OBY played Fluke and Rush like a piano

[Galen Sevinne]

You are missing the point by such a wide margin I don't know why I keep trying to point out. It's not whether people are for against it, it's not the role of the Federal government to get involved in State matters!

First of all there are those of us that think bigger than rigid ideology. I get it that you don't but the reason you think I am mssing it by such a wide margin is because I think differently that you. I think in common sense, I think in consensus views and I think in a utilitarian manner. I get it that you look at the world through a very narrow lens. I don't. You have that liberty.

Secondly, if you are paying attention, you will notice that is IS NOT a states issue. Most now agree that A.C.A. and its mandates will pass any SCOTUS test and again, if you really pay attention, you will have read that even Mitch McConell wants to stop the repeal talk as it is a losing issue for the GOP.

[Sirdowski]

I think in common sense, I think in consensus views and I think in a utilitarian manner. I get it that you look at the world through a very narrow lens. I don't.

The nobility of that statement of course vanishes with a simple realization: The scope of your "lens" may be wide, but it is fixated so far left that you are inhibited from seeing the full spectrum of reality. All your common sense and utilitarian insight is only applicable when your left filter is applied to reality. The only possible way to consider your views as consensus is if you define consensus as those who agree with you.


See: Dunning-Kruger effect

[NCRAVEN]

First of all there are those of us that think bigger than rigid ideology.

The constitution isn't an ideology.

From James Madison Federalist paper 45:
"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State."

Let me ask a serious question, I know I won't get an honest answer but I'll ask anyway. What if you didn't agree with the policy handed down, would it still be okay?

[Galen Sevinne]

The nobility of that statement of course vanishes with a simple realization: The scope of your "lens" may be wide, but it is fixated so far left that you are inhibited from seeing the full spectrum of reality. All your common sense and utilitarian insight is only applicable when your left filter is applied to reality. The only possible way to consider your views as consensus is if you define consensus as those who agree with you.


See: Dunning-Kruger effect

You want to make a case that the majority of people in this nation (consensus) are against mandating insurance companies to provide for birth control pills? You want to make the case that the majority of women in this nation (consensus) are against mandating insurance companies providing birth control pills? Go ahead, I'm all ears. Shit, I'll wait to see if you can even make a case that the majority of Catholics are against the mandate. The fact that you try to frame my consensus view as far left or only agreeing with me is a textbook example of Dunning-Kruger on your part... since you are so indiscriminately throwing the term around.

My careful inclusion of there also needing to be a utilitarian quality to an idea that garners a consensus view for the idea to have merit actually further removes my personal opinon from of the equation and further negates your D-K comment. There are ideas that I don't believe have merit that have a consensus view but lack a utilitarian standard. Sure a utilitarian standard is mostly subjective but in this case, I would also challenge you to make a case that birth control availablilty via government mandate harms more individuals than it helps.

Measuring the consensus nature of a view is fairly absolute while assessing the utilitarian value of an idea blends in some subjectivity. It is an active way of measuring the value of an idea combining both the unselfish approach of what is best for the most vs. just me AND an unselfish approach to what do most people believe vs. what do I believe. If one can make a case for both variables, consensus and utilitarian, than how do you dismiss the idea?

[Galen Sevinne]

The constitution isn't an ideology.

From James Madison Federalist paper 45:
"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State."

Let me ask a serious question, I know I won't get an honest answer but I'll ask anyway. What if you didn't agree with the policy handed down, would it still be okay?

No the constitution isn't ideology but believing that one needs to filter their worldview through it all the time is highly ideological. Its the same as people using the bible to figure out how to think about something. You are allowed to think for yourself. Its rather ironic that you being the defender of liberty lacks the desire or initiative to think for yourself. I don't doubt that the constitution is one of the greatest documents in the history of man but I am not beholden to it in any fashion that would prevent me from thinking about a solution to a problem in a novel and active manner. Of course that is an inherent difference between a progressive and a conservative thinker.

If you are so certain that you won't get an honest answer from a question, why would you ask it?

[AirFlacco]

Because he was hoping.

NC is the real thinker because he's questions OBYs total disregard for that
how did you put it, the greatest document and forcing illegal changes to
it like OBUMMER CARE plus many other issues like contraceptions and
freedom of speech.

OBYs most recent communist activity is to sicc IRS on hundreds of
Tea Party officials because they were free thinkers that took action and
mobilized - legally - vs the administraiton. Over 80 groups tied to the
Tea Party has been targeted. Members say the audits have questions
that are legit and many that are just plain onery.

http://24hourpatriots.com/profiles/b...rty-witch-hunt



He is now harrassing them but OBY isn't the first liberal to do this. JFK
got even with Nixon for not telling him about Track 2, ie, the plan to
kill Castro which Nixon ran as VP in the same basement office Oliver North ran the Contra Affair, so when the attempts were made to kill him and Kennedy didn't even know what was going on he sent the IRS after Nixon's mother who was seriously ill in the hospital. JFK even interviewed IRS appointees to
ensure their loyalty.

BTW, Oliver Stone's movie, JFK, had a line about this very topic so the
movie did get at least one thing right about him as a book was written
about it. Another fact is that Nixon was in Dallas two days before the
assassination. He attended a meeting with the head of PePsi as part of
that prestigious NY law firm. H Bush was in Dallas the same week also
but of course they wouldn't have anything to do with it would they-lol?

http://www.wnd.com/2003/09/20617/

Anyway this is tyranny and what liberal commies do. Fortunately for the elder Mrs Nixon, her son worked for the most prestigious law firm in NY and got her off but not w/o a lot of aggravation.

[AirFlacco]

Getting back to Ms. Kluke, since going before Congress
on Friday, and btw - why wasn't she in class? And
since then she has been on NBC 6 times, ABC once
and a couple of other stations which takes up a lot of
time.

Laura Ingram just said when she was in law school just barely had enough time to do all the work much less traveling around the country giving speeches and what not.

And of course she is getting paid for it as an activist
as posted above. The Pelosi crowd picked her out for the White house to use her to turn attention away from the contraception issue because he was getting his ass kicked.

Things couldn't have worked out better when Rush
put his foot in his mouth but now Breitbart threw
the pebble into the avalanch that has the ball back
in O BUMMER'S COURT.

[NCRAVEN]

No the constitution isn't ideology but believing that one needs to filter their worldview through it all the time is highly ideological. Its the same as people using the bible to figure out how to think about something. You are allowed to think for yourself. Its rather ironic that you being the defender of liberty lacks the desire or initiative to think for yourself.

I, being a “defender of liberty” am beholden to the constitution because it protects individual freedom. I am beholden to it because it protects the rights of individual states allowing more local control of laws and ability to adapt to current economic needs, social needs and change laws for its citizens more easily, instead of a centralized power telling every state has to operate under the same rules. This isn’t America; this is The UNITED STATES of America. The United part is to deal with “external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce”, things like mandating contraception be covered by insurance plans is a State matter. Did you know 28 states already have such laws? http://www.guttmacher.org/statecente...s/spib_ICC.pdf . Seems they're doing fine handling this on their own.

I don't doubt that the constitution is one of the greatest documents in the history of man but I am not beholden to it in any fashion that would prevent me from thinking about a solution to a problem in a novel and active manner. Of course that is an inherent difference between a progressive and a conservative thinker.

This is so backwards I can’t believe you even typed it. Conservatives are for individual freedom and personal responsibility, progressives believe the government knows best and trust them unconditionally (at least when they’re democrat made decisions). Being for individual freedom means people thinking for themselves, believing the government knows best is transferring you’re power of thought to someone else to do it for you.

If you are so certain that you won't get an honest answer from a question, why would you ask it?

I’d ask it, because, by not answering it you almost prove my point the same as if you’d answer it honestly . What would it make you if something was unconstitutional and you didn’t agree with it, thus you’d be against it, but you don’t care if it’s unconstitutional because you’re for it?

[OriAl]

Which is why BHO's compromise of “fine you don’t have to provide these plans, but the insurance providers must provide it for free” is hilarious, the plans are still being paid for, and as a result of the insurance companies offering more services we both know they’ll just raise their rates, so the religious org’s are still paying for it. It kinda reminds me of people who say their against hunting as their eating a hamburger, animals are still being killed, just not directly by you…

You hit the nail on the head, this is a STATE issue. The Federal Government (HHS) stepping in and telling all organizations in separate stats is wrong. Than the POTUS telling private companies what they have to offer is even worse. Tell me Galen, where does the President have the power to do that?

That's rhetorical btw.

Answer this though, if it was "W" would you be okay with him unilaterally telling anybody anything... I don't think so...


Which was the point of this whole charade. Obama was polling miserably with women prior to this whole thing. Since the nations view on abortion has shifted, they need a controversy to get the woman vote. Knowing some would move to protect religious freedom, they used Republicans (and a few Dem's) trying to overturn the mandate as "hey look these people are against contraception". Sad this is what it takes to get people to elect you, but the useful idiots fall for that stuff.



Thank you for admitting our President uses race, gender and class to divide the country so he can get elected. And what is so sad about this is you applaud this as brilliance. How truly pathetic.

Both parties use race, class, and anything else they think will work, to attract voters. Republicans attack the poor, Democrats attack the rich. One example: Republicans imply that government assistance primarily goes to non-whites (the stereotypical black welfare mother) to draw white voters; Democrats take it easy on illegal immigrants to draw Hispanic voters.

[NCRAVEN]

Both parties use race, class, and anything else they think will work, to attract voters. Republicans attack the poor, Democrats attack the rich. One example: Republicans imply that government assistance primarily goes to non-whites (the stereotypical black welfare mother) to draw white voters; Democrats take it easy on illegal immigrants to draw Hispanic voters.

Nope no stereotyping here.

[AirFlacco]

LOL - Only 25% of the entire country approve of OBY. Almost twice

that number is vs him.



http://www.rasmussenreports.com/publ..._tracking_poll

[AirFlacco]

NC is right. No sterotyping.

Newt is a GOP candidate who wants to legalize
illegals. Al is right, DEMs want their votes but
the GOPs need them to clean their toilets.

W caused us to lose control of the congress when he
came out with his plan to legalize them. Conservatives
stayed home in the 06 mid terms that gave DEMs
control of Congress back and OBAMA CARE.

30M evangelical Christians stayed home in the 08
election because of it too and that McCain was a
Rockefeller liberal.