Obama Calls Sandra Fluke to Console Her

[Rob's House]

most of my conservative friends consider him a blow hard and don't even think he believes half of what he says on the air. In fact, I know a lot more liberals who listen to him than conservatives.

Most conservatives that say that **** rarely listen to his show & either form their opinions on the skewed coverage he gets in the media, or because he's been so smeared by the media that they think they have to renounce him to maintain credibility.

[Adam]

I guess I just don't believe that. What would be interesting is if you could come up with a bunch of his statements that were wrong. Make sure they are in context. If you choose not to do this, it's cool. Just means that you aren't that committed to your position.

doesn't bother me that you like him.

 

I choose not to do it, because I haven't listened to him in at least eight years, don't plan on listening to him again and don't have the time or care enough to dig up old comments by him.

 

He grates on me like the guys from MSNBC that I get stuck listening to every time I visit family. I can't stand partisan hacks that just spout hate towards the other side.

[3rdnlng]

doesn't bother me that you like him.

 

I choose not to do it, because I haven't listened to him in at least eight years, don't plan on listening to him again and don't have the time or care enough to dig up old comments by him.

 

He grates on me like the guys from MSNBC that I get stuck listening to every time I visit family. I can't stand partisan hacks that just spout hate towards the other side.

 

 

Who said I liked him? I was just asking you to be intellectually honest. Since you haven't heard him in at least 8 years how do you figure to be taken seriously?

[Adam]

Who said I liked him? I was just asking you to be intellectually honest. Since you haven't heard him in at least 8 years how do you figure to be taken seriously?

Since when have you known me to care what people think of me; LOL.

 

I don't remember specifics of what I have heard him say. I just remember him mixing some facts in with hateful spew- a time tested formula to get people to listen and buy into what is said. Don't like him and don't like talk radio in general. Sensationalizes everything.

[3rdnlng]

Since when have you known me to care what people think of me; LOL.

 

I don't remember specifics of what I have heard him say. I just remember him mixing some facts in with hateful spew- a time tested formula to get people to listen and buy into what is said. Don't like him and don't like talk radio in general. Sensationalizes everything.

 

Adam, you disappoint me. You don't know why you are against someone, but you are? You know, I backed off when you seemed to be in such consternation a few months ago. I'm done with that. Have some balls and take a !@#$ing stand on something! I don't care if you propose government mandated marriages between beavers, just make a !@#$ing stand.

Edited March 5, 2012 by 3rdnlng

[Adam]

Adam, you disappoint me. You don't know why you are against someone, but you are? You know, I backed off when you seemed to be in such consternation a few months ago. I'm done with that. Have some balls and take a !@#$ing stamd on something! I don't care if you propose government mandated marriages between beavers, just make a !@#$ing stand.

The government should not decide if the beavers get married, they should decide so, themselves, as they have rights.

 

Honestly, I said that i don't like Limbaugh based on what i heard of him. Do you really want me to start listening to him again, so I can give you specific examples of what i don't like? You may call that taking a stand, but I call it a waste of time. My schedule doesn't allow for a waste of time like that.

[SageAgainstTheMachine]

Adam, you disappoint me. You don't know why you are against someone, but you are? You know, I backed off when you seemed to be in such consternation a few months ago. I'm done with that. Have some balls and take a !@#$ing stamd on something! I don't care if you propose government mandated marriages between beavers, just make a !@#$ing stand.

 

This is what ails political discourse more than anything. Those who are willing to admit, "Hey it's a complicated issue. I can see both sides. The truth is probably somewhere in between." are called wimps.

 

What's the purpose in "making a !@#$ing stand" just for the hell of it?

[B-Man]

So you understood nothing of the debate. Awesome.

 

 

Lol................a childish dismissal, followed by the always so relevant...awesome

 

 

Well dude, I understand all sides of the debate,

 

sadly, you have demonstrated, through your repetitive replies, that you do not grasp what the priority is in this story.

 

your loss.

 

 

.

[LeviF]

Yeah, I was being sarcastic, dipshit.

And a good evening to you, too.

[Magox]

This is what ails political discourse more than anything. Those who are willing to admit, "Hey it's a complicated issue. I can see both sides. The truth is probably somewhere in between." are called wimps.

 

What's the purpose in "making a !@#$ing stand" just for the hell of it?

Well, you would have a point if it were to occur from time to time, but when one consistently doesn't have a "stand", well.... Then it's something else. Ummm, maybe wimpy may not be the word I'd use to describe it, not quite sure what word I'd use, but it definitely wouldn't be a flattering characterization.

[Adam]

Well, you would have a point if it were to occur from time to time, but when one consistently doesn't have a "stand", well.... Then it's something else. Ummm, maybe wimpy may not be the word I'd use to describe it, not quite sure what word I'd use, but it definitely wouldn't be a flattering characterization.

my stand is that that far left and far right are 100% wrong 100% of the time. Being in the middle looking for a correct answer is better than throwing out the answer you were given to parrot by a politician which is guaranteed to be wrong.

 

Where's that fence post now?

[B-Man]

The argument did not start with Congress. It was a response to Obama. "It wasn't about birth control. It's about religious freedom."

 

The tables have turned. Abortion used to be a matter of choice. Ditto birth control. But now that they have considerable political power, the erstwhile choice advocates want to take away the choice of dissenters to opt out.

 

Choice is gone.

Tolerance is musty memory.

"Access" is the new buzzword - and access means free. Under Obamacare, employer-paid health plans can charge women co-payments for necessary and vital medical services if they are seriously ill, but birth control is free.

 

 

Georgetown law student Fluke did address Congress. She observed "conservative Catholic organizations have been asking: What did we expect when we enrolled at a Catholic school? We can only answer that we expected women to be treated equally, to not have our school create untenable burdens that impede our academic success."

 

I cannot imagine how a Georgetown law student could expect the Catholic Church to treat women equally. It doesn't let women be priests.

 

What is more, Fluke asserted that if students have to go out and get their own birth control - because they chose to attend a Catholic institution - that hurts their grades. Therefore Washington must force religious institutions to go against their deeply held beliefs and hand out birth control, if indirectly.

 

Washington has accomplished a great leap, from a plea for choice to a roar of entitlement.

 

 

No doubt, this approach works well with intolerant liberals who want to impose their views on others. But it is enough to turn some of us social moderates, who worry about the encroachment on religious and personal liberty, into the loving arms of social conservatives.

 

Debra J. Saunders

 

 

.

[3rdnlng]

This is what ails political discourse more than anything. Those who are willing to admit, "Hey it's a complicated issue. I can see both sides. The truth is probably somewhere in between." are called wimps.

 

What's the purpose in "making a !@#$ing stand" just for the hell of it?

 

Uh, this is ground that you are not familiar with. I call Adam Yesbut for a reason. Everything in his world has two sides and he is permanently stuck between yes and no.

[Adam]

Yeah...that's not birth control, that's a prescription for a medical condition. So they're the same medication. So what? The Church is against use as a contraceptive; I haven't yet heard them say they're against it for treating medical conditions.

 

And why is it free anyway? My cholesterol medication isn't - I have to pay a co-pay. Tell me THAT isn't the democrats pandering to the base.

 

 

 

Oh, really? That's the Supreme Court's function? I had no idea.

nothing wrong with the church as a religious institution being against birth control. The problem is that they are also a place of business. If other businesses are required to provide that coverage, then they should be required as well. If other places have the option not to provide the coverage, then it isn't an issue.

 

Uh, this is ground that you are not familiar with. I call Adam Yesbut for a reason. Everything in his world has two sides and he is permanently stuck between yes and no.

Wrong, but apparently you are having trouble reading. Maybe time for new bifocals.

[IDBillzFan]

Being in the middle looking for a correct answer is better than throwing out the answer you were given to parrot by a politician which is guaranteed to be wrong.

Here's where people on either side of the aisle struggle with your kind of lazy go-along-to-get-along thinking: There was NO NEED for an "in the middle" answer on this issue. No need at all. And yet here you sit, complaining about the fact that the problem with people is that they simply refuse to compromise on protecting the first amendment. How in the hell did ANY of us get to this embarrassing point?

 

Look around you. What do you see? Do you see millions of women suffering because they don't get "free" birth control? Or do you see millions of Americans struggling to find work, fill their gas tank, feed their family, keep their house, put away for retirement or even pay down their debt? Do you see millions of women dying from monstrous cysts on their ovaries, or a country where fully 50% of its citizens not only are dependent on the government in some financial way or another, but more than 53% don't even have to pay INTO the government on which they depend? Do you see millions of girls lucky enough to attend college who are somehow, suddenly financially struggling every day because they are unable to get their pills for less than $9 month, or do you see a debt and deficit forcing the first US credit downgrade EVER?

 

Get your fugging head out of the clouds and stop trying to compromise on retarded issues that need no attention (let alone compromise).

 

This president and his team are so amazing, they actually have the place burning down, but have somehow recruited people like YOU to play the freaking fiddle FOR him.

[Adam]

Here's where people on either side of the aisle struggle with your kind of lazy go-along-to-get-along thinking: There was NO NEED for an "in the middle" answer on this issue. No need at all. And yet here you sit, complaining about the fact that the problem with people is that they simply refuse to compromise on protecting the first amendment. How in the hell did ANY of us get to this embarrassing point?

 

Look around you. What do you see? Do you see millions of women suffering because they don't get "free" birth control? Or do you see millions of Americans struggling to find work, fill their gas tank, feed their family, keep their house, put away for retirement or even pay down their debt? Do you see millions of women dying from monstrous cysts on their ovaries, or a country where fully 50% of its citizens not only are dependent on the government in some financial way or another, but more than 53% don't even have to pay INTO the government on which they depend? Do you see millions of girls lucky enough to attend college who are somehow, suddenly financially struggling every day because they are unable to get their pills for less than $9 month, or do you see a debt and deficit forcing the first US credit downgrade EVER?

 

Get your fugging head out of the clouds and stop trying to compromise on retarded issues that need no attention (let alone compromise).

 

This president and his team are so amazing, they actually have the place burning down, but have somehow recruited people like YOU to play the freaking fiddle FOR him.

I agree with you- there really is no need to debate the issue. I don't know what the law is and don't need to know. Whatever it is, it stands for all businesses. If it is required to include that in the insurance, the church does not have an out. If it is not required by law, they do not need an out. It can't be any clearer than that.

[Booster4324]

Here's where people on either side of the aisle struggle with your kind of lazy go-along-to-get-along thinking: There was NO NEED for an "in the middle" answer on this issue. No need at all. And yet here you sit, complaining about the fact that the problem with people is that they simply refuse to compromise on protecting the first amendment. How in the hell did ANY of us get to this embarrassing point?

 

Look around you. What do you see? Do you see millions of women suffering because they don't get "free" birth control? Or do you see millions of Americans struggling to find work, fill their gas tank, feed their family, keep their house, put away for retirement or even pay down their debt? Do you see millions of women dying from monstrous cysts on their ovaries, or a country where fully 50% of its citizens not only are dependent on the government in some financial way or another, but more than 53% don't even have to pay INTO the government on which they depend? Do you see millions of girls lucky enough to attend college who are somehow, suddenly financially struggling every day because they are unable to get their pills for less than $9 month, or do you see a debt and deficit forcing the first US credit downgrade EVER?

 

Get your fugging head out of the clouds and stop trying to compromise on retarded issues that need no attention (let alone compromise).

 

This president and his team are so amazing, they actually have the place burning down, but have somehow recruited people like YOU to play the freaking fiddle FOR him.

 

Liar, you are referring to income tax.

[3rdnlng]

Here's where people on either side of the aisle struggle with your kind of lazy go-along-to-get-along thinking: There was NO NEED for an "in the middle" answer on this issue. No need at all. And yet here you sit, complaining about the fact that the problem with people is that they simply refuse to compromise on protecting the first amendment. How in the hell did ANY of us get to this embarrassing point?

 

Look around you. What do you see? Do you see millions of women suffering because they don't get "free" birth control? Or do you see millions of Americans struggling to find work, fill their gas tank, feed their family, keep their house, put away for retirement or even pay down their debt? Do you see millions of women dying from monstrous cysts on their ovaries, or a country where fully 50% of its citizens not only are dependent on the government in some financial way or another, but more than 53% don't even have to pay INTO the government on which they depend? Do you see millions of girls lucky enough to attend college who are somehow, suddenly financially struggling every day because they are unable to get their pills for less than $9 month, or do you see a debt and deficit forcing the first US credit downgrade EVER?

 

Get your fugging head out of the clouds and stop trying to compromise on retarded issues that need no attention (let alone compromise).

 

This president and his team are so amazing, they actually have the place burning down, but have somehow recruited people like YOU to play the freaking fiddle FOR him.

 

I see some of your points but not the others. It's 50/50. 6 in one and half a dozen in the other. Maybe.

 

Liar, you are referring to income tax.

Damn, you are quick to make a fool of yourself.

[Booster4324]

I see some of your points but not the others. It's 50/50. 6 in one and half a dozen in the other. Maybe.

 

 

Damn, you are quick to make a fool of yourself.

 

You said, "or a country where fully 50% of its citizens not only are dependent on the government in some financial way or another, but more than 53% don't even have to pay INTO the government"

 

Care to defend that? Oh you cannot as you are referring to income tax. Loser.

[IDBillzFan]

Liar, you are referring to income tax.

Did I improperly imply or did you improperly infer? Hard to say. Excellent. Let's waste MORE time on another irrelevant argument.

 

Quick, rosin up your bow, Booster. You're fiddlin' in five.

[3rdnlng]

You said, "or a country where fully 50% of its citizens not only are dependent on the government in some financial way or another, but more than 53% don't even have to pay INTO the government"

 

Care to defend that? Oh you cannot as you are referring to income tax. Loser.

 

What are you talking about?

[Booster4324]

Did I improperly imply or did you improperly infer? Hard to say. Excellent. Let's waste MORE time on another irrelevant argument.

 

Quick, rosin up your bow, Booster. You're fiddlin' in five.

 

So poor pay no tax? Is that what you meant?

 

What are you talking about?

 

I would explain, but you are such a tool you will ignore it. You know what I meant. Feel free to be a tool and ignore the facts.

[3rdnlng]

So poor pay no tax? Is that what you meant?

 

 

 

I would explain, but you are such a tool you will ignore it. You know what I meant. Feel free to be a tool and ignore the facts.

 

 

Are you drunk out of your mind or did you fall down and hit your head? If you are truly in distress I'll call 911 for you. Fantasyland, right?

Edited March 5, 2012 by 3rdnlng

[Booster4324]

Are you drunk out of your mind or did you fall down and hit your head? If you are truly in distress I'll call 911 for you. Fantsyland, right?

 

Heard of other taxes idiot? There is more than income taxes. Gas tax for a start.

[3rdnlng]

Heard of other taxes idiot? There is more than income taxes. Gas tax for a start.

What does this have to do with me?

[Booster4324]

What does this have to do with me?

 

You have a real hard time following threads. Just saying.

[3rdnlng]

You have a real hard time following threads. Just saying.

 

You need to think again. Your drunkeness or mental impairment, or just normal stupidity has made you make some incorrect assumptions. Figure it out dumbass. I laughed at you for a second or two but decided not to waste any more time.

[Booster4324]

You need to think again. Your drunkeness or mental impairment, or just normal stupidity has made you make some incorrect assumptions. Figure it out dumbass. I laughed at you for a second or two but decided not to waste any more time.

 

Wow, you are bad at this. I will just add this, try to follow the thread. Make your comments relevant. You have issues with that, clue #1: the topic I was addressing was overall taxation.

[3rdnlng]

Wow, you are bad at this. I will just add this, try to follow the thread. Make your comments relevant. You have issues with that, clue #1: the topic I was addressing was overall taxation.

 

First issue---get your players identified.

[birdog1960]

an aspect of this that i haven't heard discussed struck me this am: eugenics. margaret sanger, founder of planned parenthood was a huge supporter. i was trying to explain the need for birth control to be free in this bill and stumbled on this idea. it's the anti-idiocracy bill. who really needs free birth control more? a law student or a welfare mom? while i find that abhorrent, i would expect at least some of you far right guys to love it. theoretically, it should drastically decrease the oft quoted percentage of folks who pay no income tax over time.

 

there are clearly multiple issues in play here. to properly analyze them they must be teased out. above is one facet. others include religious freedom, secular sexism, religious sexism and the morality of birth control and abortion. individually, each immensely complex subjects. together, so complex that they are effectively inarguable as discovered here.

[Chef Jim]

You said, "or a country where fully 50% of its citizens not only are dependent on the government in some financial way or another, but more than 53% don't even have to pay INTO the government"

 

Care to defend that? Oh you cannot as you are referring to income tax. Loser.

 

And you tell him he's really bad at this.

[3rdnlng]

And you tell him he's really bad at this.

 

He's/She's such a mental midget that he/she can't even keep it straight who he/she is arguing with. I swear, he/she gets this way about every 4 weeks. I wonder if he/she got his/her birth control for free if she/he would be less of a little B word. Maybe it's just time to drain the tampon.

Edited March 5, 2012 by 3rdnlng

[Rob's House]

an aspect of this that i haven't heard discussed struck me this am: eugenics. margaret sanger, founder of planned parenthood was a huge supporter. i was trying to explain the need for birth control to be free in this bill and stumbled on this idea. it's the anti-idiocracy bill. who really needs free birth control more? a law student or a welfare mom? while i find that abhorrent, i would expect at least some of you far right guys to love it. theoretically, it should drastically decrease the oft quoted percentage of folks who pay no income tax over time.

 

there are clearly multiple issues in play here. to properly analyze them they must be teased out. above is one facet. others include religious freedom, secular sexism, religious sexism and the morality of birth control and abortion. individually, each immensely complex subjects. together, so complex that they are effectively inarguable as discovered here.

I don't know if I'm a far right guy or not but I wouldn't have that big a problem with Medicaid providing birth control. The main reason no one's brought it up is because the topic isn't whether bacon is good or bad but whether Muslims should have to serve it in their cafeteria.

[Bigfatbillsfan]

Adam, Limbaugh is a radio talk show host. Granted, the most successful ever, and maybe now what has become the "media". I say that in jest but the MSM is so biased that Rush has become more of a reporter than they are. Isn't that sad?

 

How do you know you have a Rushbot on the board? Statements like this!

 

He's more of a reporter than they are? Please tell me that's one of your stupid jokes.

[birdog1960]

I don't know if I'm a far right guy or not but I wouldn't have that big a problem with Medicaid providing birth control. The main reason no one's brought it up is because the topic isn't whether bacon is good or bad but whether Muslims should have to serve it in their cafeteria.

are your thought processes really this simplistic? i had the distinct impression you were amoral but wasn't so sure you were simple. of course it has to do with "good and bad". everything does. the wars, the economy, the health care system, immigration, taxation... every side of every argument concerns "good and bad".

[Satan]

Maybe Obama would, but the real question is: would ya?

 

http://www.thehoya.com/polopoly_fs/1.2805519!/image/1572656430.png_gen/derivatives/landscape_640/1572656430.png

 

Come to Butthead.

[B-Man]

The Battle Continues, Beyond Rush

 

Despite the White House’s rather successful efforts to reframe the media and congressional debate over the HHS “contraceptive mandate” as a right-wing jihad against “women’s health” — a cynical ploy aided and abetted by Rush Limbaugh’s one-man circular firing squad — the real battle against the mandate and in defense of religious freedom has continued. A March 2 letter from Cardinal Timothy Dolan, president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, to his brother bishops usefully and succinctly outlined the current state of affairs, which amounts to unremitting stonewalling from the Obama administration.

 

{snip}

 

Cardinal Dolan then shed important light on the administration’s approach to this debate, that is, presenting itself as the reasonable party, conceding nothing, and then using flacks like Senator Chuck Schumer and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi to muddy the waters and divert attention from the manifest unconstitutionality and illegality of the mandate:

 

From his letter:

 

[After February 10], the President invited us to “work out the wrinkles.” We have accepted that invitation . . . [Yet] the White House Press Secretary . . . informed the nation that the mandates are a fait accompli (and, embarrassingly for him, commented that we bishops have always opposed Health Care anyway, a charge that is scurrilous and insulting, not to mention flat out wrong. . . .) The White House [also] notified Congress that the dreaded mandates are now published in the Federal Registry “without change.” The Secretary of HHS is widely quoted as saying, “Religious insurance companies don’t really design the plans they sell based on their own religious tenets.” That doesn’t bode well for their getting a truly acceptable “accommodation.”

 

At a recent meeting between staff of the bishops’ conference and the White House staff, our staff members asked directly whether the broader concerns of religious freedom — that is, revisiting the straight-jacketing mandates, or broadening the maligned exemption — are all off the table. They were informed that they are. So much for “working out the wrinkles.” Instead, they advised the bishops’ conference that we should listen to the “enlightened” voices of accommodation, such as the recent, hardly surprising yet terribly unfortunate editorial in America. The White House seems to think we bishops simply do not know or understand Catholic teaching and so, taking a cue from its own definition of religious freedom, now has nominated its own handpicked official Catholic teachers.

 

NRO

 

 

.

[DC Tom]

nothing wrong with the church as a religious institution being against birth control. The problem is that they are also a place of business. If other businesses are required to provide that coverage, then they should be required as well. If other places have the option not to provide the coverage, then it isn't an issue.

 

No, the problem is that the health care law is a REALLY bad law. Keeping the government out of it wouldn't have this problem (the Church would have a choice). Likewise, a completely government-run system wouldn't have this problem (the Church wouldn't have to make the choice). It's the bull **** "public program by mandated private purchase" law that causes the problem of the feel-good idea of "free contraception" to run up against the reality of religious freedom.

 

And again...some of us actually predicted this before the bill was passed. Some of hated the bill BECAUSE it was such an ugly, craven compromise.

[birdog1960]

No, the problem is that the health care law is a REALLY bad law. Keeping the government out of it wouldn't have this problem (the Church would have a choice). Likewise, a completely government-run system wouldn't have this problem (the Church wouldn't have to make the choice). It's the bull **** "public program by mandated private purchase" law that causes the problem of the feel-good idea of "free contraception" to run up against the reality of religious freedom.

 

And again...some of us actually predicted this before the bill was passed. Some of hated the bill BECAUSE it was such an ugly, craven compromise.

we've always had a hybrid system even before "obamacare". how much do you suppose private insurance would cost for ralph wilson? so entirely private is out as an option. that leaves....single payer! glad to see you've seen the light.

[DC Tom]

we've always had a hybrid system even before "obamacare". how much do you suppose private insurance would cost for ralph wilson? so entirely private is out as an option. that leaves....single payer! glad to see you've seen the light.

 

Actually, I believe that medical care, as an exclusive use resource, is an individual responsibility and should NOT be provided by the government.

 

But even with that belief, I freely admitted before the current bill was passed that a "single payer" completely socialized medical system, although I'm dead-set against it, would be better than this abortion of a health care law.