women aren’t supposed to have babies out of wedlock and men are supposed to spread their genes.

I agree with those who say this isn’t actually about contraceptives. It is actually about a business or a businessman’s right to discriminate based on religious beliefs; and those can be interpreted quite broadly.

Posted by: jlw at March 7, 2012 3:59 PM
Comment #337777

if contraceptive benefits without co-pay will reduce insurance costs, why haven’t insurance companies made contraceptives a benefit without co-pay before? that’s a good question, until you consider that health care insurance companies are blood sucking leeches who gladly put that $10 co-pay (or whatever it is) right into the black of their profit and loss sheet.

cost of contraceptives per month: $100
cost of pre- and post natal care of a vaginally delivered baby: $8000

it’s hard to understand how the same people who believed Dick Cheney when he said that the Iraq War would pay for itself can’t get it through their heads that contraception without co-pay will reduce health insurance costs.

Posted by: thom houts at March 7, 2012 4:02 PM
Comment #337778

ROseSTem, I agree sex is a good thing but you can be sexually irresponsible like multiple sex partners and the like, and by bad habits I mean anything that does NOT promote good health. The Catholic Church pays the insurer it’s just an accounting gimic that says the insurer pays for the contraceptives so indirectly does NOT kill the arguement the Church or religious institution pays for the services of the insurer.

Posted by: KAP at March 7, 2012 4:21 PM
Comment #337779

JLW
“Is Rush getting is Viagra courtesy of the taxpayers?”

Is there a government mandate saying he should? Not that I am aware of.
Is Rush an activist for government forcing individuals and companies to pay for his Viagra? No.
Is the lack of a government mandate going to all of a sudden make contraception impossible for women to get? No.

No matter how you slice it, a one-sided argument based on facts beats the lefts false argument every time.

Houts
Most people understand it can reduce costs, but not everybody believes money trumps individual rights, which is why this whole mess is even being debated.

Posted by: kctim at March 7, 2012 4:56 PM
Comment #337780

KAP:
I agree sex is a good thing but you can be sexually irresponsible like multiple sex partners and the like, and by bad habits I mean anything that does NOT promote good health.

Everybody needs health care responsible or not. And whatdayaknow, BC HELPS people to me MORE sexually responsible! You still haven’t explained how paying for BC is “paying for irresponsibility.”

The Catholic Church pays the insurer it’s just an accounting gimic that says the insurer pays for the contraceptives so indirectly does NOT kill the arguement the Church or religious institution pays for the services of the insurer.

Of course they still pay for insurance. What it kills is the argument that this is a religious freedom issue. Just like my taxes indirectly paying for the war isn’t a religious freedom issue.

Posted by: ROseSTem at March 7, 2012 5:10 PM
Comment #337781
You can try to over analyze everything so that it supports your opinion all you want, but the “general statement,” that we are all paying for each other, is fact and is all that matters.

Over analyzing eh kctim? That’s a first for me! In fact it seems to me you have put ideology in the place of analysis. I agreed with your general statement that didn’t really say “that we are all paying for each other” but instead said “I thought an insurance policy consisted of a group of people who paid into the policy and that money was used to help pay for the costs of things the policy covered?” Which to me is two different things. But as you say lets not over analyze this because it seems we can agree on the larger point that everybody pays not just the conservatives.

You don’t need a “statement” detailing how all the costs break down to know that every person who pays for a product is helping to support everybody else who pays for that product. Therefore, you cannot guarantee that one persons money is not paying for something they do not support.

Nor can you prove they are kctim.

Lets get to some basics here kctim. You pay into a group policy. I pay into the same group policy. Many others do the same. I use the insurance to visit the doctor and get meds for an illness. I paid for this not you. Because we joined together in a group policy we have gotten the services for perhaps cheaper than without the policy. Yet you still have not paid anything for me. The bill goes to the insurance company not to kctim. Kctim has paid into this policy to use the insurance to get some stitches, the bill goes to the insurance company not to me. I didn’t pay for your services. The women down the street who has paid into the policy goes to get some contraceptives. The bill goers to the insurance company not to me or to you. She has paid for what she has used. Just like we did.

“Why wouldn’t the girl down the street be paying for her own as she is paying premiums as you are?”

Because, as you have admitted, insurance does not work that way. If my policy covers birth control, the money I pay into that policy is helping cover her costs. If it covers CT’s, the money she pays into the policy covered my CT’s.
That is how insurance works, it is proven. The burden is on you to prove that what I pay does not support what I am against.

No kctim, what you pay in premiums is to pay for your use of the services provided, not for my use of the services provided. Look at your bill for the premium does it say you are paying for anyone other than those listed on your policy? Or does it say you are paying for yourself and your family?
As far as any burden of proof kctim I would say you are claiming that is the case yet you are expecting me to prove it is not true. Kinda of a “argumentum ad ignorantiam” deal.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance


Posted by: j2t2 at March 7, 2012 6:06 PM
Comment #337782

kctim-
So, what are you saying? Did Media Matters get the words wrong? This is dangerously close to a “My Hair is a bird, your argument is invalid” territory. My argument relies on those being accurate quotes. Unless Rush Limbaugh is engaged in some kind of long dramatic skit or monologue, entertainer that he is, the man said some things that would get him knocked on his ass by most women’s husbands or brothers.

This is the schizophrenic approach that the right often uses in its rhetoric, saying things that are unquestionably provocative, and then backpedalling by saying that their words were taken out of context. Tell me, then, what is the context that makes this an appropriate thing to say about a young woman:

“So, if we’re gonna sit here, and if we’re gonna have a part in this, then we want something in return, Ms. Fluke: And that would be the videos of all this sex posted online so we can see what we are getting for our money.”

A lot of what makes this offensive is that he’s under the impression that you take a pill every time you want to have sex. Not quite. Birth Control is administered on a day by day basis, in order to deal with the woman’s menstrual cycle, which is part of what allows conception to occur in the first place.

Rush isn’t only disparaging her, he’s misleading people in a way that will come back to hurt many other women, when the folks who take Rush’s words as gospel see their birth control pills.

As for your daughter? I wasn’t asking about whether she took birth control, or expected somebody else to pay for it, I was asking what your reaction would be if you had a daughter, and that daughter was called a slut or a prostitute.

tom humes-
Bill Maher? Bill Maher is a pay cable comic known for being abrasive and profane. As for Schultz, if you’re talking about Ed, I believe he got a suspension for what he said, that he was punished. Or put another way, liberals didn’t think it was okay, and so Ed Schultz had to apologize.

Now Rush? He’s gotten away with a hell of a lot more than just calling a woman a prostitute. I’d say this was more like the straw that broke the camel’s back, or just a colossally indefensible strategic position to put himself in. He essentially implied that consistent takers of birth control pills were whores and sluts, and in his ignorance picking those words means his offense is likely to strike home for a huge percentage of the female adult population.

This is what happens when you build your reputation and your business on being a bully. Sooner or later, you pick the wrong target, and you get the crap kicked out of you instead. Well, now Rush has done it, and he’s hardly got anybody left out there that he hasn’t offended or forced to kneel and kiss his ring. He brought this on himself.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 7, 2012 6:28 PM
Comment #337783

Thom

First, yours is not the party of choice. It is the party of choice when it comes to abortion, but generally seeks to constrain choice in most other walks of life.

A good example, “it mandates that we all have the same selection of choices to make, regardless of our financial circumstances.”

What you are mandating is that all providers provide the same spectrum of choices, no matter their different circumstances. It is like demanding that every restaurant provide every sort of food or every film be given representation in theaters AND demanding that others than those who are directly benefiting be forced to pay for all those choices.

A woman seeking birth control has many choices. She can choose an insurance provider that give her what she wants (most do). She can pay for it herself. Since the cost is so low, it is hard to think of many who could not afford it, but for those so indigent that they cannot there could be free services. Let planned parenthood or the like provide such things.

I repeat that I do not and never have opposed birth control. But I see no reason to privilege this one sort of drug above others and make it a right to receive it at low or no cost at the expense of others.

I also see a bigger principle here. Liberals push this particular entitlement as a political wedge issue, but many of you really want everything to be provided at low or no cost by a beneficent government, either directly or through a mandate.

The danger in creating a positive right (i.e. one that requires the active participation of others to obtain) is that it can make a petty tyrant of the one demanding. They can demand compliance on their terms, no matter how difficult or inconvenient for others.

If we all have choices, we compromise and make deals that give all of us something of what we want, often actually creating more space for all of us. When we mandate a rule, it reduces to zero sum or negative sum fighting.

Does every woman who wants birth control have reasonable access to it. Yes - they do. Reasonable, not metaphysically perfect. I am a reasonable person who does not seek metaphysical perfection, as I understand that pursuit leads to penury and tyranny.

Posted by: C&J at March 7, 2012 6:41 PM
Comment #337784


That is another thing this argument isn’t about, individual rights. It is organizational rights disguised as individual rights. Not only that, the argument is being made on behalf of an organization that would deny many rights to many individuals if only it still had the power to do so.

Why don’t individuals have an individual right, based on religious beliefs to refuse to pay war taxes?

Being forced to pay taxes for things that people don’t believe in is the big picture debate isn’t it?

Posted by: jlw at March 7, 2012 6:43 PM
Comment #337786

SD wrote; “I’ve been telling Republicans this for the past few years, but they’ve been confident that they could have their cake and eat it, too, mostly I imagine by having folks like Limbaugh blacken the names of the liberals out there, turn people against them.”

Oh sure…you predicted the Reps retaking the house with your political theories?

Limbaugh spends 15 hours each week talking and should anyone be too surprised that he puts his foot in his mouth occassionally? Hell, obama has done plenty of that as well.

SD is desparately hoping that the Reps will focus on social issues in the race with the man/boy obama. I believe, once the candidate is selected, the Reps will focus on the issues that will defeat obama…the economy, jobs, national debt, individual freedom and liberty. obama will be defeated on his dismal record as president.

Posted by: Royal Flush at March 7, 2012 7:09 PM
Comment #337787

So many convoluted arguments justifying the conservative Republican War on Women. Oh my.

One would think this War on Women would be impossible, since half of the people who signed the Declaration of Indpendence were women- er, wait- half the women who signed the Constitution were women…

Let me try again.

There is no such thing as a War on Women, since by definition, half of the population are women, and they have been voting since the Founding Fathers… Wait.

Conservatives have consistently supported the rights of Women. For example, they came out in full force to support of Margaret Sanger and the Birth Control movement in the early 20th century.

Margaret Sanger was convicted of violating the law when a trial judge held that women did not have “the right to copulate with a feeling of security that there will be no resulting conception.”

Oh dear.

Well, conservatives have always been on the sides of minority constituencies, and have never resorted to tortured rationalizations about constitutional rights when it comes to issues such as Civil Rights, busing, Roe v Wade, abortion, gays, immigration, defunding Planned Parenthood, and…

Ok. Let me start again. What conservatives mean when Sandra Fluke testifies about birth control availability is that she is a slut and a prostitute and should make sex videos of herself available online.

Oh dear.

Posted by: phx8 at March 7, 2012 7:19 PM
Comment #337789
Government intrusion is the only issue I have with the higher costs insurance companies are forced to charge. Government mandates coverage for something or somebody, and premiums go up in order to compensate.

Without the regulations that protect us mere individuals from the pillage of corporate insurance many more Americans would be dead and a few would be rich. Whether we like it or not they are not a violation of anyone’s rights. On issues where companies and religious institutions use the constitution to force others to bend to their will it is the government that must step in and make the hard decisions and enforce these decisions. Were it left to whoever had the biggest gun we would all be losers eventually.

You blame insurance companies for making more than you think they should, I blame government for sticking its nose where it does not belong or has a right to.

I don’t blame them kctim. I point out the fact that they do raise rates every year despite record profits. It is the charter of the corporation to return the maximum amount of profit to the shareholders while over compensating the upper management of the company. I understand that but I also understand that is an expensive way to administer health insurance. The government has a right to regulate these business’s and therefore a right to do what you perceive as “sticking their nose into”.


Contrary to the talking points to promote the lie, this is not about ‘complaining about women,’ it is about freedom of choice. I don’t care about birth control for women, I care about not being forced to support what goes against your beliefs.

No it’s not kctim. It is about power and control of others by so called conservatives. Conservatives were warned by Goldwater years ago about these guys.

The only lie being used on this issue is the lie it is a religious right. Why else would Rush have to degrade and ridicule others. It is because he has no real issue to argue and has to resort to ridicule.

Posted by: j2t2 at March 7, 2012 7:32 PM
Comment #337793

ROseSTem, I agree everyone needs HC but that dosen’t mean everyone has to pay for someone elses irresponsible behavior. Those who’s behavior is irresponsible should be made to pay more. BC makes people to be more responsible sexually is laughable at best, it depends on what you call responsible. If going out and banging every Tom, Dick and Harry is responsible to you then so be it, but I don’t. Your taxes paying indirectly for a war is the cost you pay for your freedom to protest the religious freedom we so cherish and the other freedoms you so enjoy. phx8 this is NOT a war on women or their rights it’s a war on being mandated to pay for something that is already cheap and readily avaliable.

Posted by: KAP at March 7, 2012 8:00 PM
Comment #337822

I would say to the Republicans, keep on arguing this line of thinking. It’s serving folks like me well.

The Affordable Care Act requires the insurance companies to bear the full cost of preventative care, things like check-ups and exams.

Not to mention Birth Control. Republicans aren’t bringing the word mandate into the conversation on accident, but for all the cunning and guile in the choice, you’re running into trouble anyways by insisting on having this debate.

First and foremost, almost nobody takes birth control on a pill by pill basis, and those who do take it for the long term. The almost laughable mistake of many conservative commentators is to assume that birth control is taken on a case by case basis, when in reality it’s a carefully tuned hormone treatment designed to correspond with a woman’s monthly cycle of estrogen, progesterone, and other hormone levels. For it to be effective, you essentially have to be on it consistently.

Ignorant of this fact, Rush basically assumed you’re taking it every time you had sex. Or worse, not ignorant of this fact, he told his audience this, intending to get an effect that the facts did not merit.

In basically saying what he did, he offended the rather large percentage of women who have been on it. Forget, please, for a moment, the debate on the merit of free birth control, and recognize that the political strain Limbaugh intended to tap, and tapped rather strongly, is a culture war critique of birth control as spreading sexual license in the culture.

Since that issue was first part of the culture wars, though, it’s become largely a non-issue, even among the Republicans, even among the Catholic voters that those attacking the birth control measure in the Affordable Care Act. Of course if you’re part of a more conservative branch of either the GOP or the Catholic churchgoers, it might not occur to you that this is the case.

And Rush Limbaugh didn’t go gently into that territory, speaking with subtle disapproval about sexual habits and dissociation of sex from procreation in a loving family, or anything like that. He outright called her a slut. He outright called her a prostitute. He outright suggested that all thes birth control pills she was taking meant that she was having so much sex that it was a wonder she had to strength to show up at the hearing. He outright suggested that she make porno-videos about her sexual exploits to show the taxpayers what they were getting for their money.

Rush didn’t just push that button in the old culture wars, he took a sledgehammer and knocked that son of a bitch into the instrument panel, and took a couple of additional swings on top of that. And he did that towards a public full of women who are not whores, who are not sluts, who take birth control pills on a daily basis, and pay the cost for a treatment that has to be maintained on a constant basis to work properly.

Republicans are talking inappropriate, bad word choice, I wouldn’t put it that way, and other mealy-mouthed disapprovals, and Rush is apologizing for using the wrong words. All of them are missing the point, and missing the wonderful gift they are providing the Democrats.

Republicans like Rush and Santorum are doing their level best to remind Americans just how behind the times, how obsessed with mostly settled cultural issues folks on the right are. There is actually a county GOP party insisting on members taking a pledge that requires that they never had premarital sex, never committed adultery, and that they never look at pornography again after signing it.

You can give them points for wanting consistency, but how many people could they actually find who could honestly give that pledge, and what would they look like to modern eyes? It’s not that being out of control or promiscuous is a virtue, but how forgiving and understanding are such people about folks for whom a more controlled, but less traditional lifestyle is all they’ve ever known?

Is it to the benefit of the GOP to relitigate this issue? I don’t think so. But they’ll do it anyways, because at this point, the GOP has so screwed things up for itself, that all the special interest groups have called in their ideological debts. The Wall Street Republicans want them defending the 1% at a time they’re deeply unpopular. The Cultural conservatives want to relitigate the culture wars, long after their losing finish. The fiscal conservatives want more tax cuts for the rich and the corporations after years of high profile and unsuccessful cuts. The small government people and the Ron Paul crowd want cuts, want debt ceiling defaults, and they want it right now.

The Right is going in ten different directions at once, and many of them are distinctly unpopular.

And of course, few if any Republicans want to hear anybody telling them they’re chasing mirages, and that they don’t have the political capital to pull off the kinds of changes they want. They want to believe that 2006 and 2008 were a brief love affair with the left, not a re-alignment of the politics. The fact that they were able to use the desperation over the economy to buffallo people in 2010 has them thinking that the Right’s winning again, yet the Presidential field alone is telling you the party isn’t all there.

Jean Schmidt’s predicament should tell you something about where the Party’s heading. She lost to a man who ran to her right. But if Republican Primary voters keep shifting their candidates to the hard right, like this, how long before people start to move towards Democrats just to get somebody who has remotely similar politics?

Democrats aren’t perfect, but they are flexible and responsive in a way that Republicans have decided they’re too principled to be.

So before we get too deep into the rights and wrongs of the government telling insurance companies that the contraception’s on the house, I think we should remember that what’s going on here is that a major Republican political figure, entertainer or no, has just put his hand through the hornet’s nest and offended a huge segment of the population, but is not really getting called on it from the right. The GOP political system is not guiding the political judgment of its members all that well anymore. The combative approach to dealing with people they’ve offended has become too entrenched. They cannot admit wrongs when they need to anymore, not without weakening themselves politically.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 7, 2012 9:30 PM
Comment #337823

“phx8 this is NOT a war on women or their rights”

It never is, is it, KAP? I don’t doubt the sincerity of comments by you or kctim or C&J, but taken within a larger context, conservatism consistently opposes recognizing rights and benefits for minortiy groups, whether that group be women, blacks, native americans, gays, latinos, or what have you.

Consider the context. Over the past several years, the right has consistently taken a “pro-life” position, as opposed to “pro-choice.” Pro-life takes some shaky religious propositions about conception, and the question of when a human being becomes a human being, and used that issue to deny women control over their own bodies. This manifests itself in several ways. Most recently, many state legislators have proposed ‘personhood’ amendments that suggest a human being exists from the moment of conception. It has consistently been rejected by the vast majority of voters. In the Komen controversy, a failed Georgian politician and committed opponent of Choice entered that organization, and tried to push defunding of Planned Parenthood. The effort was overwhelmingly opposed by Americans, and that opponent was fired. The GOP actually threatened to shutdown the government over the funding of Planned Parenthood.

That context includes this discussion of whether a religious institution- or any corporation, for that matter- has the right to refuse birth control, even when that religious institution or corporation is operating in the secular marketplace.

Conservatives take a stance that denying women birth control funding is a matter of religious freedom.

No one believes it.

This all occurs within the context of a War on Women being waged by conservatives. It has been going on a long time, from the founding of the country by an exclusive company of men, to the suffragette movement, to the birth control movement, to ERA, to Roe v Wade & pro-choice v pro-life, and today with a revisiting of birth control funding.

Limbaugh only made obvious what has been the underlying motivation all along. Everyone gets it. And within the political realm, women will exact their revenge in the voting place. I think that revenge will be stunning in its scope. Time will tell.

Posted by: phx8 at March 7, 2012 9:30 PM
Comment #337838

phx8, No one is denying women the right to birth control it is avaliable everywhere. The problem is when an organization is forced to pay for something that they are sincerly against. You can go ahead and say that they are not paying the insurer is but who pays the insurer, the employer. Where is it stated that an employer has to provide HC anyway? They provide it to keep talented people in their employ. So here comes Obama mandating that they provide contrceptives to women when most insurance carriers already do except for some Religious organizations. So you take away their rights of choice to give to another, is that fair to the religious organization. Taking away their right to practice their faith the way they have been for centuries. As I stated earlier to j2 why not mandate all prescription drugs be paid for by your HC carrier.

Posted by: KAP at March 7, 2012 10:50 PM
Comment #337839

KAP-
Let’s say I pay an insurer. Let’s say my beliefs make Contraception okay. Why, by your logic, should I not demand that the Catholic Church pay the same as everybody else under the new law? After all, it’s my money they’re spending, indirectly, to fund the Catholic Church’s coverage.

No? Doesn’t work? Because second hand economic decisions like that are not ours to make.

By the way, Obama’s not requiring anything, contraceptive wise, that wasn’t already required by law, besides the insurer’s $0 co-pay. It just sounds better when Obama’s taking over, rather than continuing a ten year old policy with minimal changes. They’ve already been given, in the compromise, an exception that relieves them of having to directly pay for a plan that includes contraception. All they have left is that sense that they ought to dictate terms and policies. But who gave them that right?

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 7, 2012 11:20 PM
Comment #337840

Stephen, Why take away the rights of the Catholic Church? I have heard you say you are a Catholic so I suppose you don’t agree with their teaching. Would it be right for the government to mandate you do something you are against? Why not mandate that all HC coverage pay for all medications without co pay even the most expensive medications? Lets face it Stephen this was a political decision, Obama is buying votes.

Posted by: KAP at March 8, 2012 12:03 AM
Comment #337841


“Obama is buying votes.” As good a definition as any for politics. Which side of the argument will sell the most.

Posted by: jlw at March 8, 2012 1:07 AM
Comment #337842

“… this was a political decision, Obama is buying votes.”

Well, I wrote about that in an earlier article. Obama set a trap. Who would have imagined the GOP would jump into it and then chew off their own foot? The GOP thought they had a winning issue, and they ran with it. Remember?

First, Issa held his infamous hearing on contraception & religious liberty in which the first five star witnesses were all old men. Big mistake. Worst. Optics. Ever.

Democratic women were barred from appearing. Bigger mistake. They responded by holding a meeting and taking the testimony of a young woman from Georgetown University. That should have been the end of it. But no.

The GOP doubled down with the Blunt amendment. Even bigger mistake. Faced with the request for a generous length of rope and a noose, Harry Reid kindly obliged, and pushed through the amendment for an immediate vote.

It just kept getting worse for the GOP. Caught in a trap, they were not content with merely chewing off their foot. Now they started eating their own tail. While Santorum stoked the dying embers of the culture war back into a raging fire, Rush Limbaugh launched a three day attack on the young woman from Georgetown, an attack that offended everyone who actually knows even one woman. It was just awful.

If conservatives want to keep this issue going right into November, by all means, that would be wonderful. Allow us progressives to help. We’d be thrilled.

Tom humes,
You mentioned Shultz as an example of another pundit using insulting language towards a woman. He did. Once. He apologized to that woman, he apologized to viewers, and he apologized with complete sincerity and without any attempt to make excuses. He was off the air for a week. He freely admits, he was wrong. I don’t particularly like Shultz, but as far as I’m concerned, he made a mistake and he apologized.

I’m not familiar with the specific example regarding Maher, but nothing he says would surpise me. He and Sarah Palin have actually come to the defense of Rush Limbaugh. Maher routinely uses obscene language, profanity, and over-the-top comparisons. It’s adult political humor, and it’s definitely not for everyone. His humor does not get aired on public radio or public television. His show, if I recall, used to be called “Politically Incorrect.” That should tell you something.

Posted by: phx8 at March 8, 2012 1:09 AM
Comment #337900
It is like demanding that every restaurant provide every sort of food
no it’s like demanding that every restaurant adhere to a certain set of health laws, like santizing dishes. which we do, even though THAT increases the cost of a meal at every restaurant.
The Affordable Care Act requires the insurance companies to bear the full cost of preventative care, things like check-ups and exams.

you mean we’re forcing people to pay for other people to have physical examinations?
SCANDALOUS!!!
If people get free physicals, then they will be wreckless and irresponsible and skydive and bunji jump and scuba dive and who KNOWS what all dangerous things.

yes stephen, i agree with your hope that republicans everywhere continue this war on women… whether they want to call it that or not, VOTING WOMEN KNOW WHAT IT IS…
and I hope democrats have the balls to ask each and every republican candidate in every race everywhere to voice their opposition to mandated contraception co-pay benefit as often as we can get ‘em to do it.

Posted by: thom houts at March 8, 2012 4:56 AM
Comment #337902

War on Women is a great alliterative phrase. IF it was true, it would be a terrible thing.

I understand that it is working for liberals. It would be tactically better for the proponents of freedom to just let it go. But there are large principles in play here. Democratic spin might win this battle, but it is better to hold to the principles of freedom than to just give in to expedient.

Posted by: C&J at March 8, 2012 7:22 AM
Comment #337903

KAP-
Would you bother to stop repeating the same talking point again and again, and actually listen to what I said? Any requirement to choose to cover contraception has been removed from the Catholic Church. The gripe of the Bishops at this point is that their insurers, whom they are only paying for regular insurance from, not contraception coverage, might use some of the funds they only pay for regular insurance to cover others who might ask for, and under this law get contraception covered.

They have been granted two exceptions to the law everybody else has to follow that basically make it to where they don’t have to follow the requirement to purchase that coverage for the employees who seek it. If the employee wants that coverage, they have to ask the insurer to give it to them directly.

The church is no longer forced to choose anything. What they’re asking for is to deny everybody else the choice so that money that is no longer theirs will not be spent on contraception for anybody. I think that stretches the bounds of religious freedom a little far, and pushes into the religious and social freedom of others.

I think the problem with the way many on the right analyze healthcare is that they treat it like a choice, when really it’s not a choice for most mortals who walk the Earth. For those of us who don’t regenerate things like Wolverine, we need medical attention when we get injured. For those of us who are not privileged from all illness like the elves of Tolkien, we need to see a doctor when we get sick. For those of us who aren’t as ageless as the character in the Highlander Series, we have to deal with the health problems as we get older.

The mandate comes about simply because while the young and the healthy can pretend they don’t need this service, it eventually catches up to them. They need to be paying into the system that inevitably they’ll use before they have to use it.

As for things like Birth Control? Well, the simple fact is, it’s cheaper to keep from getting pregnant than it is to pay for all the doctor’s visits, the birth, and all that other stuff. Part of the point of many of the preventative medical requirements that the ACA contributes to the law of the land is to promote healthcare where things are caught early, or illnesses or health conditions are never developed in the first place.

All this socialism BS and false controversy over contraceptives as some sort of deliberate attack on religious freedom is just your leaders substituting blind, stupid panic for a reasoned, informed approach to the issues, perhaps because reason, informed approachs are too boring to motivate people to choose differently on the ballot.

Quit being stampeded by their false claims.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 8, 2012 8:10 AM
Comment #337904

C&J I agree with comment 337902 the hope I have is that all women aren’t as gullable as the left wing loons portray them to be to think that this is a war on them but is a war on freedom. If the government can mandate this one thing what is there to stop them from mandating other things.

Posted by: KAP at March 8, 2012 8:30 AM
Comment #337905

Stephen, As much as I disagree with the Catholic Church on their BC stance and teaching I still have to side with them on this mandate issue. In fact I would side with the insurance industry if they protested this mandate. The government has NO RIGHT to mandate any industry to fully pay for a service that they provide. Where will the mandating end if we start taking away the rights of one group to please another. You keep talking the accounting gimic and that is exactly what this is for the Church and nothing else.

Posted by: KAP at March 8, 2012 8:50 AM
Comment #337906

“Tom humes,

“You mentioned Shultz as an example of another pundit using insulting language towards a woman. He did. Once. He apologized to that woman, he apologized to viewers, and he apologized with complete sincerity and without any attempt to make excuses. He was off the air for a week. He freely admits, he was wrong. I don’t particularly like Shultz, but as far as I’m concerned, he made a mistake and he apologized.

I’m not familiar with the specific example regarding Maher, but nothing he says would surpise me. He and Sarah Palin have actually come to the defense of Rush Limbaugh. Maher routinely uses obscene language, profanity, and over-the-top comparisons. It’s adult political humor, and it’s definitely not for everyone. His humor does not get aired on public radio or public television. His show, if I recall, used to be called “Politically Incorrect.” That should tell you something.”


Posted by: phx8 at March 8, 2012 1:09 AM

I love it the way the left uses the same old talking points when referring to the slanderous comments by the left as “humor”. A hateful comment is still a hateful comment. I also love the acceptance of a liberal’s apology and yet ignore conservatives.

Below is a link the Michelle Malkin’s article “A War o Conservative Women”:

http://michellemalkin.com/

I sure this list is only partial.

KAP, Stephen understands what you are saying and if the roles were reversed, he would agree with you; but this is about government intrusion into the personal lives of Americans and Stephen is always in favor of more government control.

Posted by: Billinflorida at March 8, 2012 8:57 AM
Comment #337908

Billinflorida, YEP!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: KAP at March 8, 2012 9:45 AM
Comment #337910

J2

Please.
Insurance only works because a group of people are pooling their money together in order to help subsidize costs for all who a part of that group. To suggest that a group members premiums are not paying for another member goes against the very purpose of such a plan and is totally illogical.
I said you were over analyzing because you are going to great lengths to argue against the facts in order to justify your position.

This has nothing to do with left vs right and nobody is arguing that only conservatives are paying.

“Yet you still have not paid anything for me. The bill goes to the insurance company not to kctim.”

Basics are good, so let’s start with the most basic question and answer: Where does the insurance company get the money to pay this bill? From the premiums that ALL members pay into.

Now, you are arguing that there is no way to prove that the very dollar I pay into the policy is being used for something I am against, so there is no reason to object. But tell me, if you enter into a pool to buy a lottery ticket and that lottery ticket wins, are you going to object if the others tell you that you get nothing unless you can prove that your dollar was the one used to buy the winning number?

“She has paid for what she has used. Just like we did.”

And where does the insurance company get the money to pay her bills when what she has used is greater than what she has paid into? From the premiums of the other members.

“No kctim, what you pay in premiums is to pay for your use of the services provided, not for my use of the services provided.”

J2, people are quite aware that their premiums will also be used to help provide services to others when they enter into an insurance policy. They don’t need a monthly statement telling them how much each member used to know that.

As far as your “argumentum ad ignorantiam” statement, lets look at the facts.

Seeing how you like wikipedia, let’s see what it has to say about how insurance works:

“Insurance involves pooling funds from many insured entities (known as exposures) to pay for the losses that some may incur.

My belief from the beginning has been that premiums from all members are used to help pay for other members.
It is a true statement, not a false statement. And it is a known fact for anybody who understands the simple basics of insurance. It is not a “generally accepted” conclusion and, seeing how it is the basis on how insurance works, there is no investigation needed to prove it works that way.

You argue that it does not work that way because there is no proof that the exact penny that I contribute can be linked to the exact thing I am against. That despite the fact that pooled funds are used to pay for losses, I must prove it.

Tell you what J2, based on the fact that money is pooled to pay for losses, I will admit that I am only making a logical conclusion that one persons pooled premiums pay for the losses of other members. You got me man.
Now, can you prove the pooled premiums are not used that way and that there is absolutely no chance a person is helping pay for something they do not support?

Or are you going to ignore the facts and stick with your “argumentum ad ignorantiam” statement?
If you are, I’m starting a lottery pool and would be more than happy to use your reasoning when it comes to splitting the money.

Posted by: kctim at March 8, 2012 10:28 AM
Comment #337913

Stephen

No, I am not saying they got the words wrong, I am saying they picked those and intentionally left out others. IF you had read the transcript, you would see that Rush did not just go on air and start calling Fluke names because he thought she was those things, but that he went over her wanting others to provide contraception and that led to his rant.

Yes he was wrong to use those words to get his point across, but his point was based on her wanting others to pay, not her being those things because she used contraception.

There was nothing “appropriate” about going into the slut, prostitute or video thing and most people agree with that.

“A lot of what makes this offensive is that he’s under the impression…”

No, what makes this offensive to your people is that it is Rush. To think that he does not understand how The Pill works is silly, which is why it is important to know how he got started on this rant.

“As for your daughter? I wasn’t asking about whether she took birth control, or expected somebody else to pay for it, I was asking what your reaction would be if you had a daughter, and that daughter was called a slut or a prostitute.”

Well gee Stephen, if she isn’t demanding other people pay for her contraception, then they must be calling her those things for other reasons, right? So my reaction would be based on those reasons.
Contrary to the stereotypes your people promote, most people on the right do not always go off half-cocked and fight every chance they get. Especially just over words.

Personally, I try not to overreact because I don’t want to look like a fool by trying to defend such a thing for one person while condemning another for the same thing.

Posted by: kctim at March 8, 2012 11:12 AM
Comment #337914

JLW
“Why don’t individuals have an individual right, based on religious beliefs to refuse to pay war taxes?”

Article 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution.

“Being forced to pay taxes for things that people don’t believe in is the big picture debate isn’t it?”

Yes it is, and if you can show specifically where the Constitution takes away that right for contraception, as I have done with ‘raising and supporting armies,’ you would have a point.

Posted by: kctim at March 8, 2012 11:25 AM
Comment #337915

J2

“Without the regulations that protect us mere individuals from the pillage of corporate insurance many more Americans would be dead and a few would be rich.”

Nobody says we should be without regulations. That is nothing but left-wing rhetoric.
What I am talking about are government mandates that dictate what a private company must cover.

Companies and religious institutions do not have the power to use the constitution to force others to bend to their will, they use it to try and protect themselves, as this latest contraception fiasco has shown.

“I don’t blame them kctim. I point out the fact…”

Government has the duty, not a right, to regulate that a business is ran in a lawful manner, it does not have a ‘right’ to mandate how that business will be ran, who or what it will benefit or what it will pay its employees.

“The only lie being used on this issue is the lie it is a religious right.”

If you are forced to support something that goes against your religion, that is prohibiting the free exercise of your religion.
The only lie is that women would be denied contraception if religious and individual freedoms were respected.

Posted by: kctim at March 8, 2012 11:48 AM
Comment #337916

Stephen

“Let’s say I pay an insurer. Let’s say my beliefs make Contraception okay.”

You would then be pay an insurer that covers contraception, right?

“Why, by your logic, should I not demand that the Catholic Church pay the same as everybody else under the new law?”

According to your peoples talking points, birth control saves the insurance company money, so I guess you would be demanding that the Catholic Church not pay more than others?

“After all, it’s my money they’re spending, indirectly, to fund the Catholic Church’s coverage.”

Why would a Catholic Church choose to be in the same plan as you, when you are in a plan that covers birth control? Would they not pick a plan that does not cover it?

“By the way, Obama’s not requiring anything, contraceptive wise, that wasn’t already required by law”

In that case, why change a law that obviously wasn’t that big of a deal before? What brought about the need for government to mandate what a church must now support?
Who gave this President the power to prohibit the free exercise of religion, directly or indirectly?

Posted by: kctim at March 8, 2012 12:07 PM
Comment #337917

KAP-
The point of preventative care is two-fold: reduce money spent on advanced disease either not caught in time, or prevented, and reduce suffering caused by people who don’t have the money for the co-pays putting things off. Nothing about its requirements was ever meant to attack religious freedom. That’s just overwrought rhetoric from folks who aren’t interested in levelling with people about their real objections.

The mandate is a completely different part of things, but some of the folks whose rhetoric you’ve been listening to figure that irrational associations, based on people hearing “mandates”, where “requirements for free preventative care” should be more effective than actually arguing with the notion that we should make it easier for people to take care of themselves earlier, and before more expensive stages of diseases show up.

As for Obama’s compromise being an accounting trick?

Let’s imagine that you and I go out to lunch. We both have to get it. So we go to this place, and they’ve got a meal that has a shake in it. You don’t like milkshakes. You hate them. In fact, you hate to even see somebody drink one. I buy my meal with the milkshake, as the combo usually is done. You tell them, no, hold the milkshake, and they do so, removing it from the meal and charging you less. Ah, but let’s say you had a friend who wanted a milkshake, and was expecting that you’d bring it back, but wouldn’t drink it. They’re disappointed, but the kind manager says, okay, the shake’s on us.

Now you tell me something here: are you responsible for that shake being offered? You paid for a meal, but not a shake, but the money that went to pay for the meal could also conceivably go to pay for the ingredients of the shake, which you hate with a fury.

Should the restaurant be forced to stop offering the shakes to anybody because you object to it. Were you really forced to pay for anything at all, beyond the meal you got, in real terms, and are you really responsible for my choice, or your friend’s?

The real accounting trick is to say that when somebody else is paying for a plan that has contraception, and you’re not, that somehow you’re subsidizing their coverage, and this means you should be able to drive up the price of everybody’s out of pocket costs for that item, simply because you morally object to having even a remote, second- or third-hand association with it. You’re having to step on everybody else’s freedom tog et things your way.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 8, 2012 12:16 PM
Comment #337918

kctim-
So you’re telling me you would be looking for reasons to believe that the people who were calling her a whore, a slut, or a tramp were right, rather than giving her the benefit of the doubt, and them a piece of your mind? Jeez, I’m having a Dukakis flashback on that answer.

I think you’re trying to get out of the way of the obvious thrust of that question. Frankly, Rush has been barrelling into this situation for some time now. He just never learned there were simply some things you don’t say about people, probably because he built his career on saying nasty things about people, and then trash those who objected for being too politically correct or sensitive on the matter.

With all due respect to Maher, his problem wasn’t word choice. The problem was his words were genuinely defamatory, genuinely meant to cause the target hurt and loss of reputation, and he made such charges without so much as a sexual partner coming forward to confirm a singled damn thing he was saying about her. He said what he did in reckless disregard to the truth.

I think people are tired of letting his offensive material slide.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 8, 2012 1:19 PM
Comment #337919

billinflorida,
It is tautologically true that a hateful comment is a hateful comment regardless of which side of the political spectrum it comes from. However, (to continue the tautology) there are hateful comments, and then there are hateful comments.

Limbaugh did not simply make a single comment. He did not merely step over the line in the heat of the moment. He did it at least 53 times over a three day span. Each day, people objected and asked him to stop. The following day, he doubled down, and did it again- and again. He only stopped when advertisers began a mass exodus from his show. So this particular case was a sustained verbal attack, not an isolated, overheated comment.

Furthermore, this sustained attack came from a leader of the conservative movement- arguably the single most powerful conservative in the country. It reached millions of people over the public airwaves in the middle of the day. This was not an isolated offensive remark on the internet or some obscure cable show. So Limbaugh’s attack differs in important ways.

Furthermore, the object of Limbaugh’s attack was a young woman testifying at a meeting about birth control and the issue of religious freedom. The pretense of concern about religious freedom fell by the wayside and revealed the underlying hatred that motivated that pretense: profound misogyny.

This has been a hallmark of conservatism over the past decades. Under the pretense of concern over one right or another, conservativism has time and again revealed its underlying motivation, and so encouraged bigotry, prejudice, and hatred against various minorities: women, blacks, gays, latinos, muslims, and others.

Women recognize this misogynous attitude for what it is. No amount of sincere claims about religious freedom and constitutional rights can hide the underlying motivation. Women have seen it before. And there will be hell to pay in November.

Posted by: phx8 at March 8, 2012 1:44 PM
Comment #337920

I just want to ask folks this: are the supposed moral hazards of protecting people from real hazards always worse than the real hazards? And if the moral hazard is a problem, is the better solution always to allow the bad thing to occur, or is it possible at times to defuse the moral hazard, and allow the real hazard to remain solved?

Billinflorida-
The funny thing about Rush is how seriously people take this supposed entertainer, whether they’re figures in power or his listeners. Nobody treats Jon Stewart with this kind of deference. Nobody takes Stephen Colbert that seriously. Everybody trusts Bill Maher to be an abrasive a******. That’s his schtick. They may deal with political issues, but when Jon Stewart goes into a frenzy doing his imitation of Glenn Beck, folks are supposed to laugh at him. Nobody’s supposed to follow Colbert’s lead when he pops out from under his desk with a shotgun and a gasmask, wearing adult diapers. And Maher, to be blunt, did in fact suffer consequences for making an unpopular opinion, which is the main reason he’s sympathetic. He lost his long time current events show, Politically Incorrect, on account of that- it’s not an accident Real Time runs on HBO.

Rush? He calls himself an entertainer not because his show is a comedy show, not because he’s a stand-up comic or comic writer, not because his show is built around satire or joke-based critiques of policy.

He calls himself an entertainer because it lets him maintain a lower set of standards than a journalist. Journalists have professional and ethical standards they have to uphold. A journalist could say somebody was having multiple partners, but they’d have to get confirmation on that fact, not just make a ridiculous leap of logic from the cost of the birth control pills. They could report that Fluke was a whore, but by God they’d better have evidence of transactions, an arrest record, or a reliable witness of some kind to back their accusation, or ther would be a defamation lawsuit waiting on their steps just like the one that Shirley Sherrod dropped on the late Andrew Breitbart’s threshold.

Long story short, Rush likes to tell people that he’s a truth-teller, but he really is a propagandist coward who doesn’t want to held accountable for the inflammatory things he says.

As for the things Michelle Malkin complains about? Well, there are plenty of distasteful comments there that offend me as well, to put it plainly. I can, in good conscience, concede the point that those comments were made, and that they were hardly in good taste.

Now comes the question: is Malkin basically saying that both sides should not do this? That I could agree with. Like I’ve said before, I’m kind of old fashion on these things. I don’t want news anchors and political commentators saying nasty things and getting corrosively personal. But the argument I would not concede to is one that says that since some liberal commentators said these bad things, Rush should be given a pass.

If you want points for irony, just read the perjoratives she uses about other people:
1)”She’s really just another professional femme-a-gogue helping to manufacture a false narrative about the GOP “war on women.” ” -talking about Sandra Fluke.

2)”the civility police” - refering to those who were criticizing rush about what she alleges is “one” comment. See my link to Media Matters, where multiple comments are given out.

3)”the pandering president of the United States ” - To Obama for making the call to Sandra Fluke

4)”the Nation’s Concern Troll” to Obama again, for talking about how his Daughter’s situation in the world motivated his call.

5)”Self-serving opponents”

6)”MSNBC misogynist Ed Schultz”

7)”Mr. Civility” - the president, again.

Show me a Michelle Malkin column, and I could probably show you more of this. I find a lot of the rhetoric she described disgusting, but I think I could stay on topic and paint her as a less than shining example either of a calm considerate voice in the media, or a factual powerhouse. I find such disgusting stuff unnecessary. If Taibbi said she was melodramatic and overbearing, God, I’d agree, but the sexual remark was uncalled for.

So’s a lot of her rhetoric. One does not cancel the other out. Your comments remain as bright and shining or as foul and nasty as they always were, regardless of where your rival’s commentary lands.

Rush called Sandra Fluke a slut and a prostitute, made comments that she should be tired after all the sex, that she should make videos to show taxpayers all they were getting for their money. He repeated and reemphasized these comments. Yes, some liberals said bad things about women, or about Republican women, and some of their comments were just as disgusting as Rush’s. But as I always say, that doesn’t make them right, it makes them wrong with company. It bears repeating: this kind of commentary is wrong, and one side’s wrong hardly cancels out the other side.

Such approaches seem aimed at stifling the reaction of disgust to Rush’s comments, to try and say, “Democrats are no better.” But they can’t erase Limbaugh’s comments from the public record, nor their moral stain.

How about for once stopping these tirades about double standards, and work with your own people to improve their own single standards. Democrats and Liberals can point to the consequences media figures on their side suffer for inappropriate comments about others, can say that they apply a standard that punishes such nastiness. Can Republicans show the same, or are women on birth control considered acceptable targets for such vilification?

Enough of the rhetorical runaround.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 8, 2012 2:46 PM
Comment #337921
basics are good, so let’s start with the most basic question and answer: Where does the insurance company get the money to pay this bill? From the premiums that ALL members pay into…..

Yes kctim from premiums paid by all members. The money is pooled and used amongst other things to pay the bills incurred by the policy holders of your plan and the plan of many others as well. Were we to follow your logic no plan would be safe from your beliefs or the beliefs of the strictest or weirdest of those that pay into the insurance company. After all if after you pay your premium the check you paid with was tracked it could just as well have paid for the vacation of the secretary of the CEO of the company. Or it could have paid a small portion of the CEO’s salary. My point is it is no longer your money, when the check is cashed it is no longer your money kctim. Therefore you are not paying for the contraceptives for the lady down the street.

If we continue to use your logic kctim then what makes you think the money was yours to begin with? It came from your employer most likely so when does this entity relinquish it’s control of the money. The employer got the money from some customers when do they no longer have a say as to what the money is spent on? Of course they got the very same dollar bills from someone else who according to you may have a say on how the money is spent. Sounds absurd doesn’t it? Yet because the insurance money is pooled you somehow think a portion of it is yours to determine what is done with it.

Nobody says we should be without regulations. That is nothing but left-wing rhetoric. What I am talking about are government mandates that dictate what a private company must cover.

Isn’t this requirement a regulation,kctim?

So it is not regulation that you are against it is regulations against companies that is the bother. Regulating people is just fine regulating companies is not because the constitution says …?

Companies and religious institutions do not have the power to use the constitution to force others to bend to their will, they use it to try and protect themselves, as this latest contraception fiasco has shown.

Here I thought the constitution protected we the people not we the company or we the religious institution. In this case the company is hiding behind the religious institution who is using the constitution to thwart the right of the individual with it’s false claim of religious interference on the part of the government.

Government has the duty, not a right, to regulate that a business is ran in a lawful manner, it does not have a ‘right’ to mandate how that business will be ran, who or what it will benefit or what it will pay its employees.

The law tells the company to provide the insurance coverage. It doesn’t tell the company to downsize the board of directors and cut working hours for the CEO or to get into another market or line of business.

If you are forced to support something that goes against your religion, that is prohibiting the free exercise of your religion.

A business entity such as a hospital or insurance company does not have a religion. The people running the company have religious beliefs. In this particular case the insurance company, hospital or church, for that matter, are required to take birth control pills or anything else. The policy paid for by employees of the company to the insurance company through the company should be for the benefit of the person paying not the company they work for.

The only lie is that women would be denied contraception if religious and individual freedoms were respected.

But isn’t that exactly what the church is doing? Using there position to force their religious beliefs upon the people that work for companies they own? And when you say religious freedoms and individual freedoms you mean for the church and for the business entity not the individuals themselves right?

Posted by: j2t2 at March 8, 2012 3:00 PM
Comment #337923

Phx8 says:

“Furthermore, this sustained attack came from a leader of the conservative movement- arguably the single most powerful conservative in the country. It reached millions of people over the public airwaves in the middle of the day. This was not an isolated offensive remark on the internet or some obscure cable show. So Limbaugh’s attack differs in important ways.”

Please tell me, what office does Limbaugh hold in the Republican Party? Who has appointed him as the most powerful man in the conservative movement? I will say one more thing and it can apply to the next points; how long have liberals been attacking Limbaugh and trying to get him off the air?

“Furthermore, the object of Limbaugh’s attack was a young woman testifying at a meeting about birth control and the issue of religious freedom. The pretense of concern about religious freedom fell by the wayside and revealed the underlying hatred that motivated that pretense: profound misogyny.”

The meeting that this woman was speaking at was nothing more than a MSM press conference. The democrats were not allowed to bring her to a committee meeting, so the dems created their own press conference. So don’t give the dems credit for a legitimate meeting, when it wasn’t. The pretense of this meeting was political.

“This has been a hallmark of conservatism over the past decades. Under the pretense of concern over one right or another, conservativism has time and again revealed its underlying motivation, and so encouraged bigotry, prejudice, and hatred against various minorities: women, blacks, gays, latinos, muslims, and others.”

Are you talking about what liberal democrats have done for decades?

“Women recognize this misogynous attitude for what it is. No amount of sincere claims about religious freedom and constitutional rights can hide the underlying motivation. Women have seen it before. And there will be hell to pay in November.”

Posted by: phx8 at March 8, 2012 1:44 PM

Yes, Let us pray that November comes soon…


Re/ all of Stephen Daugherty’s comment on comedians, Limbaugh, or Michelle Malkin: he seems to have a problem with the hateful things said by liberals about conservative women, but he doesn’t hate them enough to condemn them. Instead his comments are, “its ok for liberals to say things, but not conservatives”. His and other liberals on WB are no more than racist and women attackers; attacking conservative women, conservative blacks, and conservative gays.

Posted by: Billinflorida at March 8, 2012 3:43 PM
Comment #337924

Stephen, I know what preventative care is and I know that Birth control meds do more than prevent pregnancies but the main thing is preventing a pregnancie and the Catholic Church frowns on contraceptive devices. Most Catholic Hospitals and Institutions at least in my area of this country are SELF INSURED. So by being self insured Obama’s mandate will go against their sincerly held religious beliefs. We can go round and around with examples but the fact remains your side believes in intruding into everyones lives and trying to control them.

Posted by: KAP at March 8, 2012 3:52 PM
Comment #337925


Conservatives attack these groups because they are not likely to vote for conservatives. Since these people do not share many of the conservative beliefs, these people are seen as inferiors.

Democrats have tried to reason with conservatives, to compromise with them, and in some cases even placating them.

Democrats are finally realizing that at this time in American history compromise is no longer possible. The conservatives have entrenched themselves and declared war on all opposition. Democrats are faced with two choices, capitulate or bring it on.

Republicans have indeed been waging a rhetorical propaganda war against all of those who are not allied with the various factions and issues that fall within the conservative coalition. In addition, the factions of the conservative coalition have made no secret of the fact that their dislike for eachother is only slightly less than for all those that are not a part of their coalition.

Are conservatives attacking women? Yes, they are attacking the 60% to 66% that do not share their conservative beliefs. The other 34% to 40% of women aren’t concerned because they share the conservative beliefs of their men folk.

Women created it and they are the glue that holds civilization together. I believe that as they gain more political power they will do a better job of keeping chaos in check.

Women believe more in community while men believe more in property rights. Perhaps it is because women were denied property rights for much of human history.

Civilization has reached a point where many do not share patriarchal believes and are challenging patriarchal authority.

I think this contraceptive argument and other women’s issues could help the Democrats breach the 60% level of support from voting women.

Even a majority of women in Texas are unhappy with what the Texas legislature has done to funding for women’s clinics in that state as their men’s war on Planned Parenthood continues.

Posted by: jlw at March 8, 2012 4:07 PM
Comment #337926

The fundamental difference is how we view choice.

For me choice means that nobody stops me from doing something and that I accept the likely consequences of what I do.

My liberal friends seem to believe that individuals cannot exercise choice unless government pays for or mandates it.

I think the liberal idea is dangerous in that it is the thinking of a slave who needs permission from a master to make choices, who cannot make choices not mandates or supported by authority.

A citizen, by contrast, makes choices on his/her own.

I favor access to birth control. Chrissy and I used it when appropriate. I don’t recall if we got it free or reduced cost. I suspect sometimes yes and sometimes no. Like everyone else, we are glad to get things free, but we cannot demand it.

Posted by: C&J at March 8, 2012 5:13 PM
Comment #337928

Stephen

“So you’re telling me you would be looking for reasons to believe…”

Now that isn’t what I said, is it. No, what I said was that I would want to know why they called her that, NOT that I didn’t believe they called her that.

“I think you’re trying to get out of the way of the obvious thrust of that question”

Of course you think that, you only read what you want to read, to hell with the whole.
For what it’s worth, I learned a long time ago to not get all bent out of shape over words.

Yes, again, Rush was wrong. It will do him well to remember that people today are overly PC and sensitive on even the silliest of things. More so for those with views that lean to the right.

I don’t care what Maher said either, I just believe the rules should be the same for both. But since it was an evil, very attractive woman from the right side of the aisle, the media and everybody got a good laugh.
Luckily, Palin didn’t really play up the poor me victim card as much as Fluke.

“I think people are tired of letting his offensive material slide.”

Then they will quit listening and he will be gone. But I think the problem you have is that there are not as many people tired of him as you think there should be.


Posted by: kctim at March 8, 2012 5:55 PM
Comment #337929

KAP-
Even self-insured institutions have obligations under the law, in fact basically the same ones as third party insurers. However, there’s another angle to this, which is that many self-insured organizations outsource the administration of the plans. So, the question would be whether a third party provider is brought in under the new rules to administer the contraception benefits that are required, or whether the third party administration provides it. Before you say anything, it might interest you to know that such operations already exist, so it’s not like there’s not a solution here.

What’s not getting talked about is the paranoid assumptions driving this dispute: that supposedly the governments trying to attack the Catholic Church, that it’s trying to force them to sacrifice their religious freedom, that the next step is something horrible- in other words, baseless fearmongering. Tell me, in the real world, what savvy political operator would try to scare Catholics from their fold? They’re one of the largest religious groups out there. Who could possibly think that they’d get away with doing that?

If we put aside the fevered political rhetoric, which often has a life of its own, people would realize that Obama would have nothing to gain from persecuting the church, and even less to gain from giving his opponents ammunition by actively trying to trample over their freedoms. Obama wasn’t looking to pick a fight. That’s not to say that Obama couldn’t look at the controversy and think to turn it to his advantage, but conspiracy theories should have no place in a clear-headed assessment of his motives and the effects of his plans.

The real problem of taking this approach is that the emotional charge these allegations are given make it difficult for people to see our side clearly, a side that says that a business or non-profit, whether operated by the church or not, has to provide everybody with the same benefits completely secular institutions have to. They can’t dodge regulations simply on account of their being religiously associated. The exceptions are made for institutions that are themselves religious in nature, like the church itself. From there, it’s a matter of compromise, because to go further and let employers determine what healthcare their employees are entitled to would be an abuse of the employees rights.

Can you not understand that the rights of the employees and the patients must be honored as well, that being a church in a nation with an establishment clause means that the Church cannot be given unfair exemptions from the duties an obligations others have under the law?

Billinflorida-
Quit while you’re behind. I made my point. Many of the comments, as quoted, sound disgusting to me, and I think they were wrong. I think it’s a distraction from substantive argument, and gives folks like you ammunition against us when we hold your people accountable.

But I’m not going to fall into your trap, because this is not a dilemma for me. When a liberal broadcaster gets sexist in their rhetoric, starts flinging around wild accusations like Rush did, they should expect the same response from the other side, and should make full apologies. If their companies choose to suspend them, or even fire them… well, that’s what happens. It may not be what part of me prefers, but unlike some, I’m willing to put principles in civil society ahead of political gain.

Your approach seems like an attempt to stifle critiques of Rush by a tu quoque attack. You’re saying, liberals make sexist remarks, so don’t attack Rush. I’m saying that Rush gets this treatment, and then liberals who do the same as him get that treatment, too. I had no argument with the Ed Schultz suspension, or forcing him to make an apology. That it might provide fuel to the right is secondary, it’s the offense that makes them vulnerable.

If you want me to do your work for you, forget it. But I’m not going to compromise my principles on you or the liberal journalists who didn’t live up to the right standards. Neither party deserves it.

The question is whether the right accuses the left of hypocrisy in order to join with it to end the wrongdoing, or to stifle criticism of its members. If the latter is true, they are encouraging a double standard themselves, where Democrats get the face full of flack for their failures and pecadilloes, while Republicans allow the sins of their leaders and pundits to go unpunished, accusing anybody trying to enforce a consistent standard on them of trying to enforce the double standard themselves.

I think you ought to to take a long, hard look at the Republican Party, and see how much crap you’ve let fly by as you’ve chased around Democrats on the charges. I mean, why does David Vitter, who frequented prostitutes while wearing diapers, keep his seat, while Anthony Weiner gets hounded out of his? I accept the forcing of Weiner’s resignation, what about Vitter’s?

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 8, 2012 5:58 PM
Comment #337930

“Like everyone else, we are glad to get things free, but we cannot demand it.”

Its not free. Its part of a package of preventive care measures, i.e., annual physicals, colon cancer screenings, breast cancer screenings, etc., that insurance providers must make available to their subscribers without co-pays and deductibles as part of their general premium package.

So, are conservatives against preventive medicine and the promise of reduced long term costs from advanced cancer, unintended pregnancies, diabetes, heart disease, etc.? Its not a Constitutional question. Its a practical one. Adjusting economic insurance incentives to favor early detection of diseases and prevention of expensive procedures would normally seem admirable. But, then again, there are political reasons to consider. Never give Obama any credit, particularly on the health reform measures.

Oh, its a religious issue. Never mind that it is settled law that businesses engaged in general commerce owned by religious organizations are subject to the same law as applicable to any other business. Never mind that US Catholics overwhelming reject the Church of Rome’s dogma on contraception and have for decades. Somehow, the Church’s position trumps the beliefs of US Catholics. What a strange position to argue. It turns the concept of free exercise of religion and individual freedom on its head.


Posted by: Rich at March 8, 2012 6:12 PM
Comment #337932

Rich

I say again that I am for choice. I chose my health plan based on what I wanted to pay and what was offered. I did not opt for the plan that covers everything because I prefer to pay less. Do you advocate that government demand that I take out the Cadillac insurance plan that pays for all sorts of services I don’t need or want? And if I opt NOT to get full dental plans, should I be able to demand that it be given me when I have a need?

Many insurance firms offer preventive medicine because they find it costs them less in the long run. This is good. But some sorts of “preventive medicine” don’t work. Rahm Emanuel’s brother Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel was a health adviser to Barack Obama. He advised that we should adopt a outcome-based criteria. That would mean many preventive actions and tests would not be done. Politics beat back this sensible approach.

Posted by: C&J at March 8, 2012 7:08 PM
Comment #337933

C&J,

We are not talking about “defensive medicine”, but the recommendations of a medical advisory board as to the most appropriate preventive medical tests.

I don’t think that anyone disagrees with you, including Barack Obama, about Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel’s advice that we should adopt a outcome-based criteria. One of the immediately enacted provisions of “Obamacare” was creation of a “non-profit Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute.., independent from government, to undertake comparative effectiveness research.[40] This is charged with examining the “relative health outcomes, clinical effectiveness, and appropriateness” of different medical treatments by evaluating existing studies and conducting its own.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patient_Protection_and_Affordable_Care_Act

I would also remind you that the stimulus package contained $1.1 billion dollars for comparative outcome based medical research. It has always been a priority of the Obama health care reforms. Contrary to your assertions that “Politics beat back this sensible approach”, the Obama administration has succeeded in getting a toe in the door of outcome based medical research and policy.

Posted by: Rich at March 8, 2012 8:12 PM
Comment #337934

Stephen, The problem remains that you as a liberal think everyone should do as you do, you make illogical claims for logical situations. The Catholic Church stays out of government so government should stay out of the Catholic Church. You as a liberal want CHOICE yet you don’t want to let anyone else have the privilage of CHOICE unless it is to your likeing. You believe government needs to intrude into everyones life because they know better and that is pure BS. I don’t want government mandating what I need I am man enough and old enough to know what I need unlike you who needs mommy and daddy government dictating every aspect of your life. I hope people are waking up to the crap and control you and your party are trying to push on this country.

Posted by: KAP at March 8, 2012 8:12 PM
Comment #337936
Yes, again, Rush was wrong. It will do him well to remember that people today are overly PC and sensitive on even the silliest of things. More so for those with views that lean to the right.

kctim are you saying there was a point in time when it was acceptable to publicly call someone’s daughter a slut, without cause. That is was just some silly thing he did that in the past would have been overlooked by the father of the lady in question? Really your trying to tell us that we are to PC today because Limbaugh is spread this unfounded nonsense across the air waves.

When exactly was this acceptable to the American public?

Posted by: j2t2 at March 8, 2012 8:47 PM
Comment #337938

Neither Stephen’s, nor any other liberal’s arguments on WB mean anything. It doesn’t matter what they say, but what does matter is what the American people will say. The left on WB is trying to convince themselves of the argument against religion, they are certainly not convincing any concervatives. This is nothing more than an attempt to change the subject from the economy to women’s rights. When it’s all said and done, the American people will vote based on the economy and not some some organized attempt by the left to make a whore look like an innocent school girl.

“I think you ought to to take a long, hard look at the Republican Party, and see how much crap you’ve let fly by as you’ve chased around Democrats on the charges. I mean, why does David Vitter, who frequented prostitutes while wearing diapers, keep his seat, while Anthony Weiner gets hounded out of his? I accept the forcing of Weiner’s resignation, what about Vitter’s?”

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 8, 2012 5:58 PM

Sorry Stephen, but your trying to play a word game. If either Democrats or Republicans resign in disgrace, it is not pressure from the other side that does it. It is because they become a political liability. If democrats wanted Weiner to resign, it wasn’t because he was a perv; it was because he would cost them a House seat. So, don’t come on here spouting words of rightousness.

Furthermore, you have absoluty no problem with the liberal left spouting hateful things against conservative women. In fact, I bet we could go through the archives of WB and find a plethora of evil statements by you and others toward Palin and other conservative women.

Posted by: Billinflorida at March 8, 2012 8:58 PM
Comment #337939

Rich

I actually like the guy. But I see his sensible policies caught in the political process. I did not support the claims about him as a Dr Death. That was one political risk on “my” side. On the other side is the political fight over tests that are not very effective but politically correct. Frequent mammograms or MRIs, for example.

The challenge for American medicine has been that it tends to get gold plated. If a procedure sometimes works, it becomes required. ObamaCare’s possible upside was that it could have limited procedures. But it contained no real way to do this, since it left intact the medical-legal complex that drives up costs.

Posted by: C&J at March 8, 2012 9:04 PM
Comment #337967

billinflorida,
You write: “Please tell me, what office does Limbaugh hold in the Republican Party? Who has appointed him as the most powerful man in the conservative movement?”

Sure. Have it your way. Rush Limbaugh? Never heard of him. That name means nothin’ to no one. Just some guy.
Tee hee.

“The meeting that this woman was speaking at was nothing more than a MSM press conference. The democrats were not allowed to bring her to a committee meeting, so the dems created their own press conference. So don’t give the dems credit for a legitimate meeting, when it wasn’t. The pretense of this meeting was political.”

Correct. I was very careful not to use the word “hearing.”
I’m not sure what a ‘legitimate meeting’ would be, but this was a political meeting NOT held as an official House hearing. It would probably never have received any attention under ordinary circumstances.

“When it’s all said and done, the American people will vote based on the economy and not some some organized attempt by the left to make a whore look like an innocent school girl.”

Do you know the definition of misogyny?

It’s ugly. And when you call that young woman a “whore” you are being a misogynist, and proving my point. Nice. You’re a real class act, billinflorida.

Do you really think the economy will be a winning issue for Republicans? Then have fun with tomorrow’s unemployment numbers. Hahahahahahahahahahahaha.

Posted by: phx8 at March 8, 2012 10:05 PM
Comment #337968

Billinflorida-
I think our readers will be the judge of whose post or comment means something, as much as you would like to award yourself the trophy in this debate of ours.

I find it particularly interesting that you call Sandra Fluke a whore yourself, especially since Rush’s logic on that count relied on an mistaken impression of how birth control pills are administered. I’m sure she’s no innocent school-girl, but you’ve yet to provide the truth that is supposed to be your defense to libel.

I suppose you’ll also tell me that no conservative, especially not the late Andrew Breitbart, was involved in the releasing of that photo, or chased own any leads, and that Republicans were saying absolutely nothing to challenge Weiner’s right to stay in office. Correct?

Furthermore, you have absoluty no problem with the liberal left spouting hateful things against conservative women. In fact, I bet we could go through the archives of WB and find a plethora of evil statements by you and others toward Palin and other conservative women.

My problem with Palin is that she’s a dishonest intellectual lightweight. I dislike her for much the same reasons I dislike Rick Perry.

I’ll tell you what really led me to dislike her, though: her introductory speech. It wasn’t merely the insults to the liberals, it was something that came later: nearly everything she said in that speech was dishonest. When somebody just lies to my face repeatedly like that, it’s an insult to my intelligence.

Quit making trying to scapegoat sexism for Palin’s failures. She was simply one of the worst running mate picks since Dan Quayle. Worse, in fact, because I don’t remember Quayle’s answers trailing off into nothingness. I don’t recall “what magazines or newspapwers do you read.” being a stumper for him. I don’t recall him giving button-pusher word-salad responses to questions.

You want to go looking for evil statements, you go ahead, but I think all you’ll find or quote is me complaining about what a moron she is.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 8, 2012 11:23 PM
Comment #337969

So, what do we call someone who is not married and is using birth control pills?

At one time there were applicable names that they could be called, but, alas, PC correctness has the ruling day.

But, what is the reference to a woman who is not married and is using birth control pills? They sure are not for a headache.

Maranatha

Posted by: tom humes at March 8, 2012 11:47 PM
Comment #338035

Re/whore: isn’t she the one who said she couldn’t afford the birth control pills to protect herself against all the guys she was screwing? If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it must be (well you get the picture).

Stephen Daugherty can’t help himself; he’s still trying to slam Palin for her ignorance. Tell me Stephen, how many times can Sarah Palin buy you, or perhaps tell us the last time you were the governor of a state, or the last time you were interviewed on TV, or who knows your name? Nadda, you are a nobody who thinks the world revolves around you. You and the rest of your little puppet liberals on WB blab on and on about the condition of the world and how to fix it; but your absence would mean nothing. You are the mouthpieces for liberalism on WB. spouting the daiy talking points of the socialist politicians who in 8 months, after being sent home from DC, will be looking for some other way to screw Americans.

Posted by: Billinflorida at March 9, 2012 11:00 AM
Comment #338037
Please tell me, what office does Limbaugh hold in the Republican Party? Who has appointed him as the most powerful man in the conservative movement?

It seems you believe that one needs to be in the repub party to be a powerful conservative why is that?

I would offer, billinflorida, that the different elected representatives who over the years have apologized to Rush for offending him when he has made some stupid comment have anointed him as a conservative power broker. Them and his listeners who march in lockstep behind him.

As far as your calling Fluke a “whore” whilst not being able to provide any evidence other than your lame “she takes birth control so she must be” comment, couldn’t the very same thing be said about your mother or your wife or your daughter, it’s not like a person would need proof as they are not wearing burqa’s right?.

It seems you are in league with the Taliban on this issue billinflorida as they must agree with you regarding Fluke. Conservatives seem to talk the talk on liberty and freedom but the shine is off the apple on this issue.Conservatives are using government to impose their religion on others.

Perhaps your hatred of women who do not obey your commands is overriding your intelligence on this matter but I would suggest you take the time to consider your thoughtless comments.


http://www.mediaite.com/tv/colbert-rush-limbaugh-apologized-because-he-will-do-anything-with-his-mouth-for-cash/

Posted by: j2t2 at March 9, 2012 11:25 AM
Comment #338039

tom humes-
Times have changed. Women have sex outside of marriage. Most who do, though, do so as part of a committed relationship, which may indeed lead into a marriage. Women also take birth control pills after marriage, as part of family planning. With the costs of having children these days, it’s no small concern.

Long story short, you should realize that sleeping around is still considered a hazardous and unwise thing, that people who do it are not admired, for the most part. The process leading up to and following marriage has changed, but people still want their partner to be faithful, and most are not looking to have children just to neglect them or be forced to care for them in insufficient circumstances to do it right. That’s one reason population growth has slowed remarkably, with the newest generation finding it difficult to get a job and provide for a family.

The folks out there aren’t immoral, despite what you think. They value being faithful to a partner. They value raising children under proper circumstances. They don’t like to hear somebody, especially arrogant media figures, trashing them as if they did lack those morals.

Billinflorida-
You know what, you folks are being given every chance not to stick your feet in your mouths, and you’re passing it up. I know women who have no partners, or just one partner who take it, so your implications are unsound unles you can back them up with further evidence. I know you think you don’t need to, but you’re talking somebody’s character here, and if you don’t truly know what you’re talking about, you might as well stop digging yourself in deeper.

As for the rest? Palin’s a rich and famous moron. Oooh. I’m wrong then, aren’t I? Money makes people right, right? Famous people can’t be full of crap, can they?

If you had a decent defense for her abilities, if it had really crossed your mind to do the research necessary to refute the charges, you would have done than. Instead, you just fling fallacies our way, trying to intimidate me with the thought that owing to her celebrity, wealth, and influence, she must be smarter, wiser, and more competent than me.

But you know what? As the Declaration of Independence says, I was created equal to her. As the constitution says, me and her are equal under the law. And as I say it, only the facts can make you right, not your money, your fame, or people’s sense of your influence.

I’m not going to let you convince me that I am peasant by comparison. I am an American, and I will insist on my equality, and her accountability. And she will never have my vote, or the vote of millions of Democrats and Republicans who no less minor by comparison to her, with her wealth and power than I am. And that means that as powerless as you think I am, me, and all the other Americans still have the power to deny her the ambitions she cherishes. Power can be concentrated in the hands of the many or through the efforts of the many, and people like you are about to get an object lesson in why the many matter in politics more than the few.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 9, 2012 12:01 PM
Comment #338041

Stephen, You are jealous of Sareh Palin!!!!!!!!!!! LOL

Posted by: KAP at March 9, 2012 1:14 PM
Comment #338043

Stephen, Palin may be a moron in your eyes bvecause of her political views but she’s a rich moron making money commenting on fools like you and your party. Speaking of morons you still have one who used to be speaker of the house and now minority leader so Stephen even liberals and Democrats have their MORONS.

Posted by: KAP at March 9, 2012 1:28 PM
Comment #338050

KAP,

“…You are jealous of Sareh Palin!!!!!!!!!!! LOL”

What an absurd notion.

“Palin may be a moron in your eyes bvecause of her political views but she’s a rich moron making money…”

I still can get rich if I choose to, but Palin will always be a moron, and it has nothing to do with her political views.


tom humes,

“At one time there were applicable names that they could be called, but, alas, PC correctness has the ruling day.”

Perhaps we could give Sandra Fluke a “Scarlet Letter” as well, it could be burned into her forehead for all to see. With all of the sexual partners you folks believe she is having, surely at least one of them is a married man.

“But, what is the reference to a woman who is not married and is using birth control pills? They sure are not for a headache.”

From this comment I can only conclude that you know nothing about the use of birth control pills, other than for birth control.
I can also conclude that you believe that sex is only for procreation, and perhaps you think that a woman shouldn’t enjoy sex outside of birthing babies.


phx8,

Limbaugh quadrupled down last Monday with a bilious, ass-hat rant about the sponsors that pulled out, and how it was his loyal listeners who made them what they were.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at March 12, 2012 10:12 PM
Comment #338051

As I said Rocky you Democrats still have a MORON in power actually two one MAJORITY LEADER and one MINORITY LEADER at least Palin never made it to power, she still might be a MORON and a rich one at that but you Democrats must be jealous because your always talking about her. Being two faced I guess is a trait of democrats now putting down conservative women but when a conservative puts down a liberal women you all get mad and demand an appology nothing has been said about the vial things Maher and other liberal media say about conservative women even Obama’s pac recieves a million dollars from the A— and they keep it.

Posted by: KAP at March 12, 2012 10:30 PM
Comment #338052

KAP-
The trouble for the GOP with Sarah Palin is that some love her so much they can’t see just how much of a boat anchor her kind of character is. They just see liberals attack and reflexively defend. Can’t get through a debate without convincing people she’s a moron? Oh, that must be the liberal media. She can’t answer a simple question about what she reads in any convincing detail? Katie Couric ambushed her!

You ought to be taking these as signs of her unreadiness for that office, but you don’t.

Let me be blunt about Sarah Palin: the reason we concentrate on her, and on other fringe characters on the right, is to demonstrate just how far the GOP has strayed from the mainstream, from having acceptable standards of competence and coherence with the rest of society. Long story short, she’s a gift from the Gods for us to show that the Republicans never learned the lessons of George Bush.

Unfortunately for you, she’s no longer alone. Furthermore, you have the ill fortune to still be reflexively defending these people, because any admission of a problem or of setbacks here are seen by you as weakness.

Well, sometimes the real weakness is failing to acknowledge when you are defeated, whether it’s somebody else that defeats you, or your own darn self.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 13, 2012 1:01 AM
Comment #338073

KAP,

“Being two faced I guess is a trait of democrats now putting down conservative women but when a conservative puts down a liberal women you all get mad and demand an appology nothing has been said about the vial things Maher…”

The right has been “putting down” all things “not right” for decades, but conservative women are sacrosanct?

Palin is a public figure. She put herself in the spotlight, and she knew the job was dangerous when she took it. If she cannot handle the “stress” she shouldn’t be there. If she wanted a more private vacation she should have had a more subtle paint job on her bus.

Ed Shultz humbly apologized and got suspended for a week. Which is interesting because the right has been telling us that anything said on MSNBC is meaningless anyway.
I don’t care enough about Mahr’s “humor” to pay to see it.

Palin bullied Letterman, after his public apology, for more than a week over his comments.

Rush has continued as if nothing happened.

The right held a Congressional hearing about women’s health, without involving any women. I don’t know about you, but that seems a bit silly to me.

BTW, here is the transcript from Fluke’s testimony;

http://abcnews.go.com/images/Politics/statement-Congress-letterhead-2nd%20hearing.pdf

Frankly I don’t see where she “demanded” anything.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at March 13, 2012 7:25 AM
Comment #338075

J2

You ignore the most important part of the argument: freedom of choice.
No matter how you look at it or how you try and spin it, the money consumers give a business is used to support that business, its employees and its products, and we have the right to choose what our business offers and what we choose to support as consumers.

“If we continue to use your logic kctim then what makes you think the money was yours to begin with? It came from your employer most likely so when does this entity relinquish it’s control of the money.”

They relinquish control when they and I choose to enter into an agreement about my compensation for work they desire.

“The employer got the money from some customers when do they no longer have a say as to what the money is spent on?”

After the customer has agreed to the terms of sale and chooses to support the company by exchanging money.

“Yet because the insurance money is pooled you somehow think a portion of it is yours to determine what is done with it.”

That is because I do determine what is done with my money every time I choose to support a business. If I don’t like how Company A treats their workers, I choose NOT to use their product. If I don’t like how Michael Moore lies, I choose NOT to watch his propaganda. There should not be a law mandating otherwise.
That is why choice is so important, J2.

“Isn’t this requirement a regulation, kctim?”

No, it is government running a private business by mandate.

“Regulating people is just fine regulating companies is not because the constitution says …?”

Quite the opposite J2, and you know it. Regulations control the manner in which people and business operate, not mandate and dictate what they do or offer.

“In this case the company is hiding behind the religious institution who is using the constitution to thwart the right of the individual with it’s false claim of religious interference on the part of the government.”

There is no individual right being thwarted here. You do not have an individual right saying a company must provide you with what you desire. If you don’t like that a company doesn’t offer contraception, go find one that does or buy it directly yourself.

“The policy paid for by employees of the company to the insurance company through the company should be for the benefit of the person paying not the company they work for.”

The policy is paid for by the company and the employees. If you don’t like what a company offers, go find a different plan, a different company or pay for what you desire yourself.

“But isn’t that exactly what the church is doing? Using there position to force their religious beliefs upon the people that work for companies they own?”

No, the church is not denying contraception because it is still available through other means.

“And when you say religious freedoms and individual freedoms you mean for the church and for the business entity not the individuals themselves right?”

The church is NOT saying you cannot use contraception, they are saying they do not wish to pay for it. The individual still has the right to contraception and can find and use contraception by other means.

Contrary to leftist talking points, personal responsibility are not dirty words and this nation would be in a lot better place if half the people didn’t think they were.

Posted by: kctim at March 13, 2012 10:26 AM
Comment #338076
The church is NOT saying you cannot use contraception, they are saying they do not wish to pay for it. The individual still has the right to contraception and can find and use contraception by other means.

So the church is saying their religious belief is against paying for contraceptives through an insurance policy? I don’t think so kctim.

The Church does not want it’s flock to use contraceptives which is in accordance with their current religious beliefs.

http://www.catholic.com/tracts/birth-control

Posted by: j2t2 at March 13, 2012 10:43 AM
Comment #338077

Stephen and Rocky, Sarah Palin IS NOT RUNNING FOR ANY OFFICE, she is a fox contributor making good money. All the crap that the left spews about her now is irrelevant. She is a conservative talking conservatively much like you two talk left wing crap. The left has strayed also for the mainstream. But getting back to the problem, Rush appolligized for his comments, Maher has not, Letterman had to be bullied, Shultz still is a A** as well as Mathews, and Maddow, and Rev. and I use the term loosly, Sharpton. The problem I have with this whole thing is Obama has said that kids and other family members of candidates are OFF LIMITS but here we have Maher giving Obama’s pac a million dollars and then going after Santorum’s kids IMO the pac should give that money back but if they don’t and Obama uses it he is a HYPOCRITE.

Posted by: KAP at March 13, 2012 11:23 AM
Comment #338078

j2 You are right about what the Catholic Church says about contraceptives but the fact is most of the Catholics especially the women don’t follow that edict or Church law. Much like some of the old rediculous laws that some communities have on the books, but the Church urges it’s flock to still follow the law unlike those community laws. The Church is NOT saying that insurance companies are not to pay for contraceptives but just the ones they use or in most cases they are self insured so they should be able to pick and choose what they cover. They wish to NOT pay for contraceptive directly or indirectly.

Posted by: KAP at March 13, 2012 11:33 AM
Comment #338079

The statements of those on the left are more moronic than anything Sarah Palin has spoken. They are more hateful than anybody could immagine.

And then you have the President of the United States drag his daughters into the fray.

For Shame.

Maranatha

P.S. The President will try to dispell this while he tries to conduct some military action between now and November to jack up the American people. Hope it fails.

Posted by: tom humes at March 13, 2012 12:35 PM
Comment #338082

“Let me be blunt about Sarah Palin: the reason we concentrate on her, and on other fringe characters on the right, is to demonstrate just how far the GOP has strayed from the mainstream, from having acceptable standards of competence and coherence with the rest of society. Long story short, she’s a gift from the Gods for us to show that the Republicans never learned the lessons of George Bush.

Unfortunately for you, she’s no longer alone. Furthermore, you have the ill fortune to still be reflexively defending these people, because any admission of a problem or of setbacks here are seen by you as weakness.”

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 13, 2012 1:01 AM

Sarah Palin has regenerated Republicans to go back to their conservative roots. Sarah Palin has been good for the Republican Party. It doesn’t matter what Mr. Daugherty or any other liberals spout, they do not vote Republican and therefore have no say in whether we are establishment Republicans or conservative. The election in 2010 is the result of the Sarah Palin conservative/Tea Party movement and it will have the same impact on the 2012 elections. Sarah Palin will have a lot to say as the 2012 elections gets closer. The republican primary and the split vote between Romney, Gingrich, and Santorum show the influence of conservativism in the process. Romney is only drawing about 1/3 of the republican vote; whereas 2/3’s of the vote is clearly for the conservative candidates. You try to make it sound like conservativism is a new phenomenon and therefore the downfall of the Republican Party. I suggest the exact opposite; the conservatives will force Romney (if he is the candidate) to adopt a conservative platform and will probably chose a conservative VP. I sense a great amount of fear from the left. Recent polls are also showing a drop in American trust in Obama to be able to fix anything.

Posted by: Steve at March 13, 2012 1:10 PM
Comment #338083

KAP-
First, let me address something here: according to their logic, they would be liable even if it was merely their premiums going to a company that offered the services.

Well, how do we avoid that? Well, the company essentially has to give up giving contraception coverage in order to do that. If we take the doctrine, though that the Church bears no further responsibility or guilt beyond what itself chooses, then the compromise is fine. They simply don’t want a compromise, they want their way, and they can’t see how anybody could find that unreasonable, short of being evil persecutors.

Unfortunately, others don’t see things their way, and they have their own rights.

As for calling Obama a hypocrite?

First, your basic connection is Obama’s SuperPAC. Did Obama’s SuperPAC air any commercials countering his stated opinion? No.

Second, what is the real connection there? Well, Bill Maher donated money to it. Did Obama tell him to do that? Not likely.

Third, who is Bill Maher? He’s a private citizen who wears the hat of a cynical, overbearing, foul-mouthed commentator on current events. Comics today specialize in being profane, and Bill Maher is a specialist’s specialist in that.

Fourth, what can Obama do to affect the decisions of the SuperPAC regarding Maher’s donation, could he send it back? Actually, he can’t legally coordinate with them.

So, Neither Obama nor his SuperPAC are responsible for the comments you call offensive, and hypocritical in regard to Obama’s stance on families’ involvement in campaigns Instead, it’s just a donor who I can easily bring up evidence is just as harsh and abrasive with Democrats and their foibles, and whose donation, by law, Obama can’t order the return of.

How is Obama a hypocrite? It’s not his actions, nor his superPAC’s, but that of a private citizen that everybody knows for harsh and cynical commentary about everybody, and whose donation Obama can’t return to repudiate his words.

As for Palin? You said I envied her, that I feared her power, and that was why I attacked her. That’s a rather self-serving way to put it, isn’t it?

I don’t envy her. There are more than enough people who earned their place in American Politics, who can field questions from reporters without cratering, who aren’t ridiculously ill-informed, who didn’t embarrass themselves win their performance. She can keep her money, her public reputation is likely ruined for good, her name associated by most people with candidates who are fundamentally lacking in qualification for office. You can pretend Obama, Reid, and Pelosi are just as bad, but I never saw Pelosi crater like Palin did, Didn’t see Reid back down from reelection in the face of tough electoral odds, and Never saw Obama stray much from a full command of the facts.

You talk about things I say merely because I’m a Democrat, even as you say things that could only hold true if you ignored most of the critical evidence on the matter.

Frankly, I’m glad I’m not Sarah Palin. I hate looking incompetent or pathetic in front of others. I despise people who charge into high positions unprepared, fueled by ruthless ambition. You can contradict me, as you usually do, or you could recognize that I genuinely don’t think much of Sarah Palin.

Really, I’m saying this to Republicans for two reasons. One is that I can’t figure out why they don’t figure it out. Two is that I don’t want to fear what will happen when such overconfident incompetents inevitably get elected. I want sane intelligent people running the GOP again.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 13, 2012 1:16 PM
Comment #338084

Tom I am sorry to see your hatred for the president has overwhelmed your sense of Country and the bigger picture. To think that you would want a military action of this Country to fail is pretty telling. Shame on you.

Posted by: j2t2 at March 13, 2012 1:26 PM
Comment #338085
j2 You are right about what the Catholic Church says about contraceptives but the fact is most of the Catholics especially the women don’t follow that edict or Church law.

That is an issue between the church and it’s followers KAP. The problem is the church interference into the public sphere as it attempts to exert it’s will on the followers and others.


The Church is NOT saying that insurance companies are not to pay for contraceptives but just the ones they use or in most cases they are self insured so they should be able to pick and choose what they cover. They wish to NOT pay for contraceptive directly or indirectly.

Yet they want to do business in this Country. The business entities that are not affiliated with the Catholic church have the same regulations and must abide by them. Is it fair for the church affiliated to not be subject to the same regulations as other business entities?

The church has been trying to convince the American people that this is a fight for religious liberties yet in fact it is a business decision hiding behind religion.

Posted by: j2t2 at March 13, 2012 1:37 PM
Comment #338087

I just love it when a bunch of MEN start discussing women and their bodies.

You profess to know so much, but in reality you know so little. It totally amazes me.

This so-called birth control pill is not only for birth control. It is a medication to treat numerous health problems, including endrometriosis, osteoporosis, as well as help make menopause easier to deal with - for both women and MEN.

Insurance companies refuse to pay for THE PILL even when the consumer is 60 years old, and well past baby baring age! That is stupid. And I don’t know where you all got the notion that it cheap. It isn’t. It is not the co-pay, that concerns me, rather it is the lack of any payment that concerns me.

However, on the topic of birth control itself, I suppose you guys would rather pay for insurance, child support, and spend quality time with the babies that VIAGRA helps you to produce, rather than make birth control more easily available. Since when did having or not having an erection become a medical problem?

Rush Limbaugh is an idiot, so far off the grid that he is down right laughable. Sometimes I wonder whether he s just playing the radio audience - not truly believing anything he actually says, but just speaking off the wall to see how many idiots he can get to follow him.

I love to listen to him when I am driving a long distance. He either makes me very angry, and I stay alert, or makes me laugh, and I still stay alert!

Enough said. Guys take a break from worrying about my body, my choices. Worry about your own!

Posted by: Highlandangel1 at March 13, 2012 2:16 PM
Comment #338088

It is a fight for religious liberties and non religious liberties j2 when government starts to mandate what private industry must pay for. As far as the statement a war on women is a scare tactic when a women can readily get BC and cheaply. Republicans or conservatives are NOT depriving women of anything much less waging a war on them and any woman with common sence sees that. They are not worried about BC they are mostly worried about the economy and being able to feed their families and putting gas in their cars.
Stephen, You are being hypocritical Rush is a comentator who has a radio show also but you jump because he called Flute a whore. Yet you have nothing to say about the way Maher treats conservative women or any other liberal commentator.

Posted by: KAP at March 13, 2012 2:21 PM
Comment #338089

As usual, Stephen Daugherty spouts the daily talking points of the Obama admin and the left. Today the talking point is Sarah Palin.

Obama came out with a new political add running against Palin in the 2012 election:

“Campaigning like it’s 2008? Amid the buzz about HBO’s Game Change, President Obama‘s re-election campaign has released an ad that features none other than Sarah Palin herself. In fact, the entire ad (entitled “Sarah Palin and the Far Right”) is centered around a clip of Palin’s remarks about racial discrimination and how the president has been influenced by radical philosophies.”

http://www.mediaite.com/online/in-new-campaign-ad-pres-obama-is-still-running-against-sarah-palin/

The latest liberal show “Game Change” is the call to all good socialist liberals to begin the update 2012 attacks on Palin. Obama has to have an enemy, a focal point to lead all brain-dead liberals in the direction they are supposed to go. As I have said before, it’s a shame Stephen Daugherty can’t come up with something original.

Oh, by the way, the PR firm representing the Fluke slut also represents “Game Change” and guess who now runs this PR firm? You guessed it, Anita Dunn:

“Anita Dunn is a political strategist who served as White House Communications Director from April through November 2009. She is a senior partner at SKDKnickerbocker Consulting in Washington, D.C. and has recently become a contributor for NBC News / MSNBC / CNBC…..

A veteran political operative, Dunn, as interim White House Communications Director, took the lead in the Obama administration’s criticism of the Fox News Channel.[5] On Sunday, October 11, 2009, she appeared on CNN’s Reliable Sources and was asked to clarify a statement she made to Time magazine regarding Fox News, “it’s opinion journalism masquerading as news.”[6] She responded by saying, “if you were a Fox News viewer in the fall election, what you would have seen would have been that the biggest stories and biggest threats facing America were a guy named Bill Ayers and something called ACORN.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anita_Dunn

Let’s look a little closer at Anita Dunn:

“Obama administration communications director Anita Dunn commended the wisdom of mass murdering Communist Chairman Mao in her address to high school students this past June. Dunn cited Mao and Mother Teresa as her two favorite political philosophers. I wrote about Dunn’s address here, John here; both posts include video of Dunn’s address. Dunn said to the assembled students:

“A lot of you have a great deal of ability. A lot of you work hard. Put them together and that answers the “why not” question. There is usually not a good reason. And then the third lesson and tip actually comes from two of my favorite political philosophers: Mao Zedong and Mother Teresa, not often coupled together, but the two people that I turn to most to basically deliver a simple point, which is, you’re going to make choices. You’re going to challenge. You’re going to say why not. You’re going to figure out how to do things that have never been done before.

But here’s the deal — these are your choices. They are no one else’s. In 1947, when Mao Zedong was being challenged within his own party on his plan to basically take China over, Chiang Kai Shek and the nationalist Chinese held the cities that had the army. They had the airport. They had everything on their side, and people said, “How can you win? How can you do this? How can you do this, against all the odds against you?” And Mao Zedong said, “You know, you fight your war, and I’ll fight mine.” And think about that for a second. You don’t have to accept the definition of how to do things, and you don’t have to follow other people’s choices and paths, OK? It is about your choices and your path. You fight your own war. You lay out your own path. You figure out what’s right for you. You don’t let external definitions define how good you are internally. You fight your war. You let them fight theirs. Everybody has their own path.

And Mother Teresa, who, upon receiving a letter from a fairly affluent young person who asked her whether she could come over and help with that orphanage in Calcutta, responded very simply, “Go find your own Calcutta.” OK? Go find your own Calcutta. Fight your own path. Go find the thing that is unique to you. The challenge that is actually yours, not somebody else’s challenge. One of the things that we see the Obamas, both of them, Michelle and Barack, came out of backgrounds as community organizers, working.”
Among Dunn’s explanations of her citation of Chairman Mao as one of her favorite political philosophers is that she was kidding. Watching the video of Dunn’s speech, however, we can see with our own eyes that she takes Mao seriously indeed. We can now also observe that that she lies like a rug.”

http://www.theobamafile.com/_associates/AnitaDunn.htm

Do I smell conspiracy? Why yes I do and it appears the liberals on WB are involved up to their liberal necks.

The Fluke slut thing was nothing more than an attempt to change the discussion from economy and gas prices to something else. As with everything else the liberal try, it will backfire on them.

The democratic party will always tell us who they fear, by who they try to destroy.

Posted by: Frank at March 13, 2012 2:27 PM
Comment #338091

tom humes-
He didn’t drag his daughters into the fray, he demanded people keep family out of the campaigns, and so far, nobody can offer evidence that he’s done otherwise.

You talk about what we’re saying being more moronic than anything Palin has said. Really? How did you establish that. And hateful? The trouble here is that your response is brief, vague, and mostly emotional, with little real argument as to what is hateful, what is moronic.

kctim-
I don’t recall any talking points I’ve encountered discouraging personal responsbility. That’s just rhetorical steamrolling by your side, the usual flattening of any notion of the acknowlegment of social factors in the economy and in other kinds of relationship into a caricatured reliance on them and nothing else. We want personal responsbility.

In fact, one of our talking points is that Birth Control is a form of personal responsbility. Rather than people going out there and just letting nature take its course, people are able to determine for themselves when they have children, making them less likely to come running to the government for public assistance.

The Catholic Church, at least the Bishops, seem to want to push the debate on birth control beyond simply having their people relieved of the necessity of buying it as part of any healthcare plan for their affiliated enterprises. They want the law to stop requiring free birth control in general.

You can glibly say, oh, you are free to pay for any other plan if you want to, but unfortunately for most people, the freedom does not equal the capability. Freedom without capability is pretty hollow. Despite that, pregnancy and its attendant costs still come to those who don’t have the contraception plans. So, ironically enough, you prevent folks from being as responsible as they could be, from keeping their own house in order.

The plain fact, as some have said, is that there are elements of the right wing who simply want to roll the clock back to the nineteen twenties or so, who want to pretend like Women’s liberation and the sexual revolution never happened. But it did happen, and in a very real way, the culture is permanently changed.

Like I have said before, this change isn’t entirely evil. Folks discovered on their own the value of two parents raising a kid. They discovered in many cases, if they ever forgot it in the first place, that free love isn’t so free, STDs, then AIDS making the point on one side, and simple human nature making it on the other side.

You think you have to drive personal responsibility on people with laws and policies, and all that garbage. You think you have to set the laws and the government back to the way it was for people to right their moral compasses. Well, I got news for you: they’ve largely done it for themselves, and after the chaos of the first few decades, they’ve settled in new equilibria.

And you know what? I think it will be difficult to get people to go back. The old system made sense in a world where tradition had more overwhelming weight, where women were essentially powerless, where most people lived on farms and lived out their lives doing simple, low tech labor.

You think people will just volunteer to be shoved back into the house, will volunteer to leave their childbearing to simple dumb luck, will simply look at a transvaginal probe, and say, oh, that’s what I get for being a slut?

There is no individual right being thwarted here. You do not have an individual right saying a company must provide you with what you desire. If you don’t like that a company doesn’t offer contraception, go find one that does or buy it directly yourself.

You say that. You allege that. But your word is not law, nor does it qualify as the government’s interpretation of the law. The law on this matter says that contraception plans must be included by law in anything employers offer. The law itself says that full-time employees must be given health coverage. But you? You disagree. Well, rule of law, mister, means that your disagreement carries next to no weight. There is an invidual right being thwarted here, according to current law.

Steve-
There’s another name for something that grows fast and out of control: a cancer.

If you want to throw away established conservatives who’ve had the experience to know when political wishful thinking has to give way to real world politics, be my guest. But whether or not you respect the opinions of people like me, the opinions of people like me, of independents, and others will matter when it comes time to have the election.

You say that the Tea Party will have the same effect this time as before in 2010. I really doubt that. Folks in your party have gone from fired up, to burnt out. You can say conservative candidates are getting 2/3rds of the vote, and reason that this means that conservatism is ascendant, but the practical problem is that it’s not a vote for one candidate.

What’s more, actually, it just shows a dangerous vacillation, a wish not to acknowledge that a purely conservative candidate can’t win, at the same time you rage against having to vote for a moderate Republican you can’t stomach winning.

And let’s say you do succeed in pushing Romney to the right. Congratulations! Not only is it much easier for Obama and other Democrats to emphasize to queasy Republican voters just how much of that is an act to please them, an act he’s likely to drop either in the general election or after taking office, it’s also easy to trap Romney on policies and positions that do nothing to endear him to centrist voters.

Long story short, that’s not fear you’re sensing. We’re laughing at our good fortune. We’re seeing the clown car careening off the cliff after this struggle with the wheel.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 13, 2012 2:30 PM
Comment #338092

Laugh if you want Mr.Daugherty, but I have to agree with Frank; there is great fear on the side of the left.

Do you have facts to back your claim that conservatives are burnt out?

I don’t know who you are talking about when you say conservatives “can’t stomach” Romney. I am a conservative and yet I have no problem with Romney winning. What I said was that conservativism will influence the Romney platform and that Romney will choose a conservative to run as VP. Recent polls show conservative republicans more fired up than democrats. These same polls show Obama dropping in popularity. These are liberal MSM polls.

Reagan was a conservative, who was not supported by the republican establishment, and yet won all 50 states. So your theory is wrong.

Posted by: Steve at March 13, 2012 3:24 PM
Comment #338095

J2

This issue is about the Church keeping its religious freedom and not having to pay for contraception, directly or indirectly. Not about what it teaches to its “flock.” That is why it wasn’t news until government mandated it pay for what it does not believe in.

The Church can not want its flock to use contraception all it wants. The church can say it won’t pay for contraception. That doesn’t mean contraception isn’t available for anyone who wants to purchase it.

Posted by: kctim at March 13, 2012 4:00 PM
Comment #338098

Stephen
Rhetorical steamrolling? Your people promote the idea that people are entitled to freebies at the expense of others. This encourages the belief that it is somebody else’s responsibility to provide them with what they desire. That is the exact opposite of personal responsibility.

“In fact, one of our talking points is that Birth Control is a form of personal responsbility.”

Yes it is, but so is paying for it. Which you guys choose to ignore.

“They want the law to stop requiring free birth control in general.”

Good. That is was and how it should be.

“You can glibly say, oh, you are free to pay for any other plan if you want to, but unfortunately for most people, the freedom does not equal the capability.”

Their capability is not my concern, nor do I care about the order they keep their house.

“The plain fact, as some have said, is that there are elements of the right wing who simply want to roll the clock back to the nineteen twenties or so, who want to pretend like Women’s liberation and the sexual revolution never happened. But it did happen, and in a very real way, the culture is permanently changed.”

The plain fact is that the left views ‘women’s liberation’ in a way that makes it dependent on others in order to be considered successful. Just how liberated is a woman who must depend on me, an evil white male, to provide her with things she desires?

“You think you have to drive personal responsibility on people with laws and policies, and all that garbage. You think you have to set the laws and the government back to the way it was for people to right their moral compasses.”

You should know me better than that by now Stephen. I don’t care what your moral compass is. In fact, as with most people on the right, I wouldn’t care about it at all if I wasn’t forced to pay for it.

“Well, I got news for you: they’ve largely done it for themselves, and after the chaos of the first few decades, they’ve settled in new equilibria.”

Yes they have, and they deserve to lose everything this country stood for.

“You say that. You allege that. But your word is not law, nor does it qualify as the government’s interpretation of the law.”

No kidding Sherlock. If it was, I wouldn’t be preaching about how we need to value the Constitution if we wish to remain a free, unique nation.

“The law on this matter says that contraception plans must be included by law in anything employers offer. The law itself says that full-time employees must be given health coverage.”

The law is based on emotion and is wrong. Do you sit back and do nothing when you disagree with a law that you know is wrong? Especially when you know it trumps individual rights in order to be enforced?

“But you? You disagree. Well, rule of law, mister, means that your disagreement carries next to no weight. There is an invidual right being thwarted here, according to current law”

Ah, but it does because I am not the only one who shares such views. Liberals cannot get elected in the area I have chosen to live in. We vote down liberal legislation because it violates individual rights.

But tell me Stephen, if this goes to the Supreme Court and it sides with freedom and says there is an individual right is being thwarted here, are you going to just roll over and accept it as the rule of law? I doubt it. In fact, I would bet that you would out there on the front lines trying to force your beliefs onto others the very next day.

Posted by: kctim at March 13, 2012 4:44 PM
Comment #338102

KAP-
Maher? I’ve watched comics all my life who cross the line twice and then pour muddy water over it. I expect certain kinds of comics to push the boundaries, and I acknowledge that a lot of what they say could be considered offensive if taken at face value.

I don’t take a lot of what he says at face value. But you know what? Maher’s show is an HBO program. People pay to watch him, and he has a right to be as offensive as he wants to be. Usually, I exercise the same right to be audience to something else that I observe with Rush Limbaugh. His brand of humor is just a bit too cynical and acerbic for my tastes.

Rush? Rush, despite everything, is a pundit and a commentator who basically calls himself an entertainer so he has some leeway on journalistic standards, which are higher for people who are actually expected to keep to the facts. He demands that he be taken very seriously, and much of what he says is taken very seriously.

Additionally, there’s another distinction here: Palin is a public figure, Fluke much less so. Palin has plenty of supporters and flacks to help her, Fluke is a private citizen. Fluke never got a chance to define her own reputation before Rush came along and slimed her on it.

We tolerate his bashing of public figures in part because they are public figures capable of defending themselves in the media, and open to public accountability.

I don’t agree with Maher on a lot of what he says, but I know that I am expected to take a lot less of it seriously, and I don’t have to agree with Maher to be a good Democrat or Liberal.

Maher, if you recall, had suffered pretty much what Rush has at this moment ten years. As a broadcaster on advertiser supported television, he voiced an unpopular opinion, and his show got cancelled over it. He now works on HBO, where he doesn’t have people to answer two. Do I think he should have called Sarah Palin what he did? No. Will I lose sleep over Maher? No. You shouldn’t either.

I’ve never been in favor of censoring Rush, but I’m fine with people exercising their free market rights to take their business elsewhere. If conservatives can work to knock people or programs off air for offenses, so can Liberals. You have a right to free speech, but not to somebody’s private platform or advertising support if they take special exception to what you say or do.

Besides, what I was trying to say with my entry was not that Rush needed censoring, but rather that Rush’s need to basically escalate and keep escalated his war of words against the Democrats and the liberals, his addiction, you could say to inflammatory language basically leaves him with no place to go on backing down, on acknowledging public scorn, even if he needs to.

Also, Republicans are in a similar situation. With everything basically founded at this point on being the Anti-Democrats, Republicans have given up their initiative.

Democrats, if they say offensive things can back down and say they’re sorry with minimal loss of face most of the time. In fact, often Liberals and Democrats are ahead of them. They don’t want to be seen as sexist, racist, or otherwise bigotted. Democrats can back down, Republicans can’t, and it’s gotten Republicans in a really strange place right now.

Republicans and Conservatives need to break the cycle of rash speech and desperate rationalization. They need to realize that they cannot rise above the standards of their audience if they don’t want to be pulled down by public contempt for doing so. They have to be accountable on these things, and Republican politics should be better compatible with that.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 13, 2012 6:31 PM
Comment #338103

Stephen, Then why don’t you comment on the hateful things liberal commentators say. You pick Rush because he is a conservative radio personnality. I’m not going to lose any sleep over either of these clowns because I never listen to either. I get enough of the same crap they spew on the msm especially the liberal msm then the conservative msm. Democrats if they say offensive things can back down and say they are sorry, give me a break they have to be pressured before they will just like the republicans so don’t give me Democrats are better then Republicans BS. Stephen people like you are why I don’t claim to be a Democrat like I once was at your age people like you have ruined the Democratic party.

Posted by: KAP at March 13, 2012 7:01 PM
Comment #338104

The Fluke woman is now a public figure. She has a PR firm run by Ms. Dunne. She is now a lobbyist.

There are so many lies and distortions by those on the left. The Congresspersons that went out of their way to confront the tea party people and then claimed that the “N” word was used. What a crock of manure.

The Obama care, which is a misnomer, has so many lies and mistruths in it that it should be a no brainer to have the Supreme Court call it unconstitutional.

Then you have Eric Holder speaking so many lies it would make a fisherman blush. This creep is so tied up with unconstitutional programs that the Constitution would be shredded by him and his cronies.

The problem with the left is they cannot understand the truth and common sense if it bit them in the arse.

Maranatha

Posted by: tom humes at March 13, 2012 7:33 PM
Comment #338108

“Additionally, there’s another distinction here: Palin is a public figure, Fluke much less so. Palin has plenty of supporters and flacks to help her, Fluke is a private citizen. Fluke never got a chance to define her own reputation before Rush came along and slimed her on it” Stephen Daugherty.

“The Fluke woman is now a public figure. She has a PR firm run by Ms. Dunne. She is now a lobbyist.” Tom Humes

Good points Tom Humes. We have been listening to the left claim the attacks on Palin are not only justified, but are the result of her thrusting herself into the public domain.

The Fluke woman thrust herself into the public eye when she chose to testify before a ficticious committee meeting, under the careful leadership of Anita Dunn and her PR firm. She’s a 30 year old career student, with a need for free birth control pills because she is screwing who knows how many guys. In my book this is the definition of a slut.

Mr. Daugherty’s personal political views have blinded his ability to reason.

Posted by: Steve at March 13, 2012 10:09 PM
Comment #338124
It is a fight for religious liberties and non religious liberties j2 when government starts to mandate what private industry must pay for.

But KAP business has regulations to follow, and they have for years. If you consider the contraceptives a mandate then wouldn’t any regulation also be considered a mandate and therefore, by your definition, a fight for liberties? Private industry is mandated to pay half of employee contributions to Social security. Private industry is mandated to have the proper licenses to conduct business. What isn’t a mandate KAP when it comes to the law of the land?


As far as the statement a war on women is a scare tactic when a women can readily get BC and cheaply. Republicans or conservatives are NOT depriving women of anything much less waging a war on them and any woman with common sence sees that.

But they are KAP. They are using religion as a means to control women in this case. If they weren’t this relatively small issue would not be an issue. Rush would be able to argue logically…. well that might be a stretch, but he would not find it necessary to ridicule and brow beat women over birth control. Costs are a smoke screen on this issue KAP as is the religious liberties argument.


They are not worried about BC they are mostly worried about the economy and being able to feed their families and putting gas in their cars.

Really KAP then why make such a fuss if they are not worried about BC?

Posted by: j2t2 at March 14, 2012 12:36 AM
Comment #338126

J2, No matter what BS you are saying women are NOT prohibited from getting BC. They can go to the local Wal Mart pharmacy and get it for $9.99 or if they don’t like that price they can go to the local free clinic or planned parenthood and get it for free. After finding out the Catholic Church does not prohibit the use if it is used for hormonal problems but the catch is they won’t pay for it or their insurance carrier.

Posted by: KAP at March 14, 2012 12:54 AM
Comment #338160

KAP-
You mean, why don’t I go out of my way to make your argument for you, and prove what you want me to believe?

You’re about half a step away from basically flailing in this debate and asking why I don’t simply drop everything and believe what you say to be true.

If you see things through objective lenses, and bigotry and sexism qualify as wrongs for you, Rush cannot justly escape scorn. I have seen more than I ever want to of arguments aimed at basically saying, “Democrats are just as bad, so shut up.” Sure, Democrats aren’t perfect on some issues, but really, if you care about moral progress at all, simply creating a vacuum of accountability based on that imperfection is the opposite of what you really want to do.

It’s time to stop pretending that protecting your own without fail has really protected the party. When people see how Republicans behave, and what they say, and then hear their words as to what they claim to believe, one often contradicts with the other. For the Republicans, the problem is particularly acute, because people might like the actions better than the rhetoric, might believe that those somewhat political incorrect sentiments are just campaign trashtalk. Republicans have gotten away with saying some pretty awful things, Rush in particular.

If you want to hold Democrats accountable for what they say, fine. But expect reciprocity, and accept it, because otherwise you have a system that doesn’t keep the right honest, or in touch with the rest of us.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 14, 2012 8:56 AM
Comment #338161

I wonder if those who have made this discussion all about Fluke’s sex life are married. Surely these men have enjoyed the lovely mood swings their wives and/or girlfriends suffered during “that” time of the month.
BC pills help regulate those hormonal shifts.

Speaking as a man that has been married for nearly 32 years, and though I no longer have to deal with it, I personally have appreciated that “medically” induced regulation.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at March 14, 2012 9:08 AM
Comment #338163

Stephen, I believe every politician that holds office should be held accountable for what he says and does no matter what political party. But you Stephen seem to give liberals and Democrats a pass case point Maher, and by him donating a million to Obama’s pac makes it seem like a double standard. Now if you really want to save face in this argument you would encourage Obama to encourage his pac to return the money. Rush didn’t donate any money to any candidate yet but if he did I’m sure you would be up in arms. So lets quit with the BS Stephen most conservative know on this blog that you have blinders on and ear plugs in when it comes to liberals and Democrats.

Posted by: KAP at March 14, 2012 9:44 AM
Comment #338164

Rocky As a married man I to went through that with 3 women in my house 2 daughters and the wife but neither I nor them complained about paying the co pays for their BC pills seeing how that was the norm for any medication. I also do not have to put up with the swings anymore after 38 years. As far as Fluke goes what she does with her sex life is her business but she made it my business when she wanted my HC payments to contribute to her sexcapades.

Posted by: KAP at March 14, 2012 9:54 AM
Comment #338167
That is because I do determine what is done with my money every time I choose to support a business. If I don’t like how Company A treats their workers, I choose NOT to use their product. If I don’t like how Michael Moore lies, I choose NOT to watch his propaganda. There should not be a law mandating otherwise.

kctim, yet once you have chosen to do business with this company your money ceases to be yours as was the case in the other examples you agreed with. You are not paying for anyone’s contraceptives just because the group policy you have pays for this option.

Posted by: j2t2 at March 14, 2012 11:02 AM
Comment #338168
J2, No matter what BS you are saying women are NOT prohibited from getting BC. They can go to the local Wal Mart pharmacy and get it for $9.99 or if they don’t like that price they can go to the local free clinic or planned parenthood and get it for free.

The same can be said for high blood pressure medication and many other generics drugs for many different ailments KAP. Should every drug available as a generic be excluded from all insurance policies as well? While we are it it we may as well exclude all drugs that could be used or sold illegally, all drugs that doesn’t meet with the approval of any religious order and oh hell, all drugs period. After all the goal is for the insurance company to make huge profits and the business entities to offer insurance that doesn’t cover health care that some of us could afford ourselves.

After finding out the Catholic Church does not prohibit the use if it is used for hormonal problems but the catch is they won’t pay for it or their insurance carrier.

Yep it gets stranger and stranger doesn’t it. Seems to me that they are hiding behind the banner of religious liberties, using it as a smokescreen for their business ventures, hoping to gain a competitive advantage over their rivals in these business’s who pay for plans with contraceptives. Greed wins out eh KAP?

Posted by: j2t2 at March 14, 2012 11:17 AM
Comment #338169

j2, Most free clinics will give a person medications they need for free. I know because me and my wife went to one for over a year before getting health ins. even BC if needed. The catch was some that were Generic we had to pay out of pocket because they were so cheap. Even someone on low income can afford $4.00 for meds. No they are hiding behind the banner of the first amendment. You liberals or whatever you are slay me with your reasoning, you want religion out of government but it’s OK for government to intrude into religious rights on the guise of womens rights. So much for the seperation of Church and State as long as the Church stays out of state affairs but ok the other way around.

Posted by: KAP at March 14, 2012 12:16 PM
Comment #338170

Frank-

As usual, Stephen Daugherty spouts the daily talking points of the Obama admin and the left. Today the talking point is Sarah Palin.

As usual, Frank resorts to ad hominem arguments, missing the relevant point. We’re running against a party that’s disastrously out of touch, and Palin and company provide plenty of useful examples along those lines.

You don’t seem all that more in touch yourself. You refer to the woman at the center of this controversy as “the Fluke slut”. How charming! You must truly be charming the politically independent and conservative women who, having actually taken Birth Control in real life, know that you’re not taking all those pills because you need one for every time you have sex, you’re taking them continuously because that’s the only way they’re effective, altering the hormonal balance that allows preganancy to occur.

You demonstrate your ignorance, and thereby make my point for me. Thank you!

That Anita Dunn and the Democrats would take an interest in defending Sandra Fluke against your slander is no great mystery or conspiracy. Democrats see a golden opportunity to draw women voters away from Republicans, one they could have never forced Republicans to give them on their own.

All you can see is socialists, sluts, and degenerates. You don’t recognize that you’re stacking more and more voters on our side, while you turn them away from yours.

I’m not afraid of a party that’s rolled over and exposed it’s vulnerable underbelly. It’s that party that should be afraid of us, that should be shedding, not embracing, its liabilities.

kctim-
For the Catholic Church not to pay indirectly for contraception, the way it’s arguing it, others have to be deprived of their opportunity to decide things for themselves. It’s prepared to make things more difficult for the average woman out there to get what it wants.

Your people promote the idea that people are entitled to freebies at the expense of others. This encourages the belief that it is somebody else’s responsibility to provide them with what they desire. That is the exact opposite of personal responsibility.

We are not averse to social program spending, but often enough we key our programs towards other productive ends, like creating jobs, encouraging research and innovation that creates new lines of work, and encourages people to seek higher paying work. We also support Unions, on the theory that people who are well compensated for work, who have a safer workplace, and are less abused by management will be happier and more productive. Quite the opposite of encouraging laziness, we encourage work, and a work environment where people prefer being employed to being out of work.

“In fact, one of our talking points is that Birth Control is a form of personal responsbility.” Yes it is, but so is paying for it. Which you guys choose to ignore.

The insurance company, who in turn bills the consumer.

The plain fact is that the left views ‘women’s liberation’ in a way that makes it dependent on others in order to be considered successful. Just how liberated is a woman who must depend on me, an evil white male, to provide her with things she desires?

Sorry, but what? Liberals consistently support initiatives that allow women to be more independent, and make more choices for themselves.

I don’t care what your moral compass is. In fact, as with most people on the right, I wouldn’t care about it at all if I wasn’t forced to pay for it.

You say this, but what about the flood of anti-abortion laws passed this past year? Personhood amendments, transvaginal probings, and other punitive measures, meant to impose on women seeking to exercise their rights? You’ve blinded yourself to just how authoritarian Republicans and the right are these days on these matters.

As for the rest?

Let me be blunt: you are entitled to your opinion, but you seem to feel that you are entitled to see it manifest. Problem is, a lot of people disagree with you, and in this country, under this Constitution, the law is supposed to follow the will of the majority, one way or the other. Interpretation, to a certain extent, is also meant to be a product of that, as elected officials appoint and confirm the judges of the court.

You are very good about telling us what you think, but you’re not so good at getting the rest of us to agree. This nation was not built to be ruled by the ideosyncratic ideas or interpretations of a few, but rather by the interests and the intepretation of the many.

If the Supreme Court rules your way, I accept that its the law of the land, because I believe recognizing that, even when I disagree, is a key part of ensuring that others respect decisions when they disagree with them. You can lionize yourself as some sort of freedom fighter, but for many people, your beliefs are counter to what they consider a just and free system. Rather than attempt to force one view forevermore, the framers created a system that was built to reflect what enough people could agree with, a government by majority concensus, with minority rights to prevent those consensuses from getting frozen in place in policy, while people’s sentiments drifted or shifted elsewhere.

As long as you’re caught up in this silly, adolescent fight against liberals, you won’t recognize either the potential or the necessity to make allies or to compromise with others. You will isolate yourself, even as you further concentrate your ideological fervor.

You aren’t the only person who cares about freedom. You aren’t the only person who wants to limit government overreached. You aren’t the good guy, fighting against all the other evil people. You’re just another person among many who are given the privilege of self-government by a system built on encouraging compromises. If you accepted that, and respected people on that basis, you could get further.

Steve-
They’re doing worse on their turnout than even in 2008. This candidate you claim they can stomach has won few states by overwhelming margins, with the “conservative vote” as you point out, totaling more than half. If the opposition to Romney had coalesced around a single candidate early enough, he wouldn’t be frontrunner on either delegates or states. The fact that the primary vote for Republicans remains so splintered even into the middle of March ought to tell you something.

As for Obama’s drop in the polls?

First, it goes without saying that polls go up and down. Second, the Gallup Tracking poll has his head above water, and so do several other.

And third, the clown-car candidates don’t stack up well against him. Several polls have Romney either equal to or worse than Obama in a matchup, and all the rest of the candidates, including recent winner Santorum even further behind.

As for Reagan winning all fifty states? Close in both cases, but it never happened. As for a lack of support by the Right Wing establishment? That might have been true in 1976, but 1980 was a different story.

Whatever the case was, those are the election results of nearly thirty years ago, at best. People who were children in those days are now adults, and the demographics as they were then are no longer the case. You want to believe that somehow you can’t lose, then you haven’t paid enough attention. Republicans might want Obama out, but they are far from sufficient by themselves to win.

The Republicans want to win, which is why they go for Romney, but they want to win pure, on their policy’s merits, which is why most of them are voting for someone else. Unfortunately, the conservative movement lacks a charismatic figure willing and able to be a moderate. The GOP wants to have its cake and eat it too on the election, and the reality is, it will have to soften itself somewhat to avoid losing.

Trouble is, your people are too proud nowadays to do that.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 14, 2012 12:17 PM
Comment #338171

“Guys take a break from worrying about my body, my choices. Worry about your own!”

Then stop worrying about my money. Your body, your choice. My money, my choice.

Of course, that would require you to actually be pro-choice.
Are you pro-choice Highlandangel1?

Posted by: kctim at March 14, 2012 1:43 PM
Comment #338173

Stephen

“For the Catholic Church not to pay indirectly for contraception, the way it’s arguing it, others have to be deprived of their opportunity to decide things for themselves.”

Nobody is deprived of anything. Either participate in the plan the Church offers or go find a different one themselves.

“It’s prepared to make things more difficult for the average woman out there to get what it wants.”

Bull. It would still be available every where it is now. This is about somebody else being required to provide it to them. Nothing else.

“We are not averse to social program spending, but often enough we key our programs towards other productive ends, like creating jobs, encouraging research and innovation that creates new lines of work, and encourages people to seek higher paying work.”

Not averse to? That’s putting it mildly. You rely on social program spending to do all those things and you have no regard for the rights of people you force to support your beliefs. To top it all off, you choose to ignore the negative results.

“Sorry, but what? Liberals consistently support initiatives that allow women to be more independent, and make more choices for themselves.”

Really? Just how independent is somebody when they must depend on someone else?
Access to contraception and choosing to use it or not, makes a woman independent.
Demanding somebody else provide contraception, makes a woman dependent.

“You’ve blinded yourself to just how authoritarian Republicans and the right are these days on these matters.”

Not at all. I understand some Republicans believe a fetus should live and want women to fully understand what they are asking for. I disagree with them, but can accept it because I know that the majority of Republicans probably wouldn’t care at all if tax dollars were not used.

“Let me be blunt: you are entitled to your opinion, but you seem to feel that you are entitled to see it manifest.”

Nope. I have told you many times that I am not naive enough to believe that the majority of Americans are willing to give up their government dependency and return to the principles that this once great nation was founded on.

“This nation was not built to be ruled by the ideosyncratic ideas or interpretations of a few, but rather by the interests and the intepretation of the many.”

This nation was built to protect the “few” from the interests and interpretation of the many, which is why we are a Constitutional Republic instead of the democracy you desire.
The framers created a system for “the many” to force themselves onto the “few,” but your people know you cannot get the support you need to follow it, so you “interpret” until you get what you want.

“As long as you’re caught up in this silly, adolescent fight against liberals, you won’t recognize either the potential or the necessity to make allies or to compromise with others. You will isolate yourself, even as you further concentrate your ideological fervor.”

Gee, thanks dad. You are so wise.
Who would have thought that you believed that it is the only other side that is wrong and that it is they who must compromise the Constitution so that you can impose your beliefs.

“You aren’t the only person who cares about freedom. You aren’t the only person who wants to limit government overreached.”

Never claimed to be either. There are millions just like me and there are millions of you who have no idea what freedom and limited government is.

“You aren’t the good guy, fighting against all the other evil people. You’re just another person among many who are given the privilege of self-government by a system built on encouraging compromises.”

No crap! That is why we fight so hard to keep what little of it we have left and for more to be returned.

“If you accepted that, and respected people on that basis, you could get further.”

Perhaps it is you who needs to accept and respect the fact that many of us want to live our own lives how we know best instead of how you think best? Perhaps it is you who needs to accept the fact that there pretty much isn’t much left that we are willing to compromise away to you so that you can have your utopia?

Posted by: kctim at March 14, 2012 2:32 PM
Comment #338174

kctim-
Yeah, they want to force a woman to have a probe stuck up her vagina to show her what she’s aborting. No consent, no doctor’s opinion, just one thing for the other, even if they are a rape victim seeking to end the ultimate in unwanted pregnancies.

I don’t suppose you’ve asked any women what it’s like to have one of those procedures performed on you.

Everybody submits to what you want, you submit to nobody. That seems to be what you’re saying with one policy after another. No room for having to do something you don’t want, but everybody else has to make room for what you want.

I long ago realized that politics was a process, and that I would never get everything I wanted, nor things always interpreted the way I thought they should be. I long ago accepted that this government isn’t merely about me, or what my fellow believers believe. It’s meant to be the melting pot of the general sentiments of the country. Influence, at the end of the day, is what you have to succeed at getting.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 14, 2012 4:15 PM
Comment #338176

It’s an ultrasound Stephen there is nothing stuck up a womens vagina to see the baby. I was in the room when my daughters had them done.

Posted by: KAP at March 14, 2012 4:48 PM
Comment #338179

SD is poorly informed.

You are also stretching a long way, almost like the seventh inning stretch.

The number of abortions on demand are so enormously high that the charge of murder should be considered.

The whole arguement here is that it is government by fiat.

By the way, Obama care will cost hundreds of dollars per month by 2014. But who cares. It is the poor people who will be affected the most.

The government should be totally out of the insurance business and should be totally out of the personnal lives of each and every life where health is concerned.

The whole Obama admin is such a tragic sick joke and a poor joke at that.

Maranatha

Posted by: tom humes at March 14, 2012 5:54 PM
Comment #338191
You liberals or whatever you are slay me with your reasoning, you want religion out of government but it’s OK for government to intrude into religious rights on the guise of womens rights.

But KAP the government is not interfering with religion. The church may own some business entities that are no different from any other business entity. They have rules and regulations to follow just the same as any other business entity.

Were the feds interfering they would mandate the Catholics take birth control. Here they are simply enforcing the same regulations on the insurance company as any other business entity would have.

Posted by: j2t2 at March 14, 2012 9:54 PM
Comment #338192

j2, It is a religious entity run by a religious organization. Schools, hospitals and charitable orgaizations all run by the Catholic Church. You start to mandate what they are to do they just shut down all those organizations and people get hurt all because you want their insurers who they pay, so women can get what is already avaliable cheaply or at no cost at all. Like I said you liberals or whatever you are slay me with your reasoning.

Posted by: KAP at March 14, 2012 10:07 PM
Comment #338197

By the way j2 Title X family planning already provides low income people access to BC. So this whole thing is nothing more then Obama trying to smoke screen his P*** Poor handeling of the economy.

Posted by: KAP at March 14, 2012 10:44 PM
Comment #338198

Mr. Daugherty, “under this Constitution, the law is supposed to follow the will of the majority, one way or the other”.

The United States is not mob rule and we are a Republic, even though many liberal would like to erase that part. A republic means representative rule. A man could theoretically win the popular vote and lose the electoral vote. We also have representatives who can choose to reject what the majority of their constituents want, and decide to pass laws in complete opposition to them. The 2010 election results are a good example of the price to be paid by Democrats for passing laws like obamacare, of which the American public was completely against. If majority ruled, this law as well as many more would not have become law.

Re/our candidates; you claim polls go up and down, and yet you base the results of a Presidential election on events taking place in a primary 8 months before the vote is taken. Now to me, this seems very silly. Why don’t you wait until we have a candidate, see how he is accepted, who is on the VP ticket, and then we will see? You spend all your time attacking each of the candidates; you’re like a kid in a candy store with 50 cents and a great selection of candy to choose from. You just keep bouncing off the walls, throwing crap, and hoping some of it sticks. If I, as a conservative, can say I will support whoever is the Republican candidate; then I am sure you can hold your silly projections of how Obama is going to win. I will base my intelligence on facts, but you on the other hand, base your facts on a man whom the left worships as a Messiah. At some point, logic has to come into the equation.

Re/ polls going up and down; Mr. Daugherty, just a few weeks ago the left (including you) were touting Obama’s rise in the polls as a victory in progress. Now, when Obama drops in the polls, you say polls go up and polls go down. If he was looking at victory a few weeks ago as a result of good polls; it would be logical to say he is looking at losing since he has low polls.

Re/ Reagan winning 50 states; thank you for the correction, in 1980, Reagan won 44 states to Carter’s 6 + DC; and again in 1984 Reagan beat Mondale 49 states to Mondale’s home state of MN +DC. But I think you failed to understand the point. Reagan was a conservative and had absolutely no support from the Republican Party. He was deemed a dunce, a Hollywood movie star, and certainly not capable of winning the ticket for the Republican presidency for a first or even second term. Check your history Mr. Daugherty; Reagan did not have the support of the republican establishment. Yet, in spite of all odds, he won a great victory both times.

You may think time changes people’s perspectives, but you are wrong. FDR was a progressive liberal who wanted government to be the be/all and end/all of the American people. You believe the same thing. In fact, I have heard liberals many times brag about the greatness of FDR. So your beliefs about governments role in American lives has not changed one bit. Conservatives believe in a limited role of government during the Reagan Presidency just as they believe it today. 20 percent of America is liberal, and yet 40 percent is conservative. What percent of the American voters do you think would reject the speeches of Reagan today? I would say the percent would be very small, say 20%. Mr. Daugherty, you do not base your comments on facts, you base them on emotion. Sorry, but that’s the truth.

Posted by: Steve at March 14, 2012 11:07 PM
Comment #338200
j2, It is a religious entity run by a religious organization. Schools, hospitals and charitable orgaizations all run by the Catholic Church. You start to mandate what they are to do they just shut down all those organizations and people get hurt all because you want their insurers who they pay, so women can get what is already avaliable cheaply or at no cost at all. Like I said you liberals or whatever you are slay me with your reasoning.

I bet we do KAP when your reasoning tells us the Catholic church will shut down the hospitals and schools and charitable organizations it runs. Not to mention the logic that tells us contraceptives are available to poor people through planned parenthood, which is on the conservative hit list. Not to mention the fact that those with insurance and jobs usually do not qualify for free clinics which nor do they want to go through the rigamarole of the free clinic. By your logic they should take off of work to go to the clinic!

BTW using your logic once again we should have insurance decline to cover any generic drugs or other drugs available at Wal mart for $10 regardless of the health concern. Not onlt that we should also exclude insurance from paying for anything one can get at the free clinic right?

Yep I am not surprised why your slayed KAP.

By the way j2 Title X family planning already provides low income people access to BC.

So what does this have to do with people working at the business entities of the Catholic church? Are they low income and will get a better deal or a sliding scale better than what is available at what you say is a self insured organization?

So this whole thing is nothing more then Obama trying to smoke screen his P*** Poor handeling of the economy.

Just remember it was a conservatives that ran the economic bus off the cliff in ‘08 KAP. Obama is trying to tow the bus up the hill, it takes time when the Congress is using the economy as a political tool.

Posted by: j2t2 at March 15, 2012 12:35 AM
Comment #338214

j2, Of all the preventative drugs on the market Obama picks BC. WHY? Could it be to get the women vote? Which by the way is inexpensive already and free to some. If all the insurance companies have to pay for BC. Why keep planned parenthood? Their other services are handled at Dr’s offices and Hospitals. RN’s at hospitals are they low income, LPN’s are they low income, I would say most people that work at hospitals are well paid and could afford the $10.00 for BC. Even some working at charitable organizations are fairly well paid if they could afford to pay co pays for some meds thay could afford BC. In my area we have many pharmacies that have generic drugs for $4.00 or less. Why would I want to pay a co pay of &10 or $20 for something I can get for $4.00? What makes no sence and makes your arguement bogus is the fact that most low income uninsured people qualify for medicaid and TAX DOLLARS ALREADY PAY FOR THEIR MEDS including BC. Title X Family Planning, which by the way was passed and signed by a REPUBLICAN president, includes uninsured and low income so they can get BC.

Posted by: KAP at March 15, 2012 10:27 AM
Comment #338215

I agree j2, conservatives did start us toward that cliff with 5 trillion added debt in 8 years but how do you explain the 6 trillion added debt in 3 years by your so called progressives and liberals. Go ahead and Blame Bush because I know you will because it’s never a democrats fault!!!!!!

Posted by: KAP at March 15, 2012 10:37 AM
Comment #338217
j2, Of all the preventative drugs on the market Obama picks BC. WHY? Could it be to get the women vote?

Perhaps because it is not covered by some of these plans now KAP. Why would anyone bother with the cheaper drugs that are covered. My point is, however, should we treat all of these generic and less expensive drugs as you would have us treat BC? You don’t seem to want to deal with this question.


Which by the way is inexpensive already and free to some. If all the insurance companies have to pay for BC. Why keep planned parenthood? Their other services are handled at Dr’s offices and Hospitals.

Because planned parenthood is not an insurance company KAP.


RN’s at hospitals are they low income, LPN’s are they low income, I would say most people that work at hospitals are well paid and could afford the $10.00 for BC. Even some working at charitable organizations are fairly well paid if they could afford to pay co pays for some meds thay could afford BC.

I agree KAP which is why I wonder why you keep bringing up the poor and free clinics. It seems to me that it is an attempt to misdirect the discussion. Many people can afford to pay for meds but the real question is why should they when they have insurance coverage? Your making a great argument against the “low costs” you keep trying to sell me on when it comes to contraceptives, though KAP. If they are so inexpensive why wouldn’t insurance companies want to cover them? We hear about how the costs of insurance will go up on one hand and then we hear the meds are so inexpensive on the other hand, which is it?

In my area we have many pharmacies that have generic drugs for $4.00 or less. Why would I want to pay a co pay of &10 or $20 for something I can get for $4.00?

See above KAP.


What makes no sence and makes your arguement bogus is the fact that most low income uninsured people qualify for medicaid and TAX DOLLARS ALREADY PAY FOR THEIR MEDS including BC. Title X Family Planning,

It makes sense KAP because the Catholic church’s business entities and low income people are 2 different groups of people. What makes no sense is why you continually point to low income people when we are discussing the business entities and their insurance coverage, speaking of bogus.

which by the way was passed and signed by a REPUBLICAN president, includes uninsured and low income so they can get BC.

Which begs the question of why the repubs/conservatives have moved so far to the right and out of touch with mainstream Americans on the issue of birth control. Perhaps it is time to reflect on where these movement leaders are taking you KAP with this continual shift to the extreme right wing.

Posted by: j2t2 at March 15, 2012 11:46 AM
Comment #338218

j2, You keep refering to business entities and insurance carriers paying for something. My question is why should and insurance carrier cover a med at no co pay or cover the entire cost of the med. when it is inexpensive. If my breathing meds were as little as $10.00 I’d be happy but they are not I still have to pay a co pay of $20. for one and $50. for the other. So if all insurance companies paid for all meds. with no co pays I’d hate to see what the monthly cost of HC would cost.

Posted by: KAP at March 15, 2012 12:13 PM
Comment #338220

The insurance companies pay for nothing, but those that do have insurance pay in the form of larger premiums. It’s just like the left’s constant call for taxing corporations; corporations don’t pay taxes, but consumers do. Why do you think the cost of medical treatments at the hospital are so high? Because those that do have insurance are paying for those that don’t. There is nothing free and it’s about time the left pulled their heads out of the asses and understood this economic fact; unless the goal is redistribution of wealth. If that’s the goal, then the left is doing exactly what they intend.

Posted by: Billinflorida at March 15, 2012 2:15 PM
Comment #338224



kctim: Yes. I am most definitely pro-choice.

I was in a household where girls were not wanted. My father wanted a boy. He got a girl. Enough said on that point. I suffered for it. My mother died as a result of an illegal abortion.

I already have 3 strong-minded, career producing daughters. And 11 grand children.

As for your money - well sweetie, lots of my money has been spent too - on welfare, Medicaid, Medicare. I believe I,too, have the right to spend my money the way I see fit.

If that means that one child does not have to suffer the way I did, well so be it. Yes, that means I would have rather NOT been born. If I had had a choice in the matter. Someone needs to speak for all the abused, unwanted children that are in our world and I am more than capable of doing that. However, at least I KNOW something about what I am talking about. It is painfully obvious that you don’t.

KAP: You are the one who is way behind when it comes to the ‘ultrasound” issue. A zygote, or a tiny fetus is not visible with the naked eye when the normal stomach ultrasound is used. It is too small! In order to actually see the fetus, one MUST use a vaginal probe, which is very invasive, painful, and could cause infection, not only for the baby, but for the mother. It has also been know to cause spontaneous abortions, and even death. It is a medical exam, not a anti-abortion exam. Most doctors cannot perform this exam in their private offices, as the equipment sf very expensive. It is usually done in a hospital. And insurance doesn’t like paying for it either. It is NOT cheap. I should know. I am a woman. I’ve had the blame thing done. You have not, and never will.

I noticed that the other reasons for taking estrogen were over-looked, so I will repeat them. Menopause, endrometriosis, osteoporosis, as well as period regulation, are only a few of the many reasons for taking ‘birth control’.


Posted by: Highlandangel1 at March 15, 2012 4:01 PM
Comment #338225

Highlandangel, Did you not have the choice to refuse that exam? My daughters did not have that done nor anyone that I know. I googled and did see that form of ultrasound but it said that it was used for OTHER reasons.

Posted by: KAP at March 15, 2012 4:15 PM
Comment #338228

Highladanget By the way I did have an ultrasound done to check my prostate and that wasn’t fun so I do kinda know what you may have went through. But I think the vaginal exam has more to do with checking your plumbing then the fetus.

Posted by: KAP at March 15, 2012 4:27 PM
Comment #338231


We can greatly increase the early detection of colon cancer if all men are required to have periodic rectal probes to check their intestinal plumbing. But it should be done by unfunded government mandate rather than forcing insurance policies to cover the tests.

Posted by: jlw at March 15, 2012 5:28 PM
Comment #338265

>blockquote>The insurance companies pay for nothing, but those that do have insurance pay in the form of larger premiums.

I agree billinfla, the insurance companies are in essence middle men that extract a very large fee not to mention the shareholders profits just to administrate.


Why do you think the cost of medical treatments at the hospital are so high? Because those that do have insurance are paying for those that don’t. There is nothing free and it’s about time the left pulled their heads out of the asses and understood this economic fact;

Bill it is only the conservatives that think something is free. With more people in the insurance pool and more of the treatments and meds covered costs will come down for all. Perhaps it is time for you and other conservatives to pull your heads out of Limbaugh and the other movement propagandist ass.

Posted by: j2t2 at March 16, 2012 12:58 AM
Comment #338266

KAP:
In my case it was done a part of a MEDICAL procedure. They were looking for cancer. However, my insurance did NOT want to pay for it because they assumed it was checking for pregnancy,(at MY AGE!) It cost me $572.79 co-pay to have the procedure done, and all they did was look!

You seem to think it should be done before every abortion. The only thing that will accomplish to bring back the back-room abortion ‘clinics’ because it is so expensive, and very invasive.

I can honestly think of nothing on a man’s body that is as invasive as the things that a woman must endure during a regular exam. A regular physical is so invasive that many, many women won’t have that exam done. And now you want to add more?

Actually, I really wish men had something that had to be done on a regular basis that is as humiliating as it is for a woman to under go a physical. Every two years. From the age of 18. That is the normal recommendation for all women to have this exam done. And then I’d make Rush have it done everyday for ever!

Posted by: Highlandangel1 at March 16, 2012 1:32 AM
Comment #338279

Personnelly no Highlandangel I don’t think a vaginal ultrasound be done before an abortion that would be umiliating. Now an abdominal ultrasound that’s another thing but I leave that up to the states to decide. My insurance when I was working didn’t pay for alot of things either and the HC I have now dosen’t either. At my age there are things that are done that are invasive and unpleasant but necessary that do cost me out of pocket but I’d rather pay the cost then be sorry later.

Posted by: KAP at March 16, 2012 10:03 AM
Comment #338280

j2t2, first of all, the goal of obamacare is a single payer government run insurance program. So let’s be truthful about the goal.

Secondly, yes, if everyone had an insurance policy it would theoretically keep medical costs down. But not all people will be forced to purchase insurance, but the txpayers will be required to pay for everyone. So what we have is 50% of working Americans paying for the insurance of 50% who do not have insurance. Not to mention the 20 million illegals who cannot be refused medical care, who have no insurance at all. All of this leads to rationing, shortage of medical professionals, and eventually to NHC. Remember, this is the goal.

Rsh Limbaugh has nothing to do with my understanding.

Posted by: Billinflorida at March 16, 2012 10:06 AM
Comment #338282
j2t2, first of all, the goal of obamacare is a single payer government run insurance program. So let’s be truthful about the goal.

Billinfla, What we refer to as Obamacare is in large part a repub plan that doesn’t have as it’s goal a single payer health insurance plan. It is a step towards containing costs for health care. Perhaps Obama would have preferred a single payer plan as the rest of the industrialized world has, I don’t know. Myself I would prefer a single payer plan.

Secondly, yes, if everyone had an insurance policy it would theoretically keep medical costs down. But not all people will be forced to purchase insurance, but the txpayers will be required to pay for everyone. So what we have is 50% of working Americans paying for the insurance of 50% who do not have insurance. Not to mention the 20 million illegals who cannot be refused medical care, who have no insurance at all.

If the mandate to buy insurance is found to be constitutional then all of us would be required to have insurance. According to conventional wisdom this should help to lower costs. Time will tell. We will still have small business that will not be able to afford health insurance for it’s employees, which is why this plan is a problem.


All of this leads to rationing, shortage of medical professionals, and eventually to NHC. Remember, this is the goal.

According to free market advocates this is impossible Billinfla. When there is demand for the services the market will accommodate the demand right? The market will respond with new and innovative ideas as well as the educated health care people to accommodate the demand. Of course when the boomers die out the rush for services may also die down.

Hopefully this will lead to National health insurance or a single payer plan. Keeping the employers out of the insurance loop will help all of us.

Rsh Limbaugh has nothing to do with my understanding.

Billinfla, then perhaps it is another conservative movement propagandist whose ass is in question.

Posted by: j2t2 at March 16, 2012 11:04 AM
Comment #338283

j2t2 is confused, poor guy.

Posted by: tom humes at March 16, 2012 11:24 AM
Comment #338301

tom humes, you are correct. j2t2, does not know about the shortage of medical personel in Europe and Canada. He doesn’t know about the 6-8 month waits to have a serious medical procedure done. And he most certainly doesn’t know about people who are buying health insurance to pay for the care of them and their families, and this is on top of the NHC that is provided by the government. I doubt that he knows about the move in England to move HC back into the hands of private industry, because the NHC is failing. The problem is not who conservatives listen to, the probelm is who liberals have been listening too.

Posted by: Billinflorida at March 16, 2012 8:48 PM
Comment #338638

Kap:

I refuse to argue about something that
1. You will never understand, and make no attempt too

and

2. You obviously have made your mind up and refuse to listen or in this case read and understand..

Thank you for such an non-intelligence conversation.

I do have one question: Where are the unemployed people supposed to get $2000. to pay for this humiliating experience?

I guess from you, since you carry insurance and they don’t. From a purely economical standpoint you must now add that cost to the amount you get to pay for every unwanted child. And be sure and add therapy and counseling for them as adults. It adds up, my fired. Way up!

Posted by: Highlandangel1 at March 17, 2012 9:27 AM
Comment #338648

Make that a sarcastic friend, not fired!!!! Oooppppssss!

Posted by: Highlandangel1 at March 17, 2012 12:18 PM
Comment #338649

j2t2

The rebuttal is simple.

A smaller government where the authority is sharply reduced. It has no business in education, housing, etc. The gold standard should be used.
Labor has no business with the feds.
The inflated czars list should be fired on the spot. They received an annual increase of, about $13,000. The SS recipients went without a COLA for two years. The SS recipient receives barely that same $13,000.
And on it goes with the corruption and cronyism and irresponsible behavior of Congress and the administration.

Maranatha

Posted by: tom humes at March 17, 2012 12:47 PM
Comment #338652

Highlandangel, Talk about sarcastic people, Where previously did those uninsured women get the money to get an abortion or did they get free abortions courtesy of PP?????? What about all the uninsured men that have medical problems or is it just you WOMEN that deserve all the freebees. Mens medical issues add up to my equally sarcastic friend. I didn’t see Obama mandate that men get Avodart or Flow Max for prostate problems that prevent more costly surgeries and impotence or is it men don’t deserve to have a problems resolved that inhibates their sex life taken care of. It all adds up to my Equally sarcastic friend.

Posted by: KAP at March 17, 2012 2:40 PM
Comment #338654
tom humes, you are correct.

No he is not Billinfla as he hasn’t said anything intelligent. He has chosen to make a comment devoid of fact without anything to back up his position. A child could do better,IMHO.


j2t2, does not know about the shortage of medical personel in Europe and Canada. He doesn’t know about the 6-8 month waits to have a serious medical procedure done. And he most certainly doesn’t know about people who are buying health insurance to pay for the care of them and their families, and this is on top of the NHC that is provided by the government. I doubt that he knows about the move in England to move HC back into the hands of private industry, because the NHC is failing. The problem is not who conservatives listen to, the probelm is who liberals have been listening too.

Bill what I know is this, for half the cost, per capita, these countries do very well for most people. The problem in this country is people like you who listen to conservative propaganda and without question eat it up as if it were the truth.

Here are some links to facts about the health care systems you mention Bill. Read’em and weep. Your getting to a point where you will need to renounce the conservative propaganda you swill upon or tell us it don’t make a difference you would rather wallow in the lies these propagandist have fed you because you can’t think for yourself.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_Canada

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2009/aug/11/nhs-sick-healthcare-reform

When you care to discuss the issue without the misinformation half truths and outright lies you have just posted let me know.

Posted by: j2t2 at March 17, 2012 3:58 PM
Comment #338662

j2t2, as you would guess, I live in Florida; I’m retired and have many, many friends (snow birds) from Canada. First let me say, linking to wikipedia is grasping at straws. It is not a good place to trust the info., and it must have been the first link to pop up on Google. Secondly, not one Canadian that I know likes the Canadian NHC. It is insufficient, they have to wait months for serious medical problems, and they are forced to buy private ins if they want HC. So I trust the first hand information.

Re/ your second link; first of all, it’s almost 3 years old and a lot can happen in 3 years. Here are some figures from 3 months ago:

“Shortage of family doctors leaves health care in crisis
The NHS is facing a chronic shortage of family doctors after official figures showed some GPs were responsible for 9,000 patients. “

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/8978509/Shortage-of-family-doctors-leaves-health-care-in-crisis.html

“Medicines shortages in the UK could increase hospital admissions leaving heart disease patients for days or weeks without treatment,”

http://www.gponline.com/News/article/1079772/drug-shortages-increase-hospital-admissions-heart-charity-warns/

Here’s a good one; it’s the UK’s NHS site listing the waiting times for surgeries, but the comments posted are the best. Evidently these people do not have j2t2’s confidence in the government run HC system. Read some of their comments if you dare.

http://www.nhs.uk/choiceintheNHS/Rightsandpledges/Waitingtimes/Pages/Guide%20to%20waiting%20times.aspx

Here is an example;

“I think the best way to avoid the waiting times and get treated right now is to go elsewhere. NHS isn’t all that bad when it works but when it doesn’t there are other ways. Most that cannot afford domestic private healthcare choose to go abroad instead. Out of those that take the plunge all are pleasantly surprised by the level of service they receive there, the quality of treatment as well as money saved by going abroad.”

J2t2, perhaps you like the Canadian system a little better:

“A newly released report from the Fraser Institute shows that median wait time for surgery and therapeutic treatment has increased across Canada in 2010.

On Dec. 6, 2010, the Fraser Institute issued its annual report on surgical wait times in Canada. The report indicates that these wait times have increased on average between 2009 and the 2010.

The report, entitled Waiting Your Turn, Wait for Health Care in Canada, 2010 Report, finds that the wait time between a patient’s examination by a general practioner and the conclusion of treatment by a specialist is an average of 18.2 weeks. This is an increase from the 16.1 weeks it took in 2009. And these waiting times are 96% longer than the time patients had to wait in 1993.”


Read more at Suite101: Wait Times for Surgery Increasing in Canada | Suite101.com http://www.suite101.com/news/wait-times-for-surgery-increasing-in-canada-a317306#ixzz1pQL39HB8

Posted by: Billinflorida at March 17, 2012 8:37 PM
Comment #338671

Kap

Lots of them get the money from the men who in-pregnant them! Dah!

Remember it takes TWO to tango. And frankly an abortion is cheaper then the vaginal test you want to run. You really think that test will keep most women and (their lovers from encouraging them) from getting abortion?

Of course if those “lovers” were willing to stand up and be a MAN, these things would not be the problem they are today.

Maybe we ought to make marriage a law. A Man and a woman who get pregnant have to legally get married. Period. And stay married at least 18 years.

OR Maybe!!!!

Lets put web cams inside all American citizens (From babies on - it’ll cut down the problems of sexual abuse with children)so we can make sure they are following our rules and regulations - and also so we can identify the perverts of the world, including fornicators!!!! Men and Women!

Do you like either alternative better?

Posted by: Highlandangel1 at March 18, 2012 2:06 AM
Comment #338673

Highlanangel Let’s cut with the crap and stupidity. No S**t it takes 2 to tango as I have said before in this blog men as well as women should be held responsible for their sexual activities. I don’t consider anyone a MAN who dosen’t take responsibility for what he was equally responsible for and should equally share in the cost of preventative or alternative costs. My daughter takes her former boy friend over the coals for support for our grand daughter but that was her choice NOT to terminate. AS I SAID IF YOU WOULD CAREFULLY READ MY COMMENT PREVIOUSLY I DO NOT WANT ANY WOMEN TO GO THROUGH THE VAGINAL EXAM THAT IS TO INTRUSIVE AND HUMILIATING FOR A WOMAN GOING THROUGH AN ALREADY PAINFULL EXPERIENCE. Now the abdominal outside of the vagina on the belly area that’s up to the states to decide if that should be done. You my sarcastic friend are part of that ME generation from the past and has carried over to the present.

Posted by: KAP at March 18, 2012 9:27 AM
Comment #338687

Me generation? - I wish I were so young! Not hardly!

Talk about not paying attention!

Now the abdominal outside of the vagina on the belly area that’s up to the states to decide if that should be done.

The abdominal exam is worthless until around 5 months. The fetus is too small any earlier! That’s why doctors don’t do one until the fifth month of pregnancy! Which is too late for most legal abortions to be performed. And frankly that is the only kind of abortion I can support - the one for 3 months, and no farther.

As I explained earlier, the zygote is too small to see until then. That is another reason why the vaginal exam makes no sense if intended to prevent abortions. It doesn’t even resemble a baby!

So you are the parent of an illegitimate grandchild. And Mom had the right to chose about termination. Mom is still the care-giver and financial support, with the help of dad. That is truly wonderful.

I really mean that - because so many grandparents today are raising their grandchildren. It is nice to hear a story where the child has both parents involved, as well as the grandparents. In todays’ world, so many children have only their mothers, and frequently, not even them to care for them.

I hope the father is not playing the games so many other fathers do with children they don’t want to acknowledge. Sounds like all is not necessarily peaches, however, if your daughter has to “rake him over the coals…” Wonder why she opted to have sex. Doesn’t she believe in abstinence! Or at least some form of protection?

I, too have grandchildren. Eleven, as a matter of fact. All of mine also have both parents fully involved in their lives, too. Fortunately all of mine were and are still married to their original partners, so there is no confusion or fusing about child support.

As the A-TEAM used to say, “I love it when a plan comes together!”

Posted by: Highlandangel1 at March 18, 2012 3:52 PM
Comment #338689

Highlandangel I have 20 grandchildren and 11 great grandchildren all of which are cared for by both parents no matter if both parents are together. My daughter was 15 when she concieved and 16 when she gave birth. The father wanted no part of the child yet he does pay support. She is now married to a wonderful man who takes good care of them. I googled the earliest possible time an abdominal ultrasound can be used and from what I read the ultrasound can detect the sac at not less then 6 weeks anything less needs a transvaginal. My other daughter and most resent grandchild had his picture taken at 12 weeks into the pregnancy.

Posted by: KAP at March 18, 2012 4:31 PM
Comment #338739

Bill The Canadian and English healthcare system have problems! Of course they are not perfect, just as our extremely costly system is not perfect. The English are worried because Doctors are going into specialized medicine instead of becoming a general practitioner. Because some drugs are becoming harder to get. We have the same problems here.

The Canadians are worried about wait times for surgery, just as the poorer in this country are worried here.

Why is it you don’t mention the French. Or the fact that all three of these countries insure and cover the population as a whole for roughly half of what it costs in the USA?


http://blogs.wsj.com/informedreader/2007/06/29/is-french-health-care-really-better/

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=92419273

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_France

Posted by: j2t2 at March 19, 2012 10:02 AM
Comment #338753

j2t2, I never mentioned France because Obama and the left based obamacare after the Canadian and UK NHC system.

Since you admit there are problems with the Canadian and UK NHC systems, then how are they fixed? As you will notice in the links I provided, the fix is to go out and buy private insurance (at added cost) and for what purpose? To do what the NHC can not do. On the other hand, What problems the US health care system has can be corrected with insurance access laws and tort reform. Obamacare will have the same problems, will cost even more, and will require Americans to buy private insurance. Remember, the goal of obamacare is single payer government run HC.

Your comment was:

“Bill what I know is this, for half the cost, per capita, these countries do very well for most people. The problem in this country is people like you who listen to conservative propaganda and without question eat it up as if it were the truth.

Here are some links to facts about the health care systems you mention Bill. Read’em and weep. Your getting to a point where you will need to renounce the conservative propaganda you swill upon or tell us it don’t make a difference you would rather wallow in the lies these propagandist have fed you because you can’t think for yourself.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_Canada

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2009/aug/11/nhs-sick-healthcare-reform

When you care to discuss the issue without the misinformation half truths and outright lies you have just posted let me know.”

Posted by: j2t2 at March 17, 2012 3:58 PM

I believe I provided the “truths” you needed and you agreed with them . Case closed…

Posted by: Billinflorida at March 19, 2012 7:35 PM
Comment #338894

Billinflorida-
I think it’s interesting that Democrats require that insurance covers certain treatments and procedures people want to have, and Republicans call them totalitarians for pushing this, but when it comes time to have an abortion, all too many Republicans are willing to force an unnecessary procedure on a patient without their consent or the advice of their doctor.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 20, 2012 8:18 AM
Comment #338905

Not so fast Bill. Do you deny there are problems with the US health insurance system? What I said was “Of course they are not perfect, just as our extremely costly system is not perfect.” Yet you seem to have overlooked the fact that our system of insurance has it’s own set of problems. Obamacare will,no doubt, solve a few and create a few problems.(Why is it you have not mentioned the much higher costs of the US health insurance system and the fact that so many Americans are uninsured?)

But the 3 systems you seem to think are similar are not. This is where the conservative propaganda comes into play, Bill. The conservatives will lead you to believe they are modeled after one another which will allow you to exploit weaknesses and perceived weakness in these different systems while avoiding the French system as well as other systems that work well.

Therefore you are using those two systems in lieu of the French and other better models under false pretenses, or what I refer to as the misinformation, half truths and outright lies of the conservative propagandist that you have fallen victim to.

http://mediamatters.org/research/200906090030

http://politicsandgovernment.blog.my/2011/06/how-is-obamacare-different-from-the-universal-health-care-plans-in-canada-uk-etc/

http://www.snopes.com/politics/medical/seniordeath.asp

Posted by: j2t2 at March 20, 2012 8:41 AM
Comment #338929

Stephen; I have no idea what you ar talking about.

j2t2; first, MM is a liberal hack site. The WSJ is not comparing obamacare to the single payer Canadian HCS ; it is comparing the Canadian HCS to the goal of obamacare, which is a single payer system. Secondly; your second link, which is nothing more than a blog site, does the same thing. And thirdly, the last link makes the same mistake of saying obamacare is a HCS that allows for individuals to buy their own insurance, but the problem is that the goal of obamacare is a single payer government run system.

The proponents and supporters of obamacare have all sigified their disapointment in Obama and the Democrats for not going far enough and establishing a single payer system. Secondly, obamacare and the rules(if upheld by the SC) will necessarily force employers to drop private insurance and force private insurance companies out of business. Thus, once again creating the way for a single payer government run system. This has been an established fact and we already see it taking place. So to try to compare obamacare (as a mixture of government run and private insurance) is a false premise. Obamacare will be exactly like the Canadian and UK run systems, with the same results and problems. The Canadian and UK system is broken, and th rest of Europe is in financial meltdown as a result of government run welfare systems. The only difference between Europe and the US is we have a strong (and becoming weaker) military. If we wanted to dismantle our military, which I am sure the left would do, then we could go the way of Europe. On the other hand, if the European nations wanted to protect themselves (which they cannot now do), they do not have the finances to build a military.

Ever since the signing of obamacare there has been 50-60% of the American voters who did not want the Bill passed and continue to want it repealed.

Posted by: Billinflorida at March 20, 2012 11:26 AM
Comment #338935
first, MM is a liberal hack site.

Because it exposes conservative propaganda doesn’t mean it is a hack site Bill. What specifically do you take exception with from this link?

The WSJ is not comparing obamacare to the single payer Canadian HCS ; it is comparing the Canadian HCS to the goal of obamacare, which is a single payer system.

And you don’t find that the least bit misleading, Bill? The fact is the Affordable Care Act is not a single payer plan. The conservative propagandist fail to mention they are comparing what maybe could be at some unknown time in the future to what is now, establishing bumper sticker talking points that are out right lies, and then people like you use them as if they were true. Nothing like a government/liberal/leftist conspiracy that isn’t true to stir up the movement followers, right?

Secondly; your second link, which is nothing more than a blog site, does the same thing.

I included this link as a quick means to dispatch the nonsense that the three plans were the same plan. These comments show the various differences in the 3 plans. Do you dispute any of them?

And thirdly, the last link makes the same mistake of saying obamacare is a HCS that allows for individuals to buy their own insurance, but the problem is that the goal of obamacare is a single payer government run system.

And taken out of context by you Bill. What they are saying is the critics of the Affordable Care Act make this claim erroneously.

Myself, Bill I would prefer to see a single payer insurance plan that would include all of us. Obamacare isn’t this plan. We can speculate that in the future it may become that but then we would not be basing this on anything more than fear mongering by the conservative propagandist at this point. To base your arguments on what may happen at some distant point in the future is my I make the claim the conservatives are using misinformation half truths and outright lies on this issue.

Posted by: j2t2 at March 20, 2012 12:26 PM
Comment #338961

j2t2, you represent a majority of liberals in the democratic party. Obama would have voted for single payer system, but did not have the democratic support. It would have been politiical suicide. The American people don’t want it. I will add these links which show the goal of obamacare is a single payer system.

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/conyers-obamacare-platform-creating-single-payer-system

http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local_news/article/Columnist-If-health-care-reform-act-is-fully-3392700.php

Posted by: Billinflorida at March 20, 2012 1:15 PM
Comment #338969

HighlandAngel1

Sad stories have nothing to do with freedom of choice.
If one wants free choice for their body but do not wish to give another the same freedom of choice over their money, they are not pro-choice, they are pro-abortion.
Claiming to be pro-choice, but only on things they personally approve of, is being a hypocrite.

“If that means that one child does not have to suffer the way I did, well so be it.”

“So be it” does not justify stripping away rights.

“Yes, that means I would have rather NOT been born. If I had had a choice in the matter. Someone needs to speak for all the abused, unwanted children that are in our world and I am more than capable of doing that.”

Your past has nothing to do with what we are talking about, which are individual rights. You do not legislate by emotion if you wish to stay free.
Speak for who you want, all you want, I don’t care.

“However, at least I KNOW something about what I am talking about. It is painfully obvious that you don’t.”

Of course ‘that’ is obvious to you, because you are talking about something completely different.
I asked you if you were pro-choice, not about your past or how you felt. A simple yes or no would have worked, but since you know dictating when and when not another person should have choice is hypocritical, you had to go off on something totally irrelevant to the question.

So how about it, how can you claim to be “pro-choice” while you also support denying choice to others?

Posted by: kctim at March 20, 2012 2:07 PM
Comment #339023

First off, being ‘pro-choice has little to do with money. Frankly I think you are trying to trap me, and I refuse to fall for it.
In answer to your question: Am I pro-choice as it has come to mean regarding abortion?
YES

Posted by: Highlandangel1 at March 20, 2012 3:02 PM
Comment #339092

Bill. I am not surprised that Krauthammer and the Conservative news link would suggest Obamacare is a forerunner of a single payer system. I am however surprised that this is the proof you offer up to substantiate your theory. Krauthammer offers opinion without proof. The conservative news interview appears to add to what Conyers actually said, I know surprise surprise. These are some of the propagandist I mentioned earlier. Misinformation half truths and outright lies are used to manipulate the movement followers. I wish you were right but you offer nothing to give me hope of a better health insurance system.

In order to believe that Obamacare is actually intended to somehow magically transform into a single payer “socialist” system one must then believe the Heritage foundation and the conservative republicans of the past also planned to transform healthcare into a socialist single payer system. Obamacare originated in the repub party, Bill.

Posted by: j2t2 at March 20, 2012 4:54 PM
Comment #359289

Due to the fact 1984 the birth on the first double since Michael jordan shoes, Jordan has been used on a yearly basis to replace his shoes, and a growing volume of admirers have begun that you follow this custom, which makes Jordan shoes and boots become significance. In a sense, air jordans for sale, Jordan became the fastest way to close in just about every admirer of view, he has the shoes of the volume of Jordan, the quality will specifically determine the distances having God. This is the foundation of culture, Jordan shoes. Michael Jordan shoes, Jordan, people always marvel for the superb performance on this court for basketball, the new jordans 2012 is a private gene, he alone determines which the movement of a lot of the attributes. This gene can never ever be copied, but it will be through various methods of transmission from generation to help generation. But when you would like to revisit this history for the right time, you can choose to help text, image or video facts, and, Jordan Retro 12. Jordan has repeatedly claimed: “part of the dress shoes i always was part of the personality. ” We can operate the “Michael Jordan shoes” to consider cheap air jordan shoes, or call his shoes and boots, and sometimes it is simply on the list of two The. Cheap Jordan Shoes in this special relationship, not overnight can style, which is 23 pairs of shoes with different brands of repeated collisions result your nerve cells. Cheap Jordans with an tasteful and complex movements in addition to six championship rings time and again to deepen our memories these 23 pairs of shoes and boots.http://www.jordanretro12sforsale.com/

Posted by: cheap jordans at December 22, 2012 2:40 AM
Post a comment