ravishingravi Posted June 29, 2012 Posted June 29, 2012 On my moral compass' date=' they were both wrong. Even given that Sarah Palin was a public figure, she did not deserve to be called that.[/quote'] It is still false equivalence. A stand up comedian / commentator and a political radio jockey.
Lurker Posted June 29, 2012 Posted June 29, 2012 Now, let's look at the contraceptive issue with a "thande dimag". You see ... the problem is not with someone taking contraceptives. The problem is the government's expectation that any health plan offered by a private organization must cover their use - even if they are for birth control alone. CA, You realize in the ultimate scheme of things, birth control measures take miniscule portion. A birth control pill compared with say an HIV or Cancel pill is not even remotely in the same ball park. It has been basically used to steer the discussion in a certain direction in the name of principle. Its kinda like BCCI pushing off Kapil Dev and Kirti Azaad from benefits distribution and you basing your entire argument on Kirt Azaad :giggle:
Brainfade Posted June 29, 2012 Posted June 29, 2012 It is still false equivalence. A stand up comedian / commentator and a political radio jockey. You hit the nail on its head. If one accepts that Bill Maher is a comedian, we must all agree *not* to quote him to support our political views. Hiding under the garb of a "comedian" to shape political views doesn't sound right to me.
Lurker Posted June 29, 2012 Posted June 29, 2012 You hit the nail on its head. If one accepts that Bill Maher is a comedian' date=' we must all agree to quote him to support our political views. Hiding under the garb of a "comedian" to shape political views doesn't sound right to me.[/quote'] He has always been a comedian. Just like a Dennis Miller on the right. Nobody confuses Dennis Miller from Paul Bagala CA...or Rachel Maddow from media world. :--D:--D
Brainfade Posted June 29, 2012 Posted June 29, 2012 CA, You realize in the ultimate scheme of things, birth control measures take miniscule portion. A birth control pill compared with say an HIV or Cancel pill is not even remotely in the same ball park. It has been basically used to steer the discussion in a certain direction in the name of principle. Its kinda like BCCI pushing off Kapil Dev and Kirti Azaad from benefits distribution and you basing your entire argument on Kirt Azaad :giggle: Cancel? Is that what the "death" panel would prescribe when they want to finish you off :-)? Seriously, the BCP issue is a symptom of a bigger problem. It is about the govt telling private/religious entities that they *must* offer plans with BCP coverage, even if it goes against their moral/religious beliefs. Any reasonable person realizes that most BCPs are prescribed as contraceptives, and not prevent any disease. If the Hindu temple does not want to offer a plan that is counter to its moral belief that contraception is wrong, it should be allowed to do so. Separation of "church" and state works both ways.
Desi Cartman Posted June 29, 2012 Posted June 29, 2012 When your initial approach to understand is "this is BS," you're really not trying. There are extreme conservatives whose opinion you need to tune out. But, what about mainstream conservatives who would allow for abortions only in the case of rape or incest? Is it the mainstream liberal view that one must support partial-birth abortions (where a 7 or 8 month old fetus can be extracted and terminated) even when there is no physical health consequences to the mother? What about support for gender-specific abortions when the mother's choice is that she does not want a "girl" child? Is that an extremist view, but you would still support it because you don't think it is "BS"? Second, Rush was absolutely wrong in calling the woman a S L U T. Just as Bill Maher was absolutely wrong in calling Sarah Palin what he did - regardless of how stupid or unfit she was to be a VP. I am looking for consistent humanism here; y'all can't have it both ways. Now, let's look at the contraceptive issue with a "thande dimag". You see ... the problem is not with someone taking contraceptives. The problem is the government's expectation that any health plan offered by a private organization must cover their use - even if they are for birth control alone. I call it BS as I have never agreed with them on anything. Maybe I dont understand their system/beliefs and plans yet. So let's see what makes what they say BS * GW bush - anything * S palin - anything * M Romney - I will roll Obama care back although he introduced in his state, then yesterday he said he will repeal it but will provide everything that it covers (tonight show Jon Stewart shows a clip where he mentions it). He was/is against saving the automobile industry and yet he takes credit for it. Then there are douches who themselves marry 3 times and have the balls to come on tv and tell people that marriage should stay as per bible ie between man and woman (obviously skip the part - 'till death) So this is why I can't stand them and yes hannity and co also contribute towards this hatred
Desi Cartman Posted June 29, 2012 Posted June 29, 2012 Oh and can some one please explain why republicans calling it 4:4:1 verdict ?
Brainfade Posted June 29, 2012 Posted June 29, 2012 All in all, this is a huge victory for the American political system of checks and balances, and the high integrity of the Supreme Court. Justice Roberts deserves special kudos - he is a true conservative, but is a strong defender of the constitution even if the consequence of his ruling goes against his political views. I do not agree with PPACA and the huge burden it is going to put on the Federal Treasury (just like Romneycare would have done on the Mass. treasury, but for federal subsidies). I do not agree with it because people will scam the system (even I am considering it). I do not agree with it because, just like all other entitlement-spending, this one will get out of control and we will spiral into a high-tax society to sustain it. But, the system worked.
triam Posted June 29, 2012 Posted June 29, 2012 Cancel? Is that what the "death" panel would prescribe when they want to finish you off :-)? Seriously, the BCP issue is a symptom of a bigger problem. It is about the govt telling private/religious entities that they *must* offer plans with BCP coverage, even if it goes against their moral/religious beliefs. Any reasonable person realizes that most BCPs are prescribed as contraceptives, and not prevent any disease. If the Hindu temple does not want to offer a plan that is counter to its moral belief that contraception is wrong, it should be allowed to do so. Separation of "church" and state works both ways. CA, I am not as upto date about all the details as I would like to be, so correct any of my statements. IF a religious entity gets a tax break or federal funding then the federal government should have the right to enforce certain policies, I dont see how this has got anything to do with Separation of State and Church. The Church can always go about it as a private institution and refuse all govt funding/tax breaks and have their own policies. Seems fair enough to me.
yoda Posted June 29, 2012 Posted June 29, 2012 Cancel? Is that what the "death" panel would prescribe when they want to finish you off :-)? Seriously, the BCP issue is a symptom of a bigger problem. It is about the govt telling private/religious entities that they *must* offer plans with BCP coverage, even if it goes against their moral/religious beliefs. Any reasonable person realizes that most BCPs are prescribed as contraceptives, and not prevent any disease. If the Hindu temple does not want to offer a plan that is counter to its moral belief that contraception is wrong, it should be allowed to do so. Separation of "church" and state works both ways. Separation guarantees the right of the org. to function without interference from the state with respect to their core religious service, not regarding following other laws of the land. Example, let's take a Mosque which believes in Islamic Sharia law, do you think they can demand imposing it on all their employees even if it is direct violation of certain US laws?
yoda Posted June 29, 2012 Posted June 29, 2012 All in all' date= this is a huge victory for the American political system of checks and balances, and the high integrity of the Supreme Court. Justice Roberts deserves special kudos - he is a true conservative, but is a strong defender of the constitution even if the consequence of his ruling goes against his political views. I do not agree with PPACA and the huge burden it is going to put on the Federal Treasury (just like Romneycare would have done on the Mass. treasury, but for federal subsidies). I do not agree with it because people will scam the system (even I am considering it). I do not agree with it because, just like all other entitlement-spending, this one will get out of control and we will spiral into a high-tax society to sustain it. But, the system worked. +1
Brainfade Posted June 29, 2012 Posted June 29, 2012 I call it BS as I have never agreed with them on anything. Maybe I dont understand their system/beliefs and plans yet. So let's see what makes what they say BS * GW bush - anything * S palin - anything * M Romney - I will roll Obama care back although he introduced in his state, then yesterday he said he will repeal it but will provide everything that it covers (tonight show Jon Stewart shows a clip where he mentions it). He was/is against saving the automobile industry and yet he takes credit for it. Then there are douches who themselves marry 3 times and have the balls to come on tv and tell people that marriage should stay as per bible ie between man and woman (obviously skip the part - 'till death) So this is why I can't stand them and yes hannity and co also contribute towards this hatred You listen to the wrong people. Mitch Daniels, Paul Ryan, Marco Rubio, Bobby Jindal. It will be like me trying to base my opinion of all liberals on what I hear from Nancy Pelosi (all BS all the time), Al Sharpton, Charles Rangel, Joe Biden and Eric Holder. And for every Hannity, there is a Chris Mathews.
vvvslaxman Posted June 29, 2012 Posted June 29, 2012 You listen to the wrong people. Mitch Daniels' date=' Paul Ryan, Marco Rubio, Bobby Jindal. It will be like me trying to base my opinion of all liberals on what I hear from Nancy Pelosi (all BS all the time), Al Sharpton, Charles Rangel, Joe Biden and Eric Holder. And for every Hannity, there is a Chris Mathews.[/quote'] I dont think anyone can match Hannity and Glenn beck in fear mongering. Whole attack type campaign ticked lot of people off. I expect that to continue this time as well.
Desi Cartman Posted June 29, 2012 Posted June 29, 2012 You listen to the wrong people. Mitch Daniels' date=' Paul Ryan, Marco Rubio, Bobby Jindal. It will be like me trying to base my opinion of all liberals on what I hear from Nancy Pelosi (all BS all the time), Al Sharpton, Charles Rangel, Joe Biden and Eric Holder. And for every Hannity, there is a Chris Mathews.[/quote'] I mentioned 1 president and 1 who was running for VP and 1 who is running for president. I agree that there must be clowns in both camps but trust me comparing them to labor (Aus sort of conservative) these people often sound like Taliban.
Desi Cartman Posted June 29, 2012 Posted June 29, 2012 I dont think anyone can match Hannity and Glenn beck in fear mongering. Whole attack type campaign ticked lot of people off. I expect that to continue this time as well. I like his radio show.. he is so angry all the time that its almost funny :giggle:
Lurker Posted June 29, 2012 Posted June 29, 2012 Oh and can some one please explain why republicans calling it 4:4:1 verdict ? It is footbal line-up mian...in keeping with Euro 2012....suggests there is no goalkie aka Obama. Samjhe? :winky:
Desi Cartman Posted June 29, 2012 Posted June 29, 2012 It is footbal line-up mian...in keeping with Euro 2012....suggests there is no goalkie aka Obama. Samjhe? :winky: i know but how they even come up with that :giggle:
Lurker Posted June 29, 2012 Posted June 29, 2012 i know but how they even come up with that :giggle: Barack Obama agar 2012 mein flop kar gaya to he is supposed to do a Sepp Blatter and run for FIFA chairmanship. I hope Obama becomes FIFA chairman, would be specially good to see PK go quiet :giggle:
Desi Cartman Posted June 29, 2012 Posted June 29, 2012 Barack Obama agar 2012 mein flop kar gaya to he is supposed to do a Sepp Blatter and run for FIFA chairmanship. I hope Obama becomes FIFA chairman, would be specially good to see PK go quiet :giggle: PK will never be quite .. if Republicans win then I expect 3 threads a week from him around romney and his dog :protest:
Brainfade Posted June 29, 2012 Posted June 29, 2012 I mentioned 1 president and 1 who was running for VP and 1 who is running for president. I agree that there must be clowns in both camps but trust me comparing them to labor (Aus sort of conservative) these people often sound like Taliban. You must go look up who the people are that I mentioned .. it's like a who's who of the Dem party --> one (former) Speaker of the House, one current VP, a Congressman and the current Attorney General, along with a Rev Sharpton, who is a pretty big deal in Democratic politics. Not to forget Al Gore (washed up as he is), John Edwards (a former VP candidate), Howard Dean (who came within a whisker of getting the Dem nomination) and that's a Hall of Shame you can barely match.
Recommended Posts