US Politics: 1950's edition

[Kalbear]

Yep, raidne.

FLOW, to add to other bits on this - here's an article on how much Planned Parenthood saves the government.

Here's a nice, juicy quote from the article:

The Guttmacher Institute estimated in 2008 that every dollar spent on family planning saves taxpayers $3.74 in government spending on prenatal care, childbirth, and the first year of an infant's health care.

Note that the Guttmacher paper has a lot of detail if you're interested - things like 1.6million pregnancies from those who could not obtain contraception themselves, 600,000 abortions, 700,000 children born below poverty each year. It's pretty detailed if you care to look it up and looks pretty definitive as far as an answer goes.

Now that's assumiing that the government is spending that money - which in this case THEY ARE NOT. It's a private institution that this woman actually pays dues into! The government has nothing to do with this at all except in the mandate - and that mandate doesn't cost the insurer any more money AND saves us money. All of us!

Add to this that the objection is coming from a catholic institution that by its nature (being catholic) already doesn't pay any taxes and is a net loss to the government, and you're on the side of enforcing a group that is a leech on your taxes from supporting a mandate that helps your taxes even more, all the while costing them nothing.

So...FLOW, why are you against this again?

[Kalbear]

Wait - it's the republican stance to be against saving taxpayers money while also reducing the number of people on welfare? This seems like the sort of thing republicans should be for. I'm very confused.

Cause to me, this doesn't even seem like a partisan issue at all. It's like saying that having a tax system whatsoever is 'not republican'. You too can make money while losing weight and also be more popular, andd it won't cost anyone else anything!

[Sci-2]

I know relatives of mine who think you don't need any medication for ADD/depression/schizophrenia...you just need meditation.

I once knew a guy who was Muslim who said that once the body could not support itself without machines, that person should die. He felt that was what his faith was telling him, I have no idea what passages of the Koran he used to support that.

I know people who think if a drug was tested on animals, it is morally wrong to use it.

When it comes to health and medication, I can probably find Christians/Muslims/Hindus/etc who want to restrict some kind of medication or other.

At what point do we just tell religions to get in line? If the doctor feels the patient is suicidal without antidepressants? That the kid has put in some X hours into yoga classes?

As others have pointed out, there seems to be more logic for denying lung-cancer care to smokers than there is in denying BC to women.

[awesome possum]

FLoW being a good GOP soldier is part of it, at least that's why he tried to bring the "but Taibbi and Maher did it" talking point into the discussion. FLoW may be a true believer on this one, as in the previous thread he outright suggested that he disagrees with the mere existence of contraception.

Also, Salon does a good job of explaining why it's laughable that Limbaugh is being compared to anyone on the left in this instance:

After being shredded on-air by Limbaugh over the tax hike he signed, George H.W. Bush invited him to the White House in June 1992, and made a show of carrying his bags to the Lincoln bedroom for him. When the GOP won the House in 1994, the party’s 73 freshmen members invited Limbaugh to their orientation dinner, where they honored him as a “majority maker.” He hosted Bob Dole on his show in 1996, beat the drums exhaustively for George W. Bush in 2000 and 2004, and even admitted in the later years of W’s presidency that he’d been carrying water for congressional Republicans. And when he’s stepped over the line in recent years, Republicans have been painfully hesitant to take issue with him — and when they have, they’ve often ended up apologizing to him.

This is what makes the context of Limbaugh’s attack on Fluke so damaging for Republicans. It’s not just that he said something awful about a 30-year-old woman who hadn’t said anything about him. It’s that he did so by way of amplifying the GOP’s message on contraception. Republicans had been taking pains to claim their objections to the Obama administration’s mandate that women be able to obtain birth coverage through their health insurance plans were all about protecting religious liberty — that they weren’t on some puritanical crusade. With his unparalleled platform, Limbaugh has made a mockery of that idea, and he’s put a particularly nasty face on the GOP’s posturing. As GOP consultant Alex Castellanos told the Daily Beast, “we have just handed [Democrats] the cudgel one more time, playing into the stereotype that Republicans are anti-women.”

It's ridiculous to try to compare Limbaugh's vitriol with that from the left because there is no comparison to Limbaugh on the left. None. Bill freaking Clinton doesn't wield as much power on the left as Limbaugh does on the right. It's laughable.

[Lany Freelove Cassandra]

I forgot to change my voter registration (ok, it is apathy on my part) and I keep wondering if I should vote Santorum just because I am SURE Obama can beat him.

[Sci-2]

Seems like Romney's gaffes have already hurt is chances:

http://www.washingto...0fbuR_blog.html

"Nearly half of all political independents questioned in a new Washington Post-ABC News poll express unfavorable views of the former Massachusetts governor. At 48 percent unfavorable among this key bloc, Romney’s numbers are among the worst he’s received; far fewer, 32 percent, view him favorably....

With a 35 percent favorable rating among all Americans, Romney -- the leader in delegates -- is well off the mark set by previous GOP front-runners at similar times in the presidential election cycle. Eventual Republican nominees John McCain in 2008, George W. Bush in 2000, Bob Dole in 1996, and George H.W. Bush 1988 were all rated more highly by the general population."

ETA: Put quote in block.

[Ormond]

And for some lighter conversation: Mitt Romney's wife doesn't consider herself wealthy. Despite having horses in every port. If she doesn't consider herself wealthy, who is? John Kerry looks really in touch with the average American in comparison to the Romneys.

This is just part of general American culture. If an American isn't on welfare, and they know even one person who has a lot more money than they do, they think they are "middle class."

Way back when I was an undergraduate in college I had an acquaintance who had a meeting with his tax lawyer every Friday to deal with his large inheritance. And yet he was adamantly convinced he wasn't rich because he had a friend whose family had mansions in both New York and Jamaica as well as a private jet.

[drawkcabi]

OK - I've watched Newt's, Santorum's, and Romney's speeches, and Romney's is so much more polished and impressive, it is incredible. It's a difference in kind rather than degree. Santorum is so b-league, and Newt is a phenomenon that cannot be understood by the human mind at this stage in our development. It is stunning what an organizational advantage Romney has and that he is still not winning that much.

I had to read your post twice to make sure you weren't being sarcastic. Romney completely flubbed! He said "Get Obama out of the outhouse...er, I mean White House!" and that was just one of many. It was so sad it stopped being funny.

Santorum was sincere at least, sincerely scary, but sincere.

Newt was mean and spiteful and when he wasn't being that he was just being looney tunes.

[Shryke]

Results coming in:

http://www.google.com/elections/ed/us/results

Romeny takes some, Santorum takes others, Gingrich takes Georgia

2 Notable things;

- Santorum currently winning Ohio. Bad news for Romney if his leads holds.

- More hilariously, in Virginia, with only 2 people on the ballot, one of them being RON PAUL, Romney gets ... 60% of the vote. :lol:

[Shryke]

Santorum was sincere at least, sincerely scary, but sincere.

http://www.theonion.com/articles/voters-slowly-realizing-santorum-believes-every-de,27518/

As Rick Santorum has emerged to become Mitt Romney's leading opponent for the Republican presidential nomination, the American electorate said Monday it had slowly begun to realize that the former Pennsylvania senator sincerely believes every deranged word that exits his mouth.

"I honestly thought he was just playing up to the far-right voters, because that's what Republicans are supposed to do in the primaries," said Grand Rapids, MI resident Dan Banks, who explained he had dismissed as manipulative campaign rhetoric Santorum's assertion that President Obama would send Christians to the guillotine. "But now it's dawning on me that this guy means it, all of it. Every single thing he says is an accurate depiction of how he sees the world."

[drawkcabi]

Did you see my ETA which I made before seeing your post?

No, I responded to your post before the ETA was added.

I can agree that Santorum had a b-league crowd, definitely. When ever I hear them say he's in Stubenville I keep hearing Steve Zahn's character from "That Thing You Do" say "Stubbenville?!!"

Newt's seemed more inflated, but Romney with all his polished support still seemed to give a weaker speech than Santorum, imo.

ETA:

Ok, I've all ready admitted once today I'm a lousy reader, I read your ETA again and I think we're mostly on the same page, re: Mitt's organization isn't helping him.

I saw no charm at all in Romney's speech, no matter how much polish they tried to shine that turd up with, it was still a turd.

[drawkcabi]

My point was mostly about the optics and theatrics of the speech and not so much about the substance of what was in it.

I absolutely agree there, I just saw such passion in Santorum, again scary passion, it overcame the bush league resources he has and I didn't see his set up hindering him at all.

[drawkcabi]

http://www.theonion....every-de,27518/

:rofl:

This could be one of those Onion articles that's more actual reporting than satire even if it's made up.

[Sci-2]

Voting for Santorum -> Is this the last gasp of the social conservatives? I mean how many years does this movement have left?

I can sort of see it carrying on with abortion for a few generations yet, but it seems it's anti-LGBT stance is dying -> or is this just my wishful thinking?

[drawkcabi]

Voting for Santorum -> Is this the last gasp of the social conservatives? I mean how many years does this movement have left?

I can sort of see it carrying on with abortion for a few generations yet, but it seems it's anti-LGBT stance is dying -> or is this just my wishful thinking?

Well, if Romney does get the nomination this year, does that mean it's Santorum's turn in 2016? :eek:

If Romney somehow doesn't get the nomination (brokered convention) does he lose his turn? I'd say yes, so then 2016 is still technically Santorum's turn with the pattern the GOP usually vote.

And Ohio is heading for a recount.

[Arthmail]

Stephen Colbert drives a stake in Rush's fat head.

http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/heather/colbert-rush-limbaugh-prostitute-who-will-d#comments

[Monday]

Voting for Santorum -> Is this the last gasp of the social conservatives? I mean how many years does this movement have left?

I can sort of see it carrying on with abortion for a few generations yet, but it seems it's anti-LGBT stance is dying -> or is this just my wishful thinking?

I was listening to CBC the other day and a person on there made a good point. We have to stop referring to these backward bigots as "social conservatives". It adds legitimacy to their hateful views and assinine "values". People looking to conserve social values wouldn't be so hateful or keen to divide non hetero coulpes who love each other,oppress women, etc.

[dalThor]

Also from the article that Shryke posted a couple of pages back, Santorum says single mom's are eroding the very fabric of reality. OK they're just destroying America but what's the difference.

During his first US Senate campaign, Rick Santorum warned voters of a growing menace that was "breeding more criminals" and threatened to destroy America from within: single mothers.

"Most people agree a continuation of the current [welfare] system will be the ruination of this country," Santorum told a town meeting in Clairton, Pa., in February 1994, according to transcripts of the appearance obtained by Mother Jones. "We are seeing it. We are seeing the fabric of this country fall apart, and it's falling apart because of single moms."

And apparently Rush just doesn't know when to stop.

“I had planned on shutting off the Internet today, but some random person just tweeted me, saying he had heard about me from Rush Limbaugh,” said McMillan, 35, of Holly, who spoke from San Francisco, the first stop on a book tour for her first book “The American Way of Eating.”

Limbaugh apologized last weekend for referring to another young woman as a slut and prostitute, which set off an avalanche of protest. Today, Limbaugh referred to McMillan, among other things, as an “authorette,” “overeducated” and criticized her as another “young single white woman” posing a threat to freedom.

Damn these single women and extra damn them if they are single parents! They all just need a good man.

http://www.freep.com...NT07/120306058/

[Crazydog7]

Oh God help us

Mitt and Rick 2012.

There's a joke in there somewhere

So Catholic and a Mormon walked into a bar.......

I don't mind strong convictions but the problem I have always seen from the GOP particularly is that the vast majority of them cannot articulate why they feel a certain way without resorting to dogma or talking points.

I was at the post office getting some of my packages out early and there was a truck double parked in a handicapped space (thanks motherfucker) who had a sign on his car that said

"OBAMA SUCKS"

Ok so apparently Obama Sucks now I know its a small truck and you probably don't have the time but would you care expand on the idea a little?

I have never understood where the vitriol comes from. Like many while I'm not really fired up about Obama I will probably vote for him agian if the choice comes down to him or Mitt. This is the problem in American politics I am sick of voting for the guy I dislike because I want to keep the guy I hate out of office.

Still I could have some fun with my vote I'm a Liberal living in South Carolina it isn't going to matter.

[drawkcabi]

Also from the article that Shryke posted a couple of pages back, Santorum says single mom's are eroding the very fabric of reality. OK they're just destroying America but what's the difference.

I can almost believe the other definition for santorum has been around since before Savage, has always been around.

And apparently Rush just doesn't know when to stop.

Damn these single women and extra damn them if they are single parents! They all just need a good man.

http://www.freep.com...NT07/120306058/

My prediction if this doesn't go away:

Rush makes a sweeping announcement on his radio show:

"Ahem! hrmm, hrmmm...I could have retired decades ago, I chose to remain here as a service to the people, to be a lone voice of reason in the wilderness. I have been contemplating my retirement more and more of late. The fact is I could be making so much more money just being hired to speak at private venues. I had planned to announceme my retirement from radio this year no matter what, this has nothing to do with the Sandra Fluke bruhaha..."

Whatever, just so long as he goes.