• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

U.S. 2012 Election

On Nov 6 Who Will Win President Obama or Mitt Romney ?

  • President Obama

    Votes: 39 61.9%
  • Mitt Romney

    Votes: 24 38.1%

  • Total voters
    63
  • Poll closed .
Kirkhill said:
I wasn't aware that Congress was responsible for making laws for the individual states.  In point of fact I rather thought it was other.

It's neither, nor did I suggest any such thing. What I said was that given provisions similar exist at state level and don't seem to run afoul of the US Constitution, there's no reason to believe that a federal law of the same nature would.
 
I was not going to post this, but the subject has been brought up.

http://searchingforliberty.blogspot.com/2012/03/crisis-facing-america-rush-limbaugh.html

Wednesday, March 7, 2012

The Crisis Facing America: Rush Limbaugh
...of greater significance than the Lincoln-Douglas Debates

Ok.  Firstly a disclosure.  I don't much like Rush Limbaugh.

But that being said...

According to plannedparenthood.org, the cost of birth control pills in the United States are between $15 and $50 per month.

Again, according to plannedparenthood.org, the cost of condoms are about $1.00 each, though they may be obtained for free.

Alright now.  These are simply facts.  No judgments, no commentary - the straight goods from what appears to be a reputable source.

Now.

Then.

Let's talk, for a moment - like adults - about the whole Rush Limbaugh debacle in the U.S.

Rush got himself pilloried by most of the msm, and now by Barack Obama himself, for criticizing Sandra Fluke, who was a young student testifying before Congress on how many students have trouble making ends meet without health care covering birth control.

She gave evidence that:

    "Forty percent of the female students at Georgetown Law reported to us that they struggled financially as a result of this policy."  (Georgetown student insurance not covering contraception)

Going further, she said:

    “Without insurance coverage, contraception, as you know, can cost a woman over $3,000 during law school,” Fluke told the hearing."

So.

Then.

The story goes that Rush Limbaugh then said that she effectively wants other people to pay her for having a lot of sex.. and he went further and called her a "slut".

And the MSM went wild.

But here's the story that no one in the MSM comments upon - which, is the point that Limbaugh was making - albeit like an ignorant drunken frat boy.

Giving Ms. Fluke the benefit of any doubt - let's say that students are using the $50.00 per month birth control - that amounts to $600 per year.  Max.

So.

Then - that means that, the balance of condom use, presumably to prevent STD's - amounts to over $400.00 per year.  Let's give her the benefit of the doubt - and call it just $400.00.

And let's give her the benefit of the doubt, again, and assume that there is no availability of free condoms in campus health clinics and the like.

So - then.. at $1.00 a shot, that means, that, according to Ms. Fluke, perhaps 45% of Georgetown University women are having sex every day of the year, and twice a day 35 days of the year.

Damn.

Kinda makes me wish I didn't attend University of British Columbia.

Well.  Make your own judgment on either the truth of her statement, or, alternatively, the sympathy you might have for women who are having a tough time making ends meet due to those circumstances...  I won't offer a single opinion of my own - as stated, just setting out the facts.

Now.

Going further.

Rush Limbaugh is an entertainer.  He's not an elected politician of any stripe, he, by design, is an entertainer.  Like Lennie Bruce.  Like George Carlin.  Or.  Like Bill Maher.

So, when most normal people hear Bill Maher calling Sarah Palin a c*nt - well, we don't lose our minds, we don't start screaming for boycotts of his advertisers, we take him for what he is.

A glorified court jester.  An affable buffoon.

Yet.

Rush Limbaugh apparently, is worthy of non-stop media attention, and, in fact, the specific attention of the President of the United States of America - Barack Obama - who not only takes time out of his busy day  to comment on how the right to free expression doesn't extend to Rush Limbaugh.  And in fact, he takes time to telephone Sandra Fluke to console her and offer his support.

Really?

Hmm.

Well - in fairness to the President, it's not like there's much else that might occupy his attention:

    Iran's chilling warning: We’ll strike first if we feel we are about to be attacked

    'Extreme' Poverty in US Has More Than Doubled, Study Says

    Jobless figures tipped to rise

    Worries mount high gas prices will derail recovery

    Talk of US military in Syria divides Congress

    Foreclosures in February up 20% Over Year Earlier

    A looming US debt crisis?

    U.S. Needs Immigration Reform

    ‎Holder Questioned About Agent Zapata Murder's Link to Fast & Furious

    U.S. Fed Flying Blind
 
I think your numbers are off.  It's 3000$ during law school.  And she said "can" cost.  Law school length "can" be longer than 3 years.  Factor in the cost of seeing a doctor for the prescription and the cost can rise.  My guess is that she was stating the higher end of costs.  And some birth control methods cost more, like injections etc.  I know some people can't take the pill for medical reasons.

And it isn't that Rush was critical of her.  He beat a dead horse repeatedly night after night calling her innappropriate things and going way too far.  And he brought this to light in a very public way.  So yeah, of course the President was going to respond.  The MSM were not the only people to react.  Sponsors, the republicans etc etc.
 
soooooooo . .  getting back to the election  . . .  in exactly 8 months today we will actually know who won - barring any hanging chads, robocalls or whatever the US equivalent will be.

If Gallup is right, then POTUS Obama will join the Jimmy Carter Club

"U.S. Unemployment Up in February
Underemployment is 19.1%, up from 18.7% in January
by Dennis Jacobe, Chief Economist

PRINCETON, NJ -- U.S. unemployment, as measured by Gallup without seasonal adjustment, increased to 9.1% in February from 8.6% in January and 8.5% in December."

http://www.gallup.com/poll/153161/Unemployment-February.aspx


If gas pump prices continue to rise, then POTUS Obama will join the Jimmy Carter Club.

If the MSM stays compliant and protects POTUS Obama, if they continue to unvet his past, refuse to ask tough questions, further refuse to ask tougher follow up questions, then POTUS Obama will get his second term.

I do not know what will happen.  His Hope & Change bubble remains largely intact and his political skills, especially his oratorical and teleprompter skills are a major positive factor for him. 

If the GOP run a disciplined campaign and just hammer away at the economy & the debt, they have a chance to defeat him.  Last go-round POTUS Obama, the "I vote present" Senator did not have a record to run against.

This time he has a record he cannot run on, that he must run away from,  so he will invent some new thingy to replace Hopey & Changey and try to  divert attention away from what he has done to what he might do if given four more years.

The next 8 months will be the political version of playoff hockey.






 
Haletown said:
soooooooo . .  getting back to the election  . . .  in exactly 8 months today we will actually know who won - barring any hanging chads, robocalls or whatever the US equivalent will be.


The next 8 months will be the political version of playoff hockey.

Which leads to the question:  Which side will be coached by Don CHerry and get called for too many men on the ice, losing the game and the series?

Since my impression of this go round is less that anyone will win the presidency than that the other side will lose it.
 
Rush got himself pilloried by most of the msm, and now by Barack Obama himself, for criticizing Sandra Fluke, who was a young student testifying before Congress on how many students have trouble making ends meet without health care covering birth control.

And of course, she has been portrayed as "just a poor, innocent college student" - nooo, that's not disingenuous...

http://www.thomas-purcell.com/2012/03/fluke-is-no-fluke.html

Having gone on information junket trips and been involved with how those sorts of things work, I can tell you that not just anyone is picked to have a seat before a congressional hearing and have a say on particular issues. Your name typically is submitted by people that either have a lot of drag with Congress or you are well known enough about a subject to be considered.


That’s why it came as a bit of a surprise when a supposed innocent college student by the name of Sandra Fluke sat before Congress and testified about the horrors of having to pay for her own contraception pills. The media types and pundits portrayed her as a struggling young student being victimized by the insurance companies and forced into poverty by the fact that she is a woman living in a man’s world.


Hardly.


The red flag for me was twofold; one, that she was attending a very expensive school (Georgetown) and two, that she was self-described as a ‘public interest’ scholarship recipient. Public interest scholarships are not given as poverty scholarships, they are typically credits given for political purposes.


Fluke is not your normal young college student. For one, she is a 30 year old experienced community activist, older and wiser than your typical college student. Experienced in spades—she sits or has been a part of no less than 6 different advisory boards to women’s rights groups, including the Manhattan Borough President’s Taskforce on Domestic Violence and numerous other New York City and New York State coalitions. She is also a recipient of the 2010 Women Lawyers Association of Los Angeles Fran Kandel Public Interest Grant.  The foundation is a non-profit charitable corporation established by the Women Lawyers Association of Los Angeles ("WLALA") to increase the utility of the law as an instrument of social justice. The Grant is given to law students for projects that make governmental and social institutions and agencies more accessible and responsive to members of society whose interests are not otherwise adequately recognized or asserted. In short, this is a woman who knows all the ins and out of the government and government aid systems, and a strong proponent of the concept of 'social justice'.


‘Social justice’ seeks to create economic egalitarianism through taxation, income, or even property redistribution. It is merely just another term for socialism and communism.


Therefore, the story about her friend that couldn’t get affordable birth control, eventually leading to an ovarian cyst just doesn’t ring true. As a career expert in women’s rights and with access to at least a dozen different methods in getting low cost or free contraception, either Ms. Fluke is incompetent in her positions, or is a bald faced liar about the story. Keep in mind, even a rookie women’s activist could and should have directed her to the Planned Parenthood site, which directly offers ways to get birth control pills for about fifteen bucks per month.


So instead of an innocent poor college student discussing the difficulty in getting affordable birth control, we have career women’s rights advocate making the case for the redistribution of wealth in society. Quite a different matter than was originally portrayed.


Furthermore, how is the argument for empowering women in society furthered by arguing that women are merely victims of the free market? Fluke is a member of the Polaris Project, a group that works toward ending human trafficking—a noble cause. But making women slaves of the state instead is no way to go about it; and that’s what she is doing by encouraging women to become reliant on the state and insurance payouts rather than on their own ability to earn a wage and educate themselves in institutions of higher learning. That’s not empowerment, that’s servitude.


Georgetown is not innocent either, and ironically are creators of the very instrument that may be their own demise. An examination of the mentors of their public interest scholarship reveals some very interesting facts. The mentors of the program include but are not limited to:


·        Katherine Barton, Attorney, Appellate Section, Environment and Natural Resources Division, U.S. Department of Justice
·        Bridgette Kaiser, Staff Attorney, Office of General Counsel, U.S. Department of  Health and Human Services
·        Sarah Lichtman Spector, Staff Attorney, Family and Children’s Health Programs at U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
·        Lynn Overmann, Senior Advisor, Office of the Assistant Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice

And of course,


·        Judith Scott, General Counsel, Service Employees International Union, James and Hoffman.

This is the same SEIU that we all know and love as the purple shirted thugs of the AFL-CIO.  It’s interesting that these mentors are also the most likely lawyers to represent the Department of Health and Human Services in the Supreme Court case on Obamacare. It’s no wonder they are so desperate to defend the issue of free contraceptive care because it rests upon the elimination of the First Amendment rights of Georgetown and other religious groups.


If the President backs down on the Georgetown case, or any other Catholic objection to Obamacare mandates, it means that the First Amendment would apply directly to Obamacare—and thus be struck down in its entirety. This explains why Fluke was called to testify, and why Obama is risking political suicide to defend this issue.


It’s all or nothing.


So when you see these sob stories on the news take care and look into them carefully. When they are televised they are often used to manipulate the hearts and minds of those watching at home, who typically do not have the time or experience in understanding the motivations of those making the speeches.
As for Ms. Fluke, you are no struggling college student defending an unaffordable need for yourself or others. You are just another leftist activist with an agenda, and that is something this nation does not need more of, nor should be addressing Congress under the false pretense of poverty or need.


The cold hard light of truth should be the beacon upon which Congress makes its decisions. And that is something, Ms. Fluke, you simply do not represent.
 
also interesting was that although it appeared she was speaking at a Congressional Hearing, it was actually a press conference set up by the DNC to look like a Hearing.

More smoke & mirrors, more MSM  non-reporting.

Excellent stick handling by the Democrats.

 
Haletown said:
also interesting was that although it appeared she was speaking at a Congressional Hearing, it was actually a press conference set up by the DNC to look like a Hearing.

More smoke & mirrors, more MSM  non-reporting.

Excellent stick handling by the Democrats.


I did not understand that; I wan't following the story, except in passing, but I thought, based on CNN and Fox reports, that it was a legitimate congressional hearing ... so, yes: good news management (AKA propaganda) by the Democrats.
 
E.R. Campbell said:
I did not understand that; I wan't following the story, except in passing, but I thought, based on CNN and Fox reports, that it was a legitimate congressional hearing ... so, yes: good news management (AKA propaganda) by the Democrats.

Good, aren't they.

Made it look all legit, the MSM went along with it, leading people to think it was something it wasn't.



 
muskrat89 said:
And of course, she has been portrayed as "just a poor, innocent college student" - nooo, that's not disingenuous...

http://www.thomas-purcell.com/2012/03/fluke-is-no-fluke.html

DAMMIT! ALL I NEEDED WAS "KENYAN ANTI-COLONIAL VIEWS" TO GET A FULL CARD BINGO IN RIGHT WING DOG WHISTLE BINGO!

Seriously, the screwy definition of social justice, the ad hominem about who she is (does it matter how old she is or her background?), the fact that she herself somewhat well off - that doesn't take away from the situation of many, many other American women, the nonsense about unions that comes straight out of the paranoid Glenn Beck playbook... it's a long winded tirade that doesn't actually do a particularly good job of addressing any issues raised.
 
Redeye said:
DAMMIT! ALL I NEEDED WAS "KENYAN ANTI-COLONIAL VIEWS" TO GET A FULL CARD BINGO IN RIGHT WING DOG WHISTLE BINGO!

Seriously, the screwy definition of social justice, the ad hominem about who she is (does it matter how old she is or her background?), the fact that she herself somewhat well off - that doesn't take away from the situation of many, many other American women, the nonsense about unions that comes straight out of the paranoid Glenn Beck playbook... it's a long winded tirade that doesn't actually do a particularly good job of addressing any issues raised.

Aren't you deployed or something.  Quit posting so much.
 
muskrat89 said:
Of course. We expected nothing less from you.

Likewise. Honestly, if this is what the GOP diehards on the far right have to present to the mushy middle undecided voters, then I will have to forgive the Democrats and the Obama campaign for being a little smug.  If this what they're going to make the focal point of politics going into a campaign, I suspect they're going to get walloped. And it's not as though, as Rifleman62 pointed out, there's nothing else to talk about. The phrase "Epic Fail" comes to mind. Yes, they'll be a hit with a certain set of people, but that sort of rant caters solely to a certain subset of the electorate that's not in any danger of voting Dem. To the average person reading that, suggesting that "communism" is some sort of threat to America is likely to be laughed off, and deservedly so. Likewise the attack on unions. This sort of stuff is essentially aimed at an echo chamber. A bunch of people who talk nonsense they all believe so they can nod at each other approvingly. It's not going to convince any of those people who actually matter of anything because it comes off as devoid of any real value. That's what people like David Frum have been bemoaning lately. I get it, I really do. They're watching their party start to tilt toward a fringe that can't win back the average man in the street, because it's coming off so ridiculous. To my original point, I cannot believe that this (and other ridiculous related legislation proposed in various states on the same issue) is the hill the GOP has chosen to die on. If they actually decided to, they could give President Obama a run for his money this year, but it seems to me that they're determined to find as many ways as possible to lose spectacularly. And they really don't need to. They could do so much better. There are good issues that both sides could actually work on and be constructive and maybe change the way people view politicians, because right now that view is not at all favourable and this isn't the answer.

Infanteer,- it's midnight, and the weekend, and I'm wired on caffeine for some stupid reason. Mainly so I can be up to talk to my wife.
 
Redeye said:
DAMMIT! ALL I NEEDED WAS "KENYAN ANTI-COLONIAL VIEWS" TO GET A FULL CARD BINGO IN RIGHT WING DOG WHISTLE BINGO!

Seriously, the screwy definition of social justice, the ad hominem about who she is (does it matter how old she is or her background?), the fact that she herself somewhat well off - that doesn't take away from the situation of many, many other American women, the nonsense about unions that comes straight out of the paranoid Glenn Beck playbook... it's a long winded tirade that doesn't actually do a particularly good job of addressing any issues raised.

Ok,...I just want to clarify something here. I usually find your posts refreshingly funny in how you portray everything YOU think is good, and righteous, is the high road.  This post however has pushed waaaaay past funny, you are now saying that misrepresentation [ergo, lying] is acceptable if that particular message passes Redeye's sniff test??  Are you sure you're in the right business??
 
Redeye said:
.... the ad hominem ....
For someone who decries right-wing name calling, you are unfailing in calling anyone who disagrees with you, about any issue, "idiots."    :boring:
 
dapaterson said:
Which leads to the question:  Which side will be coached by Don CHerry and get called for too many men on the ice, losing the game and the series?
Awesome analogy!  (And I'm sure that Bruins fans everywhere are broiling now!) ;D

 
Bruce Monkhouse said:
Ok,...I just want to clarify something here. I usually find your posts refreshingly funny in how you portray everything YOU think is good, and righteous, is the high road.  This post however has pushed waaaaay past funny, you are now saying that misrepresentation [ergo, lying] is acceptable if that particular message passes Redeye's sniff test??  Are you sure you're in the right business??

I don't think there was misrepresentation - Fluke's statements were relatively reasonable (including the amounts involved, based on different types of birth control, because $15 generics from PP (which the right is attacking as well, as you may recall) may not be the answer for everyone. I don't see anything so serious as to justify the attacks on the messenger. She related stories of people she knew, and if they're unreasonable, then that's another matter. On the high level, though, why is this such a big issue when there's so much more going on in the world? What is the GOP going to gain from this?! In strategic terms I cannot see any win for them.

What do the Republicans gain from going down this road? That's what makes no sense to me.
 
Redeye said:
I don't think there was misrepresentation - Fluke's statements were relatively reasonable (including the amounts involved, based on different types of birth control,

She used the ludicrous  figure of $3000 over the course of studying law at Georgetown  - that is $3000 over 3 years and that is utterly ridiculous, a pathetic attempt to torque a storyline.

That you can state that you find her cost figures for the  purchasing of contraception to be "relatively reasonable " explains  how you can be so enthralled with the performance of POTUS Obama.


 
tomahawk6 said:
1st Amendment.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

Seems crystal clear; the State (federal or otherwise) cannot tell a religious organization what to do or how to do it. If a member of a religion chooses to follow or violate the tenants of the religion, that is also not the perview of the State. A nominal Catholic who chooses to violate the teachings of the Church WRT contraceptives will have to deal with that on their own, including purchasing contraceptives out of their own pockets or choosing to work for a secular employer who will include that in their health care package.

The spiritual aspects of such decisions are between the person and their clergy, or the person and their God(s)
 
Back
Top