Obama Calls Sandra Fluke to Console Her

[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.