Today were going to be alot of states closer to electing a better president!

Super Tuesday!

Get out there and vote for the next President of the United States, Mitt Romney!

Romney is sure to be one of the top three Presidents ever elected to office. And at no time in our history do we need him more. Not since the Great Depression has this country been in such economic ruin. It’s time to finally turn it around. GO MITT!

Thank you Rush Limbaugh. This foul-mouthed drug addict has now made it blindingly clear that there really is a difference between conservatives and, well, foul-mouthed drug addict right-wing crazies. Limbaugh never was a conservative. He was, and remains, a reactionary who spreads a venomous message that serves only to polarize the country.

We've seen this before. Hitler's Germany was still Germany. All its citizens were Germans, but they most certainly weren't all Nazis. The Nazis were the political party that held control under Hitler. You have to be blind if you cannot see that Hitler's brand of hatred was little different from Limbaugh's.

So it is with Iran. We know there is a sentiment for freedom in Iran. We saw it. We know that there are citizens who chafe under the control of the religious leaders and Ahmadinejad. Iran's citizens are Iranians, but not all of them share the views of the current government.

There are competing interests in every country. We have our Democrats and Republicans, our left and right, our liberals and conservatives. It is the Limbaugh's, the Robertson's, the Falwell's, the Santorum's, and the Cantor's who would have us believe the extremes are the mainstream. They are not. They are at the fringes and they preach that compromise and accommodation is weakness.

The current state of this country says otherwise. The refusal to compromise has us on a virtually unswerving path into financial oblivion. The right-wing noise machine has taken the false religious persecution message and cranked up the volume to ear-splitting levels. The gunners scream about a nonexistent threat to their "freedom" to own arsenals. On and on it goes. These are the right-wing crazies.

The left magnifies the power of the right, by ignoring the debate. They mill about as occupiers, mumbling some sort of mantra about fairness. They sit home and do not exercise their right/duty/privilege to vote. These are the left-wing lazies.

True conservatives and true liberals play an outsized role in our national debate. They are a very small portion of the electorate, yet they invariably determine the outcome of elections. Liberals represent that side of us that sees a new and exciting idea, the side that just knows that things can be better, the side that says, "Let's do it!" Conservatives represent the side of us that says, "Hey, let's hold on here. Let's take a look. Let's not jump into the fire. Let's do this a step at a time."

Both get it right some of the time. Both get it wrong some of the time. Without compromise and accommodation they are BOTH wrong at the same time. Both true conservatives and true liberals must work together. We really aren't that far apart. It would be very constructive if we could agree that our first step to finding common ground is to ignore the lazies and the crazies. Our survival as a nation, and as a species depends on it.

*** Obama holds presser on Super Tuesday

Obama's list of "tough" questions for his presser from the Main Stream Media:

1) So, what's up?

2) Could you give us a rambling answer as to why the GOP is totally responsible for all the failures of the country? Also please be assured that there will be no follow up questions to your answer, so you can pretty much say anything you want and we won't call you on any lies.

3) How are your kids doing? Have they recovered from all the vacations they have been taking?

4) As far as your re-election campaign goes, when is it your intention to start?

5) A question about sleep - are you getting enough?

6) Can we expect to see your NCAA brackets filled out soon?

7) Netanyahu. Hate him, right? First class jerk is he?

8) Regarding those gas prices, someone else's fault, correct?

9) So who exactly are you listening to on your iPod these days?

10) Can you sing for us? Please!!!

11) If you need a break to go to the bathroom, that's okay with us.

12) Is this time where we're supposed to bow?

13) Could we all have an "Obama fist bump"? That would be so cool. Should we line up?

14) Is your dog okay?

15) Is this the time we're supposed to bow?

16) Thank you Mr. President!! And in honor of our endless love for you, we've brought you a cake!

JS1, Great post I think you nailed it perfectly!

You'll excuse me, First Read, if I prefer not to think too much about "pressure on Santorum."

David Walker --

Thank you Rush Limbaugh. This foul-mouthed drug addict has now made it blindingly clear that there really is a difference between conservatives and, well, foul-mouthed drug addict right-wing crazies. Limbaugh never was a conservative. He was, and remains, a reactionary who spreads a venomous message that serves only to polarize the country.

....

Both true conservatives and true liberals must work together. We really aren't that far apart.

"Truer" words were never spoken, my friend. It is only those, like Limbaugh, whose self-interest resides in driving us apart that have made -- and continue to make -- this fundamental truth so difficult to see.

When given the option to step back from what he said, Limbaugh chose to double down. But he didn't say what he said because liberals made him do it. He said what he said because he CHOSE to say it. And because deep down he realizes that this hateful, venomous emptiness is all he has to sell.

Thank heaven that others are finally beginning to realize that this self-annointed emperor of the right really has no clothes. The pixie dust seems to be wearing off.

Super Tuesday, sort of. It's certainly a lot less super than it was in 2008, because fewer states are holding their primaries today. Maybe we should call it Semi-Super Tuesday.

Santorum and Gingrich are not on the ballot in VA, Santorum did not qualify in several OH districts so even if he wins, he does not win the delegates. Odd scenario, Santorum could win the Ohio primary and still lose because Romney will get the delegates. Newt and Callista Gingrich will not be voting in VA--guess not being on the ballot for President means why bother voting at all. Ron Paul's campaign keeps claiming they're winning delegates and that's what matters--wonder what summer surprise they have planned for the Republican convention.

The failure of candidates to submit the proper paperwork to be on ballots, not just in VA and OH but in other states as well, should raise serious questions about their ability to lead the country since they cannot lead their own campaign successfully. Despite that voters will cast their ballots for the person without so much as a thought about this failure of leadership giving it a pass as a simple campaign mistake--planning ahead and being organized is just not that big of a deal, I guess.

Obama/Biden 2012.

Rob,

You and so many Republicans are showing signs of short term memory. I myself remember how bad the economy and unemployment were under President Bush and getting worst up to his last days in office.

So actually the truth is, President Obama inherited this incredible brink of depression mess from President Bush and President Obama has done a good job of turning the country around.

I honestly have to say anyone that doesn’t recognize this fact is pretty out of touch with reality.

Well said David!

Something to think about on Super Tuesday....

If these candidates cannot stand up to Rush Limbaugh how in the world will they have the guts to stand up to the world's bullies?

Anna -- Wasn't that funny.... Rush trying to blame the left for something he did. It's called personal responsibility Rush! Own up.

With all the Republican Party internal bickering in Ohio and from the expected low voter turnout as has been the case with early voting (down 68%) on a sunny warm day it is clear the winner in Ohio will be President Obama.

David,

Great insight on your part.

What's with these Waco Republicans? They all want to go to War. Are they all crazy? We just got out of Iraq and are just starting to wind down in Afghanistan. The Wars Bush and the Republicans got us into. Billions of wasted dollars and thousands of wasted lives. McCain wants to bomb Syria, the Republicans want to bomb Iran. What's next China? Do these guys just love to waste money and start Wars? What's wrong with these Sickos? PLEASE do not let these crazies get back in power.

Obama in 2012.

Obama holds presser on Super Tuesday at 1:15 pm ET

Which reminds me, when is Willard going to come out from the behind the safety of the skirts @ Faux & give a REAL interview?

Congrats to Rob for at least sticking up for his candidate and talking about his candidate on Super Tuesday. How come the rest of the right wing posters do not talk about their GOP candidate, but only attack the left? Very confusing on an election day.

They all want to go to War.

Keep in mind Tom, the GNOP prefers to go to WAR only with countries who have oil...

Wasn't Iraq supposed to pay for itself?

Job-none, Come on! Everyone knows it was "liberal" mortgage lending promoted by liberal democrats in charge of the banking commitee and Fannie and Freddie that caused the market collapse. Stop listening to CNN.....

Dream on UAW and Rob, your dream will be over in 6 months when we reelect President Obama. BTW: it would be a nightmare for the rest of the country.

Looks Like Damage has selective memory, John McCain did say bomb bomb bomb Iran Damage, it's a fact not a lie. But we all know you tea people GOP Koch republicans think lies are facts.

Looks like President Obama has old JoAnnaSmith1 all tied in knots this morning with his press conference. We know after your boy George W Bush you aren't use to press conferences where the press gets to ask question of their chose, unlike George who had to give the press the questions he wanted them to ask him and he still couldn't give a coherent answer to his own questions. Looks like you're going to have another bad day JAS1.

Which reminds me, when is Willard going to come out from the behind the safety of the skirts @ Faux & give a REAL interview?

Yes Feisty, Willard can run, but he can't hide.

The fall out continues for Rush Limbaugh. Radio stations are starting to re think their programming, and if they want that vile buffoon as part of their line up.

The question is simple, and even the fringe right wing, not noted for their great intelligence must get this:

Is it okay to spend three days, 3 hours a day, making vile and graphic comments against a young woman or not?

If you continue to defend this cretin, you tell us who and what you are.

Boycott Rush Limbaugh.

We know after your boy George W Bush you aren't use to press conferences where the press gets to ask question of their chose, unlike George who had to give the press the questions he wanted them to ask him and he still couldn't give a coherent answer to his own questions.

Oh yes we remember such great Bush moments, 'Fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again'

Newday,

People also need to contact their local Clear Channel station and boycott it and the local sponsors of Mr. Limbaugh. I have heard, through grass root movements against local stations, 3 have already dropped his program.

MOhammed- Some of us here are old enough to remember the Iranian Hostage Crisis. Some of us here are old enough to remember the Beach Boys (they were/are a rock group). In 1980, in the middle of the crisis, a song parody was ALL OVER the radio. Some DJs had taken the Beach Boys hit "Barbara Ann" and had changed the lyrics to "Bomb Iran"..as in bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran. It was funny at the time. McCain remembered the song and a few years ago JOKINGLY sang it to some people while being on camera. Since then, predictably, you liberal crybabys have used that as if it was him making an actual policy statement. Those of you who do are either a) ignorant of the context. b) know about the context and don't care or c) are mindless liberal fools.

Look it up.

DCIA --

Anna -- Wasn't that funny.... Rush trying to blame the left for something he did. It's called personal responsibility Rush! Own up.

LoL Indeed. And he blamed the left in almost exactly the same breath that he claimed to BE a person who believes in personal responsibility.

Oh, no, if not for the devil liberals, Rush would NEVER say a thing like that. NEVER.

Well, except for every day ... but only during those hours when he's on the air, or off.

Otherwise, the guy's just a great big pussy cat.

A great big, vile, repulsive, hateful pussy cat.

David W, terrific post.

I saw a graph last week that dispels the notion that both liberals and conservatives have moved to the extreme fringe of their parties. Liberals have remained pretty consistently liberal since the late 1860's, with some small swings to more liberal and then to less liberal. Conservatives remained pretty consistently conservative as well with only small swings until the 1980's when they started shifting further right until recently when they suddenly shot straight up to extreme.

The point is that when the media comments that both parties have shifted to the extreme, they are way off the mark. Only the conservative party has moved in mass to its extreme base--to the side that once was called the fringe. Because this has happened, it has made it nearly impossible for compromise to occur in Congress which, in turn, makes both sides appear to be extreme. The reality is that only one side is embracing the "compromise is a dirty word" mantra.

Personally, I think this conservative shift to the far right is why the number of independents has grown substantially. Most citizens, as David said, are moderates, middle of the road people who are conservative in some views and liberal in others. Yet the GOP itself has become a party represented by the fringe element embracing the extreme as their new normal. We only need to look at the 2008 GOP primary and compare it to the 2012 one to see just how far to the extreme conservatives have shifted. Romney cannot embrace his own views in 2008 as part of the 2012 race. That means something dramatic has occurred within the conservative party.

The gremlins are on FR this morning; had trouble posting my own First Thoughts unless I posted as a reply.

Damage, I'm dead serious here. Most of us left your sort of hate behind around 1970 or so. When you get off the bus, it's the bus that moves on. Hate poisons the hater, Damage...it's not too late.

Limbaugh never was a conservative. He was, and remains, a reactionary who spreads a venomous message that serves only to polarize the country.

David Walker, I agree with and applaud the truth of most of your comment. Honest discussion and compromise are the only path forward in this country. But I think that conservatives need to come out and denounce Limbaugh if they believe he does not speak for them.

This is what the New York Daily News had to say about Limbaugh:

...he may be the closest thing to a leader in the currently headless, ideologically adrift Republican Party - a fact as frightening to many Republicans as it is disturbing to grassroots Democrats.

http://articles.nydailynews.com/2009-03-08/news/17918834_1_el-rushbo-intellectual-force-and-energy-rush-limbaugh

It is the responsibility of Republicans to call on Limbaugh to leave the air. If they fail to do so, they are cementing his position as the voice of their party.

Limbaugh contributes nothing of value to our national conversation. He's merely the pied piper leading Republicans off the cliff, and unless they find a more rational voice they are sowing the seeds of their own destruction.

OBAMA/BIDEN 2012

Geez, Damage, how could you forget John McCain singing to the Beach Boys Barbara Ann tune--"bomb, bomb, bomb.....bomb, bomb Iran"? And don't forget the chuckle he added at the end. He didn't just say it, Damage, he put it to music!

Yeah, and here is the caption from the YouTube video. Says it all. Normally its not worth anyone's time to respond to damage's hate filled nonsense, but this was funny and does show who actually did this.

"Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran!" The Ronald Reagan Home For The Criminally Insane has taken everyone's favorite Beach Boys song, "Barbara Ann," and has turned it into an unforgettable masterpiece outlining the intricacies of George Bush's and John McCain's middle east policy of bombing everything into oblivion. Once you hear this song, you won't be able to get it out of your head!

...he may be the closest thing to a leader in the currently headless, ideologically adrift Republican Party -

If Rush isn't, there is a quick & simple fix.

All ONE Republican leader has to do is come out publicly and state unequivocally; "Rush Limbaugh in NO way represents leadership in any form within today's GOP"

Don't hold your breath! ;o)

Damage123 --

... bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran. It was funny at the time. McCain remembered the song and a few years ago JOKINGLY sang it to some people while being on camera.

Revisionism is becoming your specialty, isn't it?

As I recall it, it WASN'T funny at the time, ESPECIALLY in context. McCain didn't just happen to "[sing] it to some people while being on camera." He was on an official campaign stop during his 2008 bid to become President of the United States, and he sang it in response to a question about his foreign policy. It was NOT an appropriate occasion to be joking about bombing a foreign country.

Now, when he and his wife went on Saturday Night Live, and Tina Fey parodied Sarah Palin trying to make a T-shirt deal while McCain wasn't watching -- that was parody and in the proper context -- a television show that is devoted to parody and comedy.

Face it, Damage. Today just isn't your day. Why don't you go back the basement and try again to come up with something relevant.

The song McCain was referring to was from 1980. I don't know WHAT the hell the rest of you are talking about. Jody, see my above post in response to MOhammed.

And JohnNY- Do you lecture the LEFTIES making "hateful" posts? Of course not. Like the rest, you're a hypocrite.

Mo:

Looks like President Obama has old JoAnnaSmith1 all tied in knots this morning with his press conference. We know after your boy George W Bush you aren't use to press conferences where the press gets to ask question of their chose,

JoAnnaSmith1 might have forgotten about Bush's scandal with the fake reporter who was allowed into press conferences to lob softball questions at Bush. It turned out the guy's real profession was "male escort" with no press credentials, suggesting that someone fairly high up in the Bush administration had a rather more interesting love life than Republicans like to let on. I'm sure JoAnnaSmith will appreciate me reminding her about that remarkable incident.

Santorum and Gingrich are not on the ballot in VA, Santorum did not qualify in several OH districts so even if he wins, he does not win the delegates. Odd scenario, Santorum could win the Ohio primary and still lose because Romney will get the delegates.

That's correct, Jody. Santorum continues to demonstrate that he doesn't know which end santorum comes out of.

He's hoping to win votes in Ohio by telling stories about driving across the Ohio border to buy beer when he was an underage student in Pennsylvania.

Try to stay on message, Saint Rooster.

Did everyone see this post by Highland58 yesterday? Takes only a minute to call. . . .

I searched for local clear channel affiliates and called (they all listed the same local phone number). They referred me to the Premier Networks public relations department at 818-461-5750. I'm not sure if this has been published here already (probably). This goes straight to a voice mail box where you can leave a message to ask them to drop the Rush Limbaugh show. Remember to be respectful when leaving the message, and show them that we are above the behavior being shown by Rush and his followers.

Anna Molly--I like the point you made below.

deep down he [Limbaugh] realizes that this hateful, venomous emptiness is all he has to sell.

David--wonderful post!

Boycott Rush Limbaugh.

Maybe that's a good idea, maybe it isn't. But if it is, then maybe the hypocritical libs should mount a campaign against these folks too:

Ed Schultz for calling Laura Ingraham a "slut" and noting that Sarah Palin (as well as Kirsten Powers) set off his "bimbo alert."

Keith Olbermann for saying that conservative commentator S. E. Cupp should have been aborted by her parents and calling Michelle Maulkin a "mashed up bag of meat with lipstick."

Matt Taibbi for writing he imagined Michelle Maulkin with "a big hairy set of balls in her mouth," seeing fit to make note of Hillary Clinton's "flabby arms" and referring to Michelle Bachmann as "bat$hit crazy."

Chris Matthews for his relentless assaults on Hillary Clinton whom he characterized as a "she-devil" and "Nurse Ratched" and "Madame Defarge" and "witchy" and "anti-male" and "uppity." And just to show his bipartisan stripes when it comes to attacking women Matthews referred to Michelle Bachmann as a "balloon head" and wondered whether Sarah Palin was "capable of thinking."

And then there is Bill Maher, in a class by himself. He called Sarah Palin a "dumb twat" and a "c$nt" and referred to Palin and Bachmann as "boobs" and "two bimbos" and recently made a joke about Rick Santorum's wife and a vibrator.

So I'll make deal with all my cuddly leftist friends around here. I'll stand up and support a boycott of Limbaugh if you people will do the same with regard to these folks. After all, if we're going to hold people accountable for the insulting remarks they make about women, shouldn't we hold liberals to the same standard you people beat your chest about regarding conservatives?

Unless of course, your indignant fury is limited only to those you disagree with politically.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/03/04/rush-limbaugh-s-apology-liberal-men-need-to-follow-suit.html?bcsi-ac-48DA2FEFEF936D61=1E52B54C00000102pawWndaRSgMfOM0o2C2lb3IzD1mIBwAAAgEAANlJHACEAwAAAAAAAPOdAQA=

I never listen to Rush and dont find personal attacks funny and he really is an entertainer so he should suffer the consequences of whatever he says. So the boycott etc is fine with me. I know my memory is fading but didnt an MSNBC host call Laura Ingram a slut? I assume that all of you are now calling for a boycott and advertisers to pull advertising to be consistent or did you already do that back when it happened. Can you show me Fiesty and Backhouse's post calling for the pulling of advertising after that comment?

Jody, this is exactly right. The fact that Olympia Snowe, an old fashioned conservative, was basically pushed out of her Party by right wing thugs, tells you how far the Republican Party has moved to the right.

I see msnbc has coordinated the questions Mr. Obama will be asked at his "presser". I bet someone has even programmed answers into his teleprompter!

There you have it in a nutshell,...

Anna Molly correctly points out Damaged Cred's fallacy and his response is,"...I don't know what the HELL the rest of you are talking about..."

That one statement pretty much sums up his entire political grasp. And I am using his own words.

Watch him walk it back now,...Can I get some popcorn, Feisty?

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

and there goes Bill, with the False Equivalency alert. Fluke, a private citizen, addressing her grievances with government is to be slandered and villified by someone who LIED about her testimony using a media vehicle that Fluke does NOT have access to use - is the EQUAL to xyz public personas - using their 'celebrity' to further their wealth? And I'm sorry; but Michelle Bachman IS bat@!$%# crazy.

I would sure hate to have to dredge up Bill's own misogyny with some of the women posters on this site. For which I don't believe he ever apologized. So yeah,...these things are all equal. As you were, Captain in the Rush Army.

I know my memory is fading but didnt an MSNBC host call Laura Ingram a slut

And that host was suspended and a prompt apology from the network was issued.

A boycott wasn't required because management took action and the host took responsibilty. Another way Democrats are different from Republicans.

Thank you world for not having the votes of the radicals on First Read matter much at all.

Red faced, high blood pressure. emotionally disturbed Democrats agree with interference in Libya, but not Iran, because their priests in politics told them to.

Red faced, high blood pressure, emotionally disturbed Republicans agree with interference in Iran, but not Libya, because their priests in politics told them to.

Leaving it once again to people with brains, who are moderates, to put reason before rooting for a team to figure it out. Its okay if a baby is totally killed in Syria because, well, the politician doing the thinking for you told you so, right?

Nobody here on these boards paid $12 for gas over the past year voluntarily, to help blunt the costs of operating in the Middle East, and so get off the ridiculous little wooden morality high horses and start using reason instead of your anger issues. Or at least admit that you are fine with filling your tank with oil equivalent to the baby that was killed so you could pay 'only' $4 a gallon.

It'd be insulting if it weren't true. As such, it is simply calling what we all do in the world as it is.

Bill, Fairfax VA

Boycott Rush Limbaugh.

Maybe that's a good idea, maybe it isn't. But if it is, then maybe the hypocritical libs should mount a campaign against these folks too:

Nobody can match the hypocrisy of connies, including Bill. Ed Schultz had the courage to bring up his own misbehavior before many right wingers even had a chance to do their childish "Liberals do it too" whine. And Schultz used ONE of Limbaugh's nasty words ONCE, he didn't go on a slanderous rant for three days like Limbaugh. Schultz was suspended for a week, and gave a REAL apology to Laura Ingraham, not Limbaugh's sniveling travesty of an apology.

Nobody said that liberals never say or do stupid things. But the culture of jerkism seems to be primarily the province of the right, where an apology for bad behavior is viewed as weakness and MIttens titles his book: "No Apologies" because he's a jerk, too.

McCain's new song !!!

(sung to the song Barbara Ann - Beach Boy)

Bomb, bomb, bomb, ....bomb, bomb Iran.

Bomb, bomb, bomb, ....bomb, bomb Iran.

Bomb Irannnnnnnn.....I know we cannnnnnnn.

Bomb Irannnnnnnn.....gotta get up and flyin, drop the bombs and reload, bomb Iran.

Jody -- Great post. A few weeks back in an article/interview piece in the WSJ, an argument was being made for the conservatives to run their campaigns on social issues. The interviewee claimed it was a winning strategy based on past results. In my opinion that's the problem with the right today. They are living in the past, oblivious to reality and content to flounder about in nostalgia for the "good ole' days". They seem to have a problem with the present and definitely appear to lack the vision needed to move forward. Some, of course, would like the future to look like the past. Therein lies their party's problems today. Perhaps they need new leaders that understand the world we live in today and not the yesterday they yearn for.

Anna -- Thanks for the chuckles. Gives new meaning to the phrase "fat cat" I guess. lol

Bill Fairfax,

I agree that no matter who makes personal denigrating attacks they should be called to account. But Limbaugh went way beyond what the others did.

But first, in regard to boycotting Limbaugh you say "Maybe that's a good idea, maybe it isn't." You can't have it both ways. Why don't you have the courage to say he was wrong?

Second, the people Keith Olbermann and others attacked are all public figures. Susan Fluke is and was a private citizen. There is a difference legally that Anna Molly can explain better than I can. In short, slander is much more difficult to prosecute when public figures are involved. Fluke could likely launch a successful lawsuit because she is a private citizen.

Third, Rush Limbaugh went on a tear for three days, and it wasn't simply a matter of calling her a slut. It went much, much deeper than that, calling into question her moral character. It stuns me that you can't see the difference between this and simply calling someone a derogatory name.

Rush did apologize. Let it go! Maybe the problem with you lefties is you are all comparing Rush's apology skills to our presidents. Lighten up! We all know that no one can apologize like Obama. I hope he has a big fat one prepared for Novemeber.

I would sure hate to have to dredge up Bill's own misogyny with some of the women posters on this site.

You are spot on Clara!

And NO Mr. Fairfaux has NEVER apologized... then again, did we really expect someone who gets off on rape/slut jokes to do so?

*popcorn* coming right up!

TO: UAW Pleeeeeeeease who wrote:

"Today were going to be alot of states closer to electing a better president!"

I'd say he's the best already, but you can't knock experience!

Obama / Biden 2012

Derek-381097

newsflash: your President is getting it in the neck as gas prices rise, from Republicans who claim he wants high prices, to force Americans to turn to alternative energy.

newsflash: your President was accused of "wagging the dog" for supplying air support to Libya rebels. As President Obama tries to manage the crisis over Iran, Republicans howl for him to drop the bomb on them.

Derek: support your President! For God's sake, he's a moderate.

I'm not coming down on the President, Amy. I'm coming down on what I see are just ludicrous arguements. I do consider Obama a moderate liberal. I actually consider McCain a moderate conservative. McCain has said some ludicrous things to pander to the extreme right. Obama has probably not done as much pandering, his faults more lie in cabinet decisions like Tim Geitner (read SUPREME FAILURE).

But I can't have that conversation on First Read. OH NO, some foam head wants to put McCain in the same category as a Scott Walker. And some other foam head wants to put Obama in the same category as Dennis Kucinich. EVEN if you LIKE Walker or Kucinich, people can't just simply state their preference. It has to be a fire breathing, spew of what reveals mroe about emotional insecurity than any kind of fact whatsoever.

So whatever. This post isn't going to change anything. I'm more just blown away every time I come to FR for the ludicrous posts. But its like a train wreck in that regard, I suppose. I just can't stop watching....

Amy, thats all well and good, but I am refering to the posters on this site demanding action and saying what a horrible thing he did. Again not defending Rush, I just want to make sure all of you are not just showing off false outrage, I am just looking for a consistent reaction from all of you. Limbaugh is an ass and deserves whatever comes his way, but its not like the liberals have been very consistent on defending woman's issues on here. Its generally about politics rather than gender issues. I havent seen anyone come to Palin's or any other more conservative woman's defense for baseless and horrible attacks nor condemn Clinton for his obvious destructive sexual harassment in the workplace etc. Generally gender issues come up when portrayed by people with political views different than their own. For example, I see the contraceptive issue as an economic and pandering to female voter issues and I get immediately lambasted by Anna Molly for discrimnating against women because she disagrees with my fiscal conservative views. Its a convenient ploy to make a debate emotional rather than about the facts.

Oh yes we remember such great Bush moments, 'Fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again'

We need a military where our breasts our proud to serve!

and ob/gyns can "...practice their love with women all across this country..."

All ONE Republican leader has to do is come out publicly and state unequivocally; "Rush Limbaugh in NO way represents leadership in any form within today's GOP"

Well said Feisty. Where the heck are the leaders in the Republican party. Conservative commentator's came out Sunday morning asking the same question. Ron Paul had the strongest statements on the matter. The rest failed to say much of anything.

I wish people (Bill) would stop lumping Bill Maher into the mix and trying to say that "oh, the left has people with political pull who insult people too!" He's a freakin comedian! What do you expect? A lot of us like him because a lot of what he says is true but there's a lot that is really far out in left feild too... Come off it!

"from Republicans who claim he wants high prices, to force Americans to turn to alternative energy."

Really Amy, you been living under a rock or just watching MSNBC. Straight from Chu's mouth. Heck, maybe Chu and Obama are not on the same page right?

"Chu delivered those stunning remarks in testimony before Congress yesterday. When Rep. Alan Nunnelee (R-Miss.) asked Chu whether it's his "overall goal to get our price" of gasoline lower, Chu said, "No, the overall goal is to decrease our dependency on oil, to build and strengthen our economy."-Hawaii Reporter March 5

Wrong, dont_carry. Many Republicans have distanced themselves from the idiot known as Rush, including Boehner who was one of the first. Got to read more sources....

Oh, and Bill Maher DOES deserved to be lumped into the same category, because while he may call himself a comedian, what he really is, is a ranter. And he also has some mysoginy in him. What he DOESN'T have is he doesn't have as big an audience. To ABC's credit, however, Bill was fired for some of his comments years ago. Rush hasn't been fired yet and should be. Yes, I know pill popper will find somewhere else to land, like Howard Stern, but it is about the station, not about fathead.

• Santorum= U.S. Theocracy
• Blingrich = NO credibility
• Romney = hated by TeaBags
• FUTURE = BIG WINS FOR DEMS!!!!!!

Santorum is a NUT, plain and simple. SEPARATION of CHURCH and STATE, dingbat - it's one of the BASIC principles..... sheesh!!!

Gingrich is so full of crap, his new energy stump is "Elect me and get 2 dollar gas"? Really Newt

Anybody read Mondays Wall Street Journal, a front page article titlted "Companies Ramp up exploration in the Gulf Motivated by 100 dollar oil" I'm parapharasing a bit, but it was something like that. Anyway the article bascially discusses how Oil Companies will not invest heavily to either glut the Market or kill the futures markets with supply. Basically it means, they will drill when the price is right.

So please stop crying drill drill, drill until you do some research and understand how the Market is funtioning today. It rewards tight supply, not a glutten.

Folks there is no magic company thats going to spend billions so you can have cheap gas. Please stop with the mis-information, Cheap gas and oil is potical talk, nothing more, nothing less.

3 refineries are closing in Philly becuase US Demand is low and they would rather concentrate on exports.

Its not a Liberal/Conservative thing, its a educate yourself thing and stop listening to these clowns.

so now you people say Fluke is not a "public figure" and therefore should not be a target? Please. She's an activist who PUT herself in the public eye. She's a big lesbi...I mean, uh girl.

You know who IS/WAS a private citizen and unfairlt targeted and attacked? Joe The Plumber. He asked a question of Saint Barack in a PRIVATE forum, and the lefties (including the media), went after him like dogs. AGAIN, are you people ever tired of being HYPOCRITES?

Many Republicans have distanced themselves from the idiot known as Rush, including Boehner who was one of the first

Boehner who couldn't find the courage to say Rush's language was innopropriate and instead had his spokesman lap dog do his dirty work? lol

Here is what George Will thinks of THAT farce!

“[House Speaker John] Boehner comes out and says Rush’s language was inappropriate. Using the salad fork for your entrée, that’s inappropriate. Not this stuff,” Will said. “And it was depressing because what it indicates is that the Republican leaders are afraid of Rush Limbaugh. They want to bomb Iran, but they’re afraid of Rush Limbaugh.”

George Will

DCIA --

Anna -- Thanks for the chuckles. Gives new meaning to the phrase "fat cat" I guess. lol

I really don't care if Rush is fat. Michael Moore is also fat, and I love Michael Moore. Some fat men are cuddly.

I only care that Limbaugh is vile, both in thought and speech. Not cuddly, indeed.

And NO ONE makes him do these things but HIM.

Bill, Fairfax --

So I'll make deal with all my cuddly leftist friends around here. I'll stand up and support a boycott of Limbaugh if you people will do the same with regard to these folks. After all, if we're going to hold people accountable for the insulting remarks they make about women, shouldn't we hold liberals to the same standard you people beat your chest about regarding conservatives?

Unless of course, your indignant fury is limited only to those you disagree with politically.

Must we really keep going back to Bill Maher and David Letterman? I thought we canvassed that yesterday.

You're answering to ME now, Bill, not to any other lefty who didn't criticize them. I don't watch Maher at all, and I don't watch Letterman nearly as often as I used to.

Mostly only when Keith Olbermann is on. ;-)

But can't you just say you agree that Limbaugh was wrong?

What other purpose can this constant carping serve than to try to make two wrongs into a right?

You KNOW they don't.

Wow -- Bill in Fairfax. Looks like you have been busy looking in the past. Here's an original thought for you to ponder. Some of us on the left do not follow anyone. We don't need someone screaming in our ear on what to do, think or say. It's a hard concept for you to grasp as I know you to be a follower. As such you should worry about yourself and hold those you follow responsible for their actions.

I think if you quote George Will, you auto lost an arguement.

What Boehner said was accurate, fine, and quite enough.

Obama has said encouraging words to Fluke using the same, appropriate tone in his language.

You don't have to actually spew fluids from your mouth when you speak if you know the definition of words. That little fact seems to have been lost on the flaming radicals who root for Democrats and Republicans.

Don't forget that Romney agrees with Limpy, he just wouldn't use those words.

Even though no woman accepts Limpy's faux apology, Romney does. Romney wants to be leader of the free world and single handily is going to stop Iran from getting the bomb, but he doesn't have the guts to stand up to Limpy.

I think we need to start going after the advertisers of the ditto heads on faux repeating the Limpy talking points about Miss Fluke.

The only choice for thinking people, Obama/Biden 2012

Job-none, Come on! Everyone knows it was "liberal" mortgage lending promoted by liberal democrats in charge of the banking commitee and Fannie and Freddie that caused the market collapse. Stop listening to CNN.....

Fannie/Freddie were only responsible for 16% of the proliferation of high risk mortgages. Furthermore, they didn't decide who got subprime loans, they simply provided the big banks with funds in order to provide mortgages to citizens, and then those big banks decided to make crappy CDO's out of high risk debts they were able to doll out with that money.

The government said you couldn't discriminate, not "Go get Joe Shcmo into a bad mortgage, chop it up, mix it up, swap it around, insure it yourselves with tax money, bet on it, and don't worry about capital requirements."

Susan Fluke is and was a private citizen.

Ms Fluke ceased to be a "private citizen" the instant she agreed to be used publicly by the left as a poster child for women's health issues.

You're answering to ME now, Bill

Good grief AM, I'm sure in trouble now.

Bill, Fairfax VA

Boycott Rush Limbaugh.

Maybe that's a good idea, maybe it isn't.

I'll say this much about Limbaugh: whether he stays or whether he goes, he has done so much good for his opposition by galvanizing support for truth and civility in public discourse that it's a win/win for us either way.

Every time he opens his big mouth and spews his drug-addled bigotry, lies, and hatred is a good day for those who are turned off by him, and by extension the Republican party that coddles him.

Blatant misogyny won't win votes from the majority.

So let Limbaugh cry and whine about his freedom of speech. He is too stupid to understand how his version of free speech helps the other side.

To my friends on the right: can we have a resounding round of applause for the totally LAME leftist responses to my post about liberal attacks on women.

Good God, can people not see the Republican lobbyists roles in the financial collapse? Yes, I can see those who were friends of the Democrats, from Dodd to Corzine, but have you ever noticed where the big financial firms like the once existing Merrill Lynch spend their money?

First Read is lost, lost, lost......

• Boycott Rush: Netflix, Clear Channel, LifeLock Targeted As Controversy Swells

Politico misreported on what Energy Secretary Chu said in the latest Republican witch hunt.

http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2012/03/02/436184/politico-manufactures-attack-on-energy-secretary-steven-chu/

A DOE spokeman's response:

"This report is false," a DOE spokeswoman said. "In the hearing Tuesday, the secretary repeatedly reiterated his concern about the impact that increased prices at the pump are having on families and that we continue to do all we can to provide relief. That said there are no quick fixes, which is why this administration has taken steps to continue to expand production, dramatically increase the efficiency of the vehicles we drive, and invest in alternate fuels - all with an ultimate goal of reducing our reliance on foreign oil and protecting American families from the ups and downs of the international oil market"

Derek -- I didn't consider what Boehner said to be a strong repudiation. At the time I gave him some credit for at least saying something. However, my post was directed at the current candidates for President and I didn't make that very clear so my mistake. BTW, I read everything from all sources and I know you could not possibly know that so I'll let your comment go.

You have some original thoughts in your posts. Carry on.

"Ms Fluke ceased to be a "private citizen" the instant she agreed to be used publicly by the left as a poster child for women's health issues."

So, Bill, any time a concerned private citizen stands up and voices a thoughtful, well reasoned opinion, that person becomes a valid target for vicious character assassination by paid political hacks?

Pretty shaky. You may want to rethink that, if that is how you manage to come to such bizarre conclusions.

Thank heaven that others are finally beginning to realize that this self-annointed emperor of the right really has no clothes. The pixie dust seems to be wearing off.

Let's hope so. But I have little faith the in Corporate America to continue to do the right thing all they are concerned with is the almighty dollar.

Bill, Fairfax VA

Ms Fluke ceased to be a "private citizen" the instant she agreed to be used publicly by the left as a poster child for women's health issues.

Boy, you're really tossing the BS fast and furious over this. Fluke is a private citizen because she is a college student. She is NOT an elected official, NOT a movie star, and not an gas bag like LImbaugh who gets paid to spew venom. But to Bill, any private citizen who dares to speak out publicly saying things he doesn't like forfeits all rights to privacy and to protection from r character assassins like Limbaugh. I hope she sues him for every last ill-gotten penny he has made. She certainly has grounds for a slander suit.

Damage123

so now you people say Fluke is not a "public figure" and therefore should not be a target?

No, I am saying that no one including your godlike Limbaugh has the right to blatantly misrepresent Fluke's testimony before congress.

My primary objection to what Limbaugh said on his show was that he lied about Fluke's reason for speaking and he lied about what she said. He lied blatantly. The testimony of Ms. Fluke is a matter of public record, and it had nothing to do with sex.

Limbaugh can call Fluke every name in the book as far as I'm concerned, and so can O'Reilly, Maher, Schultz et al name-call to their heart's content. We can all name-call like fourth graders. It's our constitutional right to express an opinion, and my opinion is that Limbaugh is a fat, ugly, impotent drug-addicted, arrogant, useless bastard.

However, the constitution does not give anyone the right to lie.

I gave all of three seconds to think about the Palin situation. The lady Limbaugh insulted was not attacking anyone. Palin was a Limbaugh wannabe, big loud mouth screaming about the liberals (like me)without justifications.Let the Teabaggers defend her. How in the hell can a Political group like the Rightwing dolts be so warp minded?You haters can break out your crying towels because Obama will be there four more years.I am one in the millions calling everywhere in this Country talking to people about voting Progressive.

Derek -- regarding your 1.67 post. Out of line.

Wow. Try keeping it civil and the rest of us will as well.

Have a good day.

The government said you couldn't discriminate, not "Go get Joe Shcmo into a bad mortgage, chop it up, mix it up, swap it around, insure it yourselves with tax money, bet on it, and don't worry about capital requirements."

Well said. That is exactly what the banks and brokers did.

Ms Fluke ceased to be a "private citizen" the instant she agreed to be used publicly by the left as a poster child for women's health issues.

Wrong again, Bill. She didn't agree to being used as a poster child. She went before Congress to testify on women's health issues, which is the normal course of affairs when exercising one's citizenship responsibilities. She was attacked unmercifully for three days by a person who has not an ounce (no pun intended) of dignity or integrity, after which she agreed to be interviewed to defend her good name.

Again, she could bring slander charges against Limbaugh for damaging her reputation, if she so desired. If she were a true "public figure" she would have a much more difficult time of it.

You're like a fish on a hook. You can twist and squirm all you want, but you've been caught supporting the insupportable, and you lack the fundamental decency to admit you're wrong.

Damage: I think you're brain damaged. And I know about the brain.

I get so tired of reading your ignorant, hateful rants that disagree with anyone on the "left" just to disagree as vehemently as possible.

I could put you on an ignore list but I'm one of those people that watches "World's Dumbest..." on TruTV because I love the shock factor. It's hard to believe that you actually think (I use the term loosely) the things you do. Your belligerant ignorance is entertaining but it's rather frightening that people like you have a vote. I know you're not alone, afterall you have Limbaugh on your side and he's rather powerful.

Keep it up... keep it up

You're like a fish on a hook.

Mr. Me First Bill does like him some nice fat worms...

Bill Mahre, Keith Olberman, Ed Shultz, David Letterman, and whoever else conservatives want to name all apologized for their inflamatory words. Sincerely apologized. All were suspended from their jobs for a time. Shultz even offered to quit. Olberman was eventually dismissed.

Carl Thomas called Rachel Maddow a name. He publicly apologized and Maddow accepted.

All of these people AND those that they attacked are public figures on public forums.

Rush Limbaugh apologized for using two words to describe Fluke. He ONLY apologized for that. He then continued his rant against her. And he resorted to blaming the liberal mindset for his problems. That is not a real apology and Fluke rightly refused it.

Those of us on the left DID condemn the insults, despite what conservatives choose to remember. We DID support suspensions and public apologies. Statements by Boehner's spokesperson or Romney saying he would not have used those words are not apologies. The refusal of conservatives to do the right thing continues.

The situations are not the same.

Bill, Fairfax:

Bull Conner - a racist, bigoted cop - defines the standard for "public figure". Ms. Fluke does not begin to approach that thresh hold.

From a common sense perspective, consider literally tens of thousands of ordinary citizens who have given testimony before myriad legislative panels. You couldn't name five of them. It was Rush Limbaugh who recklessly and maliciously slandered Ms. Fluke. Indeed, were it not for Limbaugh's actions, you wouldn't know of Ms. Fluke's existence.

Limbaugh will be hoisted on his own petard.

.....(meanwhile)

DOW FALLS 200 Points!! Where's the headline MSNBC?

Instead we got "gas prices start to fall" headlines??!!

Romney is going to win..Romney is going to show epic fail Obama out the door. Hey lookie how easy it is to make a point without obscene name calling you Lefties!! Try it sometime if you ever do get a point.

@Dont_carry: the sources thing was a jab. I understand you read stuff. But it probably came off more harshly than meant.

Also, when I talk about the radical spew, I meant the nonsense I hear from writers like George Will, or Coulter, or people you hear like Limbaugh or Maher. I mean, really, can we have popular media biase that doesn't actually tromp all over someone's humanity.

Everyone radical has really bent it in their mind that when push comes to shove, the true enemy is the opposing political party in the US. Really? I'd like some devout Republicans and Democrats to walk up to some Al-Quaeda members and tell Al-Quaeda which political party should be killed. It'll be quite the look of surprise on their faces when they all get shot just the same.

Remember who really is working against you. And I could have said plenty of other people, but Al-Quaeda is as good as a current and extreme an example as is needed. You won't finding most Thai drawing much of a distinction either, though the chance of dying in Thailand for an American is a helluva lot less.

Its there, its in the money section. Rommey is not going to be the next president, The numbers from anyone but diehard republicans are just not there.

Bill, Fairfax --

To my friends on the right: can we have a resounding round of applause for the totally LAME leftist responses to my post about liberal attacks on women.

Not all of them, Bill. Be fair.

Good grief AM, I'm sure in trouble now.

Not if you do the right thing.

I'm still waiting to hear it.

justoneguy --

Hey lookie how easy it is to make a point without obscene name calling you Lefties!! Try it sometime if you ever do get a point.

Okay. Whatever the point was, I'm sure I got it. A long time ago, evidently, because I didn't see anything new in your post beyond what righties rant about every day out here.

Try it again without the snarky sarcasm and see if that helps.

just one guy,

Stocks suffer biggest loss of 2012 - Worries build that Greece is headed to default and Europe appears to be in a recession. Gold falls below 1,700, and crude oil drops under $105.

First Read does not cover the stock markets – try CNBC or Fox Business

Romney is going to win..Romney is going to show epic fail Obama out the door. Hey lookie how easy it is to make a point without obscene name calling you Lefties!! Try it sometime if you ever do get a point.

Good afternoon, justoneVOTE!

You are entitled to your opinion as to the results of the upcoming presidential election. But I caution you strongly not to bet any money on your man. See how nice a 'Leftie' can be, looking out for your best interests! :)

You won't finding most Thai drawing much of a distinction either, though the chance of dying in Thailand for an American is a helluva lot less.

Derek, Please clarify that for us if you don't mind. Are you saying that an American has less chance of dying in Thailand than he/she does in the U.S.? Or are you saying Thais are dying for Americans?

I believe America's true enemy is ourselves and our own arrogant selfishness.

United, honest and compassionate, there is nothing we cannot accomplish.

PULLEEEZ Dennis...First Read is the single most famous place to go just about anywhere one seems to want to anywhere on the internet.

Whether the daily trolls that prop up this site care to like it or not - I have my opinions too. So sorry. And I'll still express them with as little sarcasm as possible - as difficult as it is when one is looking at the fantasy world of the extreme Left.

@kaybeetoys: I am saying if you go to Thailand, you have a lot less chance of dying than standing in front of a member of Al Quaeda.

And I disagree with you about your Pogo-like statement. This country, yelling and screaming at each other, accomplishes a lot less, that is for sure. But we live in a priviledged place and I hold the shining examples of what is happening in Syria, Iran and North Korea as the obvious examples of that. And while I don't hold them in the same light, your freedom of speech is astoundingly well protected when it comes to comparisson to Russia or China as well. So, while I can be as critical as the next person of the US, let's keep things in perspective, okay?

Job1 You and so many Republicans are showing signs of short term memory. I myself remember how bad the economy and unemployment were under President Bush and getting worst up to his last days in office.

Yes, we were into a recession the last year Bush was in office, just as we were in a recession the last year of Clinton's Presidency. That said, who'd you blame for that recession? Clinton, no probably not, Bush, certainly, its always Bush's fault.

So actually the truth is, President Obama inherited this incredible brink of depression mess from President Bush and President Obama has done a good job of turning the country around.

President Obama may have inherited a "recession" (clearly different from a depression), but unlike President's before him, both Democrat & Republican who inherited or left us in a recession, he can't seem to get us out. The facts are this is the LONGEST economic down term in our history since Roosevelt. But we have had many many "recessions" since Roosevelt (no depressions). At some point and time one needs to put the blame where it lies. This time, it's Obama who has had more than enough time to bring us out of this.

I honestly have to say anyone that doesn’t recognize this fact is pretty out of touch with reality.

I honestly have to say, your not able to recognize the facts. I suggest you go view your history on Presidents since Roosevelt. Everyone of them experienced a downturn in the economy and everyone of them were able to pull us out within a year to 18 months at the longest. Certainly far before they were up for re-election. The exception, Carter, who was the worst President of our lifetime and that is said by both Republicans & Democrats. This current President really in a lot of ways is not much different then Carter.

As with many elections, when the economy is bad the party in control no matter who might be running to replace them is voted out. Thus McCain had no chance beating any Democrat. But the biggest mistake the voters made in 2008 is not to put Hillary in office. If history repeats itself and it usually does, if unemployment is still above 8% and if gas prices are as high or higher than they are today, we will see a Republican President in office. Those, are your facts & reality.

Job1 You and so many Republicans are showing signs of short term memory. I myself remember how bad the economy and unemployment were under President Bush and getting worst up to his last days in office.

Yes, we were into a recession the last year Bush was in office, just as we were in a recession the last year of Clinton's Presidency. That said, who'd you blame for that recession? Clinton, no probably not, Bush, certainly, its always Bush's fault.

So actually the truth is, President Obama inherited this incredible brink of depression mess from President Bush and President Obama has done a good job of turning the country around.

President Obama may have inherited a "recession" (clearly different from a depression), but unlike President's before him, both Democrat & Republican who inherited or left us in a recession, he can't seem to get us out. The facts are this is the LONGEST economic down term in our history since Roosevelt. But we have had many many "recessions" since Roosevelt (no depressions). At some point and time one needs to put the blame where it lies. This time, it's Obama who has had more than enough time to bring us out of this.

I honestly have to say anyone that doesn’t recognize this fact is pretty out of touch with reality.

I honestly have to say, your not able to recognize the facts. I suggest you go view your history on Presidents since Roosevelt. Everyone of them experienced a downturn in the economy and everyone of them were able to pull us out within a year to 18 months at the longest. Certainly far before they were up for re-election. The exception, Carter, who was the worst President of our lifetime and that is said by both Republicans & Democrats. This current President really in a lot of ways is not much different then Carter.

As with many elections, when the economy is bad the party in control no matter who might be running to replace them is voted out. Thus McCain had no chance beating any Democrat. But the biggest mistake the voters made in 2008 is not to put Hillary in office. If history repeats itself and it usually does, if unemployment is still above 8% and if gas prices are as high or higher than they are today, we will see a Republican President in office. Those, are your facts & reality.

Bill Fairfax,

Ed apologized immediately for his entire rotten comment. Rush supported his rotten comment for 2 more days before equivocating that it was all just a joke that he was beguiled into making just to stay even with awful things his opponents said.

Ed Shultz really did appologize for 9 air-time minutes expressing that his entire comment was derogatory, with no justification whatsoever. He used the word "slut" in one sentence one time, and immediately apologised; he did not spend two more days in triangulated justification of what he said. There were no "if's, and's or but's" in his apology. A far cry from Limbaugh's "I should have made the same joke with some different words."

Laura Ingrahm accepted Ed's apology on air on her program.

Ed Shultz took himself off the air without pay for the week following his use of the word "slut", and made a public promise never to use the word again.

As for the others, opinions with no credibility measurement. Lying about someone by calling her a prostitute is defamation of character.

republican party

1. Wants to go to war with Iran.
2. Wants to wage war against women.
3. Rails against the nonexistent war on religion.
4. Wages war on public sector unions, just as it has for some time on private sector unions.

Isn't everyone sick and tired of the WAR PARTY! Obama "Four more Years" 2012!

Mr. Me First Bill does like him some nice fat worms...

Miss Feisty -- if you're referring to that delicacy from the Gummy Bear family, you're quite right. Really hits the spot after a heaping serving of brocolli.

Derek-381097

@kaybeetoys: I am saying if you go to Thailand, you have a lot less chance of dying than standing in front of a member of Al Quaeda.

Derek, your meaning still remains unclear. You're saying that if you go to Thailand, you'll have a greater chance of running into a member of al-Qaeda than you will have a chance of dying in Thailand?

And I disagree with you about your Pogo-like statement.

You'll have to clarify that for me, too, I'm afraid. I lived in Thailand for the past ten years and I'm not familiar with your Pogo reference. :)

This country, yelling and screaming at each other, accomplishes a lot less, that is for sure. But we live in a priviledged place and I hold the shining examples of what is happening in Syria, Iran and North Korea as the obvious examples of that. And while I don't hold them in the same light, your freedom of speech is astoundingly well protected when it comes to comparisson to Russia or China as well. So, while I can be as critical as the next person of the US, let's keep things in perspective, okay?

You've lost me there too. I really am not getting your point at all. Why does my comment make you think I was being critical of the U.S.?

I believe America's true enemy is ourselves and our own arrogant selfishness.

United, honest and compassionate, there is nothing we cannot accomplish.

I've lived most of my adult life in the Middle East and Asia, just so you know.

Have a nice day.

From my post #1.58 yesterday:

Liberal poster: But please tell me you don't think Rush's calling Ms. Fluke a slut was funny.

Me: OK, I didn't think it was funny. In fact, I was surprised Rush went that far to make his point

So to all of today's posters who continue to lie about my position on this matter: stick it where the sun don't shine.

For those of you keeping score......there is one station in Hawaii that has dropped Mr Limbaugh. I would have thought there would be no stations in that state broadcasting him anyways.

@Kaybeetoys: Okay, so....there's just too much to say. Let me just say my points as straight as I can.

1) Americans who like to consider their primary enemy as their opposing US poltitical party would keep well in mind that their real enemies lie outside their borders, for the most part.

2) The US, by comparisson to the vast majority of countries in the world, allows for more freedom of speech, and human rights, despite all the faults that the US has.

All the rest is just analogy and if that is unclear, I hope the points above clarify that.

1) Americans who like to consider their primary enemy as their opposing US poltitical party would keep well in mind that their real enemies lie outside their borders, for the most part.

I agree that we have enemies in the world who wish us harm. However, if you read history you will see that great empires fall from internal decay rather than from attack by outside sources.

I believe we are in our current political situation because we have become complacent and myopic. We will either learn to work together to solve our problems, or we will destroy our democracy ourselves through self-centered arrogance and apathy.

Our dogs eat better than most third-world children do.

2) The US, by comparisson to the vast majority of countries in the world, allows for more freedom of speech, and human rights, despite all the faults that the US has.

I agree with that. I want to keep the U.S. that way.

All the rest is just analogy and if that is unclear, I hope the points above clarify that.

I appreciate the time you took to respond, Derek.

Ms Fluke the virtuous "private citizen"? Hardly.

She agreed to appear in a high profile public forum like a congressional hearing. Then she made controversial comments that many Americans disagree with – and made a point of noting she was speaking on behalf of others and not for herself. Then she chose to leverage her 15 minutes of fame by making the rounds of the TV shows. Oh, and let's not forget how the president used her as a political prop by making his famous phone call.

Ms Fluke is in the public arena up to her eyeballs and any distinction between her private and public persona has been blurred beyond recognition.

Derek -- Some interesting thoughts you present. Indeed, it's frustrating that political discourse takes on such gravity in the overall picture when compared to far more important challenges. Agreed. If push came to shove we would unite as one, of that I've no doubt.

As for the popular media bias, IMO it's way out of control and needs reigning in. Some have lost their humanness in the political realm. It's unsightly. As citizens we have a responsibility to speak up if we witness such behavior. Many have but more need to step up to the plate. That's a starting point to enact the change necessary to tamp down the voices of vitriolic haters. If I had my way they wouldn't even get a seat at the table.

That's my take on things and I'm sticking to it! lol

Bill at #1.105, that's right you're the arbiter of virtue, MR. LILY WHITE.

Until Rush LIED and MISREPRESENTED her testimony,...She was an unknown. SINCE the brouhaha,...she's done what EVERY American would and should do to defend her position, her voice and her name.

But, please, do carry on. You and Rush are so close on this, I am pretty sure we can't get a piece of paper between you. But here's to the papercuts while we 'try', eh?

Amused # 1.102, you said it ! It's so easy for chicken-hawks to bluster and fume about war with Iran from the safety of a room full of cheering followers, but .... can when push comes to shove, they are too frightened to utter a single word of reproach against He-Who-Calls-The-Shots, against He whose name is cannot be spoke aloud.

The one Republican who spoke with actual conviction against the prurient hyperbole of Rush Limbaugh is John McCain. But, of course, he's not running for anything.

amused but not distracted

republican party...blah blah (fiction) Isn't everyone sick and tired of the WAR PARTY

(never mind Libya...)

No amused, everybody is sick and tired of fiscal irresponsibility, Government Control and 'double speak' on foreign affairs. Everybody is sick and tired of swallowing the AAA- credit of the USA that was obtained by Obama. We're sick and tired of having our hard-earned tax money simply given away to those that can work..but are too lazy, as well as to corporations to the toon of HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS OF DOLLARS and were tired of funding Obama's failed jobs programs.

ENOUGH!!

here's to the papercuts

Clara -- It's comforting to know we can always count on you for the most compelling and insightful comments of the day. Thanks for reading.

Lying about someone by calling her a prostitute is defamation of character.

And lying about Laura Ingraham as Ed Schultz did when he called her a slut -- would that be defamation of character too? Or are left wing slugs immune from such critiques?

Bill, Fairfax:

Are you being deliberately obtuse, or do you honestly not understand? Laura Ingraham is a TV personality. She is the essence of a public figure. In no way does that justify what Ed Schultz said.

To his credit, Schultz offered no weasel words, there was no mealy-mouthed "somebody else made me do it" BS. He took full responsibility. He apologized repeatedly and without reservation, and Ms. Ingraham graciously accepted his apology.

Schultz has been a model of decorum in that respect since his ill-advised slur. On the other hand, Limbaugh has routinely offered racist and bigoted comments. Perhaps you have forgotten or are unaware that he went so far as to attack Chelsea Clinton when she was a little girl. He is unapologetic, believing that somehow he is immune to richly-deserved criticism.

This is not an isolated incident. However, THIS is THE incident that finally snaps the public patience and tolerance. It is the proverbial straw that has broken the camel's back.

There is no defense for this. That you search wildly for justification for Limbaugh, settling on - Oh yeah, well they do it too, is embarrassing.

Come on Bill. It isn't going to make you less a man and it isn't going to hurt. Admit it. Limbaugh is wrong.

justoneguy - Calm down! I doesn't appear to me, that your presence in this chat room is doing you any good mental health wise. The anger you display to those on the left, such as myself, who express opinions different from yours are entitled to them, just as you are to yours. We are not going to agree on everything. At best we will be able to agree on subjects other than politics. Regarding your rant post 1.113, I have a different take. I just feel you aren't ready to hear the other side. Take a vacation and after you've rested come back with a more tolerant tone.

"It isn't going to make you less a man and it isn't going to hurt. Admit it. Limbaugh is wrong."

Good grief David, can't you read? See my post 1.105 above.

"Oh yeah, well they do it too"

Either YOU are being obtuse or you are deliberately misrepresenting my post 1.38. -- which wouldn't be anything new around here. The point of that post was not to say it's OK to use that language, the point was to show how so many on the left use the same language (or worse) and get a pass on it. I would further point out the material in my post was derived from an article written by -- A LIBERAL WOMAN. So if you have an issue with the material, take it up with her -- it won't make you any less of a man.

Sorry if the 'facts' sound like something out of an insane asylum to you Bill...just goes to show.

Ahh, David Walker,

There are none so blind as the MeFirsters on First Read. Every single comment from the jackass' finger tips has been to set up that somehow Ms. Fluke - who 'chose' to be a public figure DESERVES the commentary.

Bill is the worst kind of misogynist because he refuses to accept that he IS a misogynist. And no amount of pretzel twisting can convince him otherwise.

Not to mention the MANY things he's said to me and other women on this board that were beyond the pale.

He likes to conveniently forget the 'good ole days', when women KNEW their place, eh?

One thing that really amuses me is this so called "War on Religion". What religion? Remember a few months back when the right in the country was railing against the construction of a mosque a few blocks away from the World Trade Towers? Yeah?

Isn't that a war on religion?

Religion isn't just Christianity, and it isn't just Judaism.

ABO

Dennis, Dennis, Dennis. . .

What do you say about firms that took taxpayer funded bail-outs, went bankrupt, but still paid out bonuses to their executives? Well, when it's banks, you raise the roof with your protests- rightly so, I might add.

When it's recipients of Obama's Dollars to Donors program, you try mightily to deflect

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/green-firms-fed-cash-give-execs-bonuses-fail/t/story?id=15851653#.T1YZmvEge-0

Now, why am I seeing a link between this story, and your post? Might you be trying to plant the seed that, perhaps, Romney will do the same thing?

You're wrong.

See, the difference between Romney and Obama is that Romney knows how to read a P and L statement- and Obama has no idea what that is.

The other difference is that, while NO ONE can pick 100% winners to invest in, when the sole criteria to gain taxpayer borrowed investment dollars is having donated large amounts of moola to a candidate, you're bound to get more losers than winners.

Take Solyndra- their "business plan" was to manufacture solar cylinders for $5.00, and sell them for $1.50. This sund like a plan a five year old would get behind?

Well, it kept George Kaiser from losing his shirt, so, for Obama, that was all good. Even re-wrote the law that would have protected the taxpayers for Kaiser's benefit- well, among others, that is. All the companies listed in the articles have that same benefit coming to them- thanks to Obama.

I have no problem with donors getting invites to State dinners- or, even, family dinners. No problem with them getting personal White House tours, or any other "access" perks.

I have a HUGE problem with them getting boatloads of my money- when the only beneficiary of this largesse is themselves.

In fact, I'm pretty sure there is a crime there somewhere. Too bad we don't have a special prosecutor to find out.

when the sole criteria to gain taxpayer borrowed investment dollars is having donated large amounts of moola to a candidate, you're bound to get more losers than winners.

Do you remember Halliburton? Do you remember two unfunded wars where lots of no bid contracts were issued to friends of Bush/Cheney? You have Zero Credibility on this issue. Both sides are guilty of patronage. Sell your nonsense somewhere else NJNB, you still have an aversion to facts.

[When it's recipients of Obama's Dollars to Donors program, you try mightily to deflect]

No Joe wants to talk corruption but ignores the Bush Administration actions – here is just one:

In 2002 Halliburton was awarded a 7 billion dollar contract for which only Halliburton was allowed to bid. The very same company headed from 1995 to 2000 by Dick Cheney.

Add it up No Joe, how many BILLIONS has the Obama Administration passed out to his cronies?

BTW - Vice President Dick Cheney’s stock options in Halliburton rose from $241,498 in 2004 to over $8 million in 2005, an increase of more than 3,000 percent, as Halliburton continues to rake in billions of dollars from no-bid/no-audit government contracts.

POLITICO: George W. Bush made it cool to be a bundler, giving big-time donors nicknames like “Pioneers” and “Rangers” that carried a certain gravitas in political circles.

Texas oilmen, CEOs, lobbyists and others who could get their friends to kick in checks that added up to $100,000 or more were part of an elite club that came with special access, perks and bragging rights in Washington.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0212/72852.html

The Bush administration's energy policy and its $31 billion bill that's emerged in Congress seem to be a pretty sweet deal for big business, including at least one in Georgia.

Administration policy was crafted largely in secret by Vice President Dick Cheney and energy industry executives shortly after President Bush assumed office in 2001. The White House refused on several occasions to make public documents that involved the energy policy discussions, leaving many people skeptical about who truly might benefit from the recommendations sent to Republican leaders in Congress. Many of the participants were generous contributors to the Bush-Cheney 2000 election campaign.

http://home.earthlink.net/~acisney6/id45.html

For the businesses that invested more money than ever before in George W. Bush's costly campaign for the presidency, the returns have already begun. Many corporations feel like a new day is dawning in Washington. "We have come out of the cave, blinking in the sunlight, saying to one another, My God, now we can actually get something done, "says Richard Hohlt, Washington lobbyist for several other major banks which, like MBNA, are backing an industry coalition whose members provided some $26 million to Republicans during the 1999-2000 campaign cycle.

http://www.organicconsumers.org/corp/corporate.cfm

Dennis, so true. The GOP used to support Cap & Trade, now they treat it and science as dirty words. The entire GOP is a giant flip/flopper on many issues. There's not a GOP presidential nominee who has not done a back flip from their own expressed views in 2008.

Amused in the Midwest, Dennis Ohio--Great job of pointing out No Joe's incredible lack of facts.

During the 2008 election, Obama campaigned for more government investment in "green" energy. So green energy companies tended to donate more to Obama than to his climate-change denying GOP opponents. Then when he was president, his administration did invest in such companies like Solyndra -- along with big donors to G. W. Bush like the Walmart founders. From such thin tissue do sufferers of Obama Derangment Syndrome such as nojonobo weave their conspiracy theories.

Dennis, that argument is tired, old- and already addressed.

In the first place, let me state, categorically, and as simply as I can-

George W. Bush is NOT running for president.

Secondly, Halliburton actually DELIVERED the goods and services for which they were contracted- unlike Solyndra, Fisker, BrightSource, and others.

As to dollar amounts- from only ONE program, Dollars to Donors paid out over $16 billion.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2011/11/13/how-obama-s-alternative-energy-programs-became-green-graft.html

Then, you have Siga- got a boatload of cash from HHS- for a vaccine against smallpox that is not needed, cannot be tested- oh, and for which the parameters of the bidding process were changed so that they were, in fact, the only bidder. Made Obama donor Ron Perelman a bunch of cash.

Obama is the most corrupt president ever to hold office- makes Harding look like a boy scout. If we had a special prosecutor, he'd be gone already.

We don't, so he could kill somebody on live television and get away with it- unless you are deluded enough to think Holder would prosecute him.

No Joe aka Donna

You are full of Mitt

How much did Halliburton overcharge for services that were never delivered?

Just on meals alone it was over $7 million.

No credibility is right!!

Secondly, Halliburton actually DELIVERED the goods and services

Is that the same Halliburton who built showers which electrocuted our service members?

Yeah - they sure did DELIVER!

Fire Limbaugh!! Fire O'Reilly!! Send Santorum and Blingrich a clear message: Stop the War on Women Jerks!!!

• Santorisms:

1. Obama wants all our kids to go to college - what a snob!!
2. Kennedy's speech on separation of church and state made me want to vomit!
3. Denounces “this whole idea of personal autonomy.”
4. Birth control is not OK. It’s a license to do things in the sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be.
5. States should have the right to outlaw contraception
6. Becoming pregnant by a rapist or family member is a gift from God (and therefore must not be aborted)
7. Women should not serve in combat roles because of "emotions"
8. Radical Feminists convinced women they had to pursue careers
9. Get rid of Federal and State funding for Primary and Secondary Education (women stay home and "home school")
10. Better for kids to have parents in prison than to have gay parents
11. Homosexuality = man on dog
12. Global Warming and Evolution are 'Junk Science'
13. Will degrade Iranian Nuclear Facilities through air strikes
14. Promotes American manufacturing but drives an Audi A6

• Boycott Rush: Netflix, Clear Channel, LifeLock Targeted As Controversy Swells

[...so he could kill somebody on live television and get away with it...]

Poor NoJo...getting desperate, or just more pathetic?

First it was "Obama could kill a puppy on live television", and when that didn't get the reaction you were hoping for, now you settle into "he could kill somebody on live television"?

Yeah, I'd go with "pathetic for 200, Alex..."

Better let Smiffy and Spanky know you're changing the rhetoric...they just may disown you.

Dennis,

I know a lot of people in the construction trades are going overseas for high paying jobs. the UAE and Dubai are two of the favorite places to work.

Phine - good to see you again!

Just a small modification - the UAE includes Dubai. Also Abu Dhabi, Sharjah and 4 other small states. FYI you can also get a drink in Dubai as opposed to many other Arab countries.

On another topic, what do you think about all of this fuss over Rush and Fluke but nothing ever being said about Bill Maher and Palin et al, Chris Matthews and Hillary, Keith Olbermann and S.E. Culp and Michelle Malkin , Matt Taibbi with just about every woman, and Ed Schultz with Palin and Laura Ingraham. Is there a double standard or am I missing something.

I know you will give me an honest opinion based upon past comments.

Hey Reb, how you doing? Well, I do know that Ed Schultz was suspended both from radio and tv after his words about Laura Ingram. Olbermann has been suspended before, as has Chris Matthews. To be perfectly honest, I don't like the name calling by anybody - and if they are an on air personality (tv or radio), they should be held accountable. I can't judge Maher because a) I don't have HBO and do not watch him; and b) being that it is HBO, not sure how that exactly would work since it is a channel you pay for.

For me, with Rush, it wasn't just the name calling, it was the other stuff he threw out there, wanting to Ms. Fluke's "sex videos", and wondering how she managed to keep up with all her classes with all the sex she was having. Don't know where he came up with that kind of crap, but that put the whole thing WAY over the top!

Reb, the thing of this, for me, is the fact it was an attack on a woman (and women in general) - politics had nothing to do with it. At least for me.

Bill Maher and Palin

Never called her a slut or prostitute.

Chris Matthews and Hillary

Never called her a slut or prostitute.

Keith Olbermann and S.E. Culp and Michelle Malkin

Never called either a slut or a prostitute. Are you seeing a pattern here? It's the nature of the slam, not the fact that he called her out. Also all of the women you mentioned are public figures who had a platform to fight back. Ms. Fluke did not until Limbaugh created one for her. So no, there is no double standard. Had Maher called Palin a slut or whore he would have been called out for it.

@Reb How about Mike Malloy and his insensitive comments about the recent tornado victims. I do believe there is a double standard which is sad.

ksw,

I must live a sheltered life. Who is Mike Malloy and what did he say?

All you have to do is google.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Malloy

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/jack-coleman/2012/03/06/libtalker-mike-malloy-tornado-victims-are-little-grease-spots-pavement

You won't see this reported by mainstream media. I am all for calling out these jerks but we should do it with equal measure.

ksw,

Will do. Thanks for the info.

@Amused That is some selective reasoning you have going there for you. I am woman and let me tell you I would be just as offended by Mahr's comments. I am certainly no Palin fan but he is just as much a jerk as Limbaugh.

Amused In The Midwest

So no, there is no double standard. Had Maher called Palin a slut or whore he would have been called out for it.

Bill Mahar called Palin a C-nt. Is that okay with you?

Ed Schultz called Laura Ingraham a right-wing slut. Is that okay with you?

See a pattern here?

I'm doing well Phine. Just some of these people on here are so blind to their own little agendas, I can't read much of the posts without getting physically ill. Amused/Fiesty/David Walker all call people and fellow posters such horrible things in order to make a stupid point. Really irresponsible individuals.

All the Republican establishment needed to say on the Limbaugh situation was this:

“She was respectful, sincere, and spoke with conviction. She provided a model of civil discourse,” DeGioia wrote in his e-mail. “And yet, some of those who disagreed with her position – including Rush Limbaugh and commentators throughout the blogosphere and in various other media channels – responded with behavior that can only be described as misogynistic, vitriolic, and a misrepresentation of the position of our student.”

That was what the Catholic president of her university said about the situation, and he disagrees with her position that their insurance policy should cover contraception!

Reb, I would suggest you avoid getting your talking points on this subject from the sources who think such behavior is acceptable. Others have already responded regarding Maher, Matthews, Olbermann; none of them ever called any women the vile terms Rush Limbaugh spoke; none of them spent 3 straight days attacking a young, college student and all the other Georgetown women students. I'd suggest you check the facts about Ed Schultz. He made one unacceptable, nasty comment about Laura Ingraham lasting about 9 seconds on radio; he called her directly and apologized to her and she accepted his apology; he spent about 10 minutes on his MSNBC show apologizing and explaining what he had said and done and how sorry he was; then took a week's suspension without pay. Many liberals, myself included, posted on FR that Ed was wrong to have made the comment and whatever MSNBC chose to do would be deserved.

Seems to me FOX and other right-wing media outlets and hosts needs to take a close look at how they are defending and spinnning Rush Limbaugh, how they are trying to blame liberals for what Rush himself said--liberals didn't put those words in his mouth, Limbaugh did and he spent 3 days continuing his verbal assault on women. FOX, and others defending Limbaugh's outrageous remarks or twisting what took place to change the subject is the equivalent of agreeing with Rush Limbaugh.

I've been to three of those countries, and I'm very happy to come back and remain in the USA.

@reb, you should watch Ed's apology to Laura Ingraham

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P1mQS3zxPF4

And, Ingraham "accepted" his apology, saying she felt it was "heartfelt"...

That is an actual apology!

@Jody The fact that you are a woman and can't see past your politics is sad. Yes what Rush said is vile but so is the rhetoric spewed by Mahr and others. I may personally disagree with this 30 year old law student or Palin but neither deserves to be denigrated in that way.

Jo-An - He never should have said it to begin with, just like Rush. That is the point and not the apology!!

Jody, the comments are Kirsten Powers who published them on the Daily Beast - not a right wing website. Yes she was interviewed on Fox but you go where they ask you. I noticed they didn't ask her to come on MSNBC did they? Probably because it didn't fit their desired outcome.

As for the others below the radar haters mentioned here such as Mike Malloy, I have never heard of him nor do I listen to him, wouldn't even know where to find him. I refuse to listen to any station or talk show host like Beck, Limbaugh or obviously, Malloy. Hate and disrespectful speech is wrong regardless of who does it. Rush Limbaugh has said unacceptable, vile comments, engaged in hate and racist speech for a couple decades and became increasingly vile as the years went by because people like those on FOX and conservatives defended him. What I find interesting here, the past few days, is that when Limbaugh gets in trouble, suddenly conservatives start using the "other side does it, too" and what about those comments. By deflecting to discuss the others, in my view, it merely reinforces the notion that defending Limbaugh is the goal of conservatives. Right or wrong, that's the way it comes across.

But Jody the fact that you said "the other side does it too" just reinforces the concept that we need a better civil discourse. Defending Rush by the right is just like people like Amused defending Bill Mahar et al. Same sh-t different side.

ksw62118

And Michelle Obama shouldn't be denigrated by the right wing, and yet she is, and Barack Obama shouldn't be subjected to this "birther" nonesense, and yet he's put up with it for years. Trying to make comments by Bill Maher, whose name most people don't even recognize, the equivalent of the right wing hate machine, which runs on every public platform, 24/7, just doesn't fly.

PS My brother is a Republican who stopped listening to Rush back in the 1990's when he villified Hillary Clinton as a "fem-Nazi." My brother said at the time, a First Lady is off-limits. That's the old Republican Party.

@ Amy I agree that the First Lady should not be called disrespectful names. But saying people don't recognize Mahr is stretching a bit particularly since he just made the $1mil donation to the Obama super-pac. It is one thing to question someone's politics or facts but when the criticism gets personal that is crossing the line.

@reb, yes, he shouldn't have said it, but he did, and he was "disciplined" for it, AND he apologized, sincerely!

UNLIKE Rush!

@AMY,

PS My brother is a Republican who stopped listening to Rush back in the 1990's when he villified Hillary Clinton as a "fem-Nazi." My brother said at the time, a First Lady is off-limits. That's the old Republican Party.

Couldn't agree more! That group of the party is wondering WTH?

Amy - In 2005, Maher ranked at number 38 on Comedy Central's 100 greatest stand-up comedians of all time. He also received a Hollywood Walk of Fame star on September 14, 2010. Not the kind of guy whose name most people don't even recognize. I am quite sure he would disagree with you.

I can't even get into your comments about Michelle and the current president after all of the hate spewed about Bush. Just not a logical response on your part in my opinion.

Jo-An - how do you know that Rush didn't mean his apology?? As I said it is not about the apology it's about not saying it to begin with.

You all mistake my comments as condoning things others have said. I do not defend anyone who crosses the line but the comparisons mentioned here do not come close to Limbaugh's attack last week or his many other vile remarks. Never heard of Mike Malloy, cannot condemn what I have not heard and I'm not about to start listening to some nutjob just so I can condemn him. Where did Rush Limbaugh apologize? He merely said he regretted using two words--not the rest of his vile comments over his three day assault. I do not have HBO so do not watch Bill Maher but from what I have seen of clips, he doesn't come close to the hate spewed by right wing media kings like Limbaugh. Odd, The Daily Beast posts exactly what FOX hosts are saying. BTW, I do not read the Daily Beast either. Do not lecture me while in the same breath you, by virtue of deflecting the topic and mentioning the other side's remarks, give cover to Rush Limbaugh's ugly display last week.

Sorry Jody, still not buying it. The reason you have "may" not have heard it from the others cited is because they don't get all the media firestorm over their comments. The liberal media outlets get a pass because they think they are justified in making their statements. I this makes the point of the media bias.

Please have a rethink Jody, Bill Mahar calling Sarah Palin a C-nt is fairly vile in my book. Doesn't need to be timed over days. Three seconds is long enough.

BTW If The Daily Beast posts exactly what FOX hosts are saying and you do not read the Daily Beast, how do you know what is being said and published by them?? Who told you MSNBC?

I am always amused at the right wing apologists who come on FR to try to defend their hero, Rush Limbaugh, a man so devoid of values, that he was addicted to prescription drugs, got caught with a prescription under a different name and who has been married four times.

It is predictable that they, like their hero Rush, in true "dittohead" fashion do this by saying "look what YOUR guy did."

So, in order to be helpful, since they have so little ability to think: let me spell it out for you.

It is not okay to call women sluts. It is not okay to suggest that they might be prostitutes if they want to access contraception, and it is not okay for to say that women should post sex tapes in payment for contraceptive coverage, no matter what side of the aisle you are on.

Now: I expect a similar statement from WCA, Bill, Fairfax and Reb, and any other right winger who has defended this cretin.

I have a feeling that the silence with be deafening.

@reb,

Rush, rather than apologizing, in fact, DOUBLED DOWN on his remarks about Sandra Fluke! Only after he started losing sponsors did he "apologize"...and when listening to it, I couldn't help but notice, HE BLAMED his OWN words on the "Left"....sounded like a 3rd grader...I'm sorry, BUT Eddy said it FIRST!!!!!

newdayDAWNING...RETURNED And Jo-An

Sorry to disappoint. Hope you weren't waiting too long.

It is not okay to call women sluts. It is not okay to suggest that they might be prostitutes if they want to access contraception, and it is not okay for to say that women should post sex tapes in payment for contraceptive coverage, no matter what side of the aisle you are on.

Assume the same holds true in your backing of left wing name callers???

Reb, what part of this sentence that I wrote do you not understand, "hate and disrespectful speech is wrong regardless of who does it." Please note "the other side does it, too" was in quotes and a reference to the fact that conservatives here were using that as a way to justify some comparison of the other sides comments as if they were remotely comparable to Limbaugh's 3-day tirade of contemptible disrespect targeted at a private citizen, a college student at Georgetown.

@NDD Unless I have a reading comprehension problem I do not see in any of REB's statements a defense of Limbaugh. In fact quite the opposite. Perhaps you should go back and read again. It is not about who said vile things first or last, it is about who says them anytime irregardless of party politics.

Jody - I agree "hate and disrespectful speech is wrong regardless of who does it." Nobody's defending Rush certainly not me but as I said 3 days or 3 seconds is time enough to do the damage.

ksw: As soon as Reb used "the other guy" defense", he is part of the problem. And he did.

Reb: go back and read my post. You have left out the salient point.

Mike Malloy meet Rush, Rush meet Mike.............................Someone mentioned that Fluke is just a citizen, I suppose she is, some think differently. What about the victims of the tornados? Are they citizens? I'm pretty sure they are, but here's some gems from a Liberal talk show host, you know kind of like Rush is for the right.

"They keep being killed, you know, their God, if this is where they want to look at it, keeps smashing them into little grease spots on the pavement in -- uh -- uh -- in -- in, you know, in ALABAMA and MISSISSIPPI and ARKANSAS and, uh, GEORGIA and, uh, OKLAHOMA, you know, the Bible Belt. 'Where they ain't going to let no goddamn science get in the way -- it says in the Bible, blah blah blah blah blah!'

There's other rants on how he wants conservitives to die of a violant death.................

Any outrage Liberals? See Jody, some people on here don't listen to Rush but you want them to condemn him, but yet you want to tell others that you don't know Mike Malloy so his comments don't apply to you. Kind of like that right? Calling one a slut is not equal to wishing someone to die, right? Both Rush and Mike are wrong, but you seem to focus on one type of group, the right and that does make you a hypocrite.

Defending Rush Limbaugh is not a winning position for establishment Republicans, but who thinks we should tell them? I swear, the entire Republican Party is intent on committing hari kari. THey could have taken the position of the Catholic university president who defended Ms Fluke right to explain her position without being subjected to personal attacks, that by the way, insult all women, not just her. But the Republican candidates and their supporters just shrug their shoulders over Limbaugh's rant, so fine, lose the women's vote. At least, I can like Catholic officials again.

@reb, I never "defended" anyone, I only pointed out that Ed Shultz was disciplined AND he apologized!

You said "is there a double standard"?

As far a "left wing" comedians, insulting Palin...completely different! She is a "public figure" and while I really don't like those terms being said about anyone, it is part of their comedic schtick, and most people take it at that!

Rush has a following (as does Ed) and has some personal responsibility for the things he says, he continued his rhetoric as long as financially feasible, then apologized...

You all are still defending the left wing name callers. ALL misogynist behavior by who ever does it is unacceptable.

newdayDAWNING...RETURNED

No other guy said it from me defense. I'm sorry but I don't see the same from you.

Perhaps I am mistaken. At least I hope so.

Reb: Quoting me, since I am ALWAYS worth quoting:

"...no matter what side of the aisle you are on.."

Now, I anticipate, Reb, that you will join in our efforts to bring sponsorship of Limbaugh's program to an end. Do let us know what boycott Rush petitions you sign...or what sponsors of his that you write.

Republicans love the principle of the free market, except when it moves against their interests. Rush Limbaugh insulted a young woman using the vilest analogies he could find, and now, women are pressuring advertisers to withdraw their financial support. I can only hope Rush will soon be regaling "the boys" from his front porch, like most loud mouth misogynists, and not from the microphone of a radio station. There is the free market in action.

Agree NDD and Amy and I expect you will do the same to Time Warner who own HBO and other owners of companies who continue to allow this type of speech to continue.

@Joan I feel sorry for you that think there is a difference between Mahr and Limbaugh. Both are loud mouth jerks who do have a following that believe and agree with what they say.

One comment, said in 3 seconds, and countered by an apology.

Three days worth of comment, doubled down, repeated, extended to individuals beyond the primary target, countered by only a half-way apology and then doubled down again.

These are equal?! Really?!

I do not condone any vile hateful comment made by anyone. But 3 seconds is a misstep. 3 days is a calculated, deliberate, conscious assault.

3 seconds is not a misstep. That is what he does and he knew full well what he was doing.

NDD- I expect the same from you as per ksw62118. Do let us know when you do as well.

Remember this is not about Rep/Dem, Left/Right - it's about what is right or wrong. Gee if we can't agree on that then there is no hope for any of us!!

I don't support HBO by my dollars. We have satellite programming. I do not pay for HBO for cause.

@NDD Question is do you support Time Warner who owns HBO?

ksw & Paul-Florida,

You are so over your head on this site. . . .

@Jack Unlike you who are so intellectually superior to everyone else..... LOL Love your condescending attitude and your liberal acceptance of everyone.

What a ridiculous question. If I don't support HBO, why is that even germane?

You can't make yourself right about this ksw: tell me, what sponsors of Limbaugh have you written to join this boycott? This is not about HBO, this is about Rush Limbaugh.

Or is that above your head?

fielden --

I do not condone any vile hateful comment made by anyone. But 3 seconds is a misstep. 3 days is a calculated, deliberate, conscious assault.

Followed by another rambling explanation where, while spouting on one hand that he is a paragon of "personal responsibility," he then proceeds to blame liberals for his own folly.

Not much of a conservative leader, is he, if he is so easily manipulated by the liberals?

And not much of a logical thinker, either, if taking personal responsibility means blaming someone else.

This alone, irrespective of the underlying diatribes, ought to give every right winger some trouble.

It certainly gave George Will trouble.

@NDD I have written them all as a matter of fact. My point is you are being a hypocrite if you don't do the same thing for every other company that still support any of this type of speech.

Look, I really don't know what's so hard about this. Anyone/everyone is wrong for calling anyone a derogatory name that calls their character and therefore integrity into question especially when it is unfounded in ANY fact what so ever. But a public figure who has clout and is a political commentator calling a woman and by extension all women who take contraceptives (because it's only used for sex and preventing pregnancy) sluts and then elaborating on it... three consecutive times is a personal attack.

It just so happens that this attack was not just on Ms. Fluke but, because of the implications of what Rush said, is an attack on most women in the U.S. He is on public radio and he has been spewing hatred for many years now. My mother used to listen to him every day while I was growing up. I used to sing all of his stupid parody songs about Bill Clinton. He hired someone to do those voices and sing those songs but it was under his banner.

Bill Maher is a comedian who started out on stage and like many comedians he talks about politics. He probably ran into some trouble with some of the things he talks about since they are quite lewd and irreverant, so now he's on HBO where you have to pay to watch him. He can do and say just about anything on HBO that he wants because he is under the title comedian. That's the way it is. I'm not condoning it, although I do watch his show. I think most of what he says is hilarious. He steps out of line on occassion and says things that make me cringe but most comedians that I love do that. Tosh.O being one of them, although now he's becoming quite redundant.

The point is, you can't take comedians at their word because it's all part of the act for the show. Bill Maher totally believes most if not all of what he says but, he's still a comedian and it's about shock factor: "What can I say that will make the audience gasp and outrage the most people possible."

Rush is listened to and believed, whole heartedly, by his listeners who buy his newsletter and listen religiously (like my Mother did). He has a responsibility, Bill Maher is a jester who gaffes for our amusement (at least mine).

@Gates That is BS, we all know in this age of dumbing down of America that a lot of people idolize entertainment people more than real news. Your last sentence that you find Maher amusing says it all.

ksw: You have no point. Again, if you are making the argument "look what the other guy did" you are wrong. It isn't about that. It is about one "man" Rush Limbaugh and his vile mouth. You minimize what he did by trying to make any kind of moral equivalence to others.

"I have written them all." Really? List them.

Jody/NDD - my hat goes off to you for the patience you have displayed in your posts to the ridiculous arguments from ksw/reb/Paul and others.

That they compare the Rush attacks on Fluke, a non-public figure, to the Maher slander against Palin, a public figure shows a complete lack of deductive ability on their part (I don't particularly condone the word used by Bill, but he was responding to her equally ridiculous/biased claims).

The attempt to compare Rush's slanders to Malloy's comments about religious zealots is equally as lame. Sadly, they don't see the distinctions in their black and white world.

Sorry NDD not biting and clogging up this thread by listing all of them again. They were posted yesterday several times. I do not support or excuse Rush Limbaugh and have never listened to his show. I think he is an a$$ but you evidently think it is ok for Mahr to call Palin a "t##% or some of the other garbage out there. I will let you defend that.

@RedDV your friend Amy up the thread said she denounces the rhetoric against the First Lady (a very public figure). So is it ok to insult public figures but not private? I think both are unacceptable.

Nope. There you go again. Let me be very honest with you. For you, this is not about Bill Maher, or anyone else that you see as leftist. This is purely about making excuses for Rush Limbaugh.

I don't believe for one minute that you have written anyone about Limbaugh. And if you have, I hope it was to castigate and not support what he said.

But, we now know for sure who YOU are. And that is very sad.

Thanks, RedDev, I did want to see this one out to the ridiculous conclusion that I knew we would get to.

@NDD you have a serious comprehension issue. You are the one making this all about one a$$hole Rush and bury your head in the sand about all the others.

newday,

It was a valiant effort on your part, but after a while it's like banging your head against a wall. This is such a clear cut issue and it's simply astounding that we have to cover the same ground over and over and over.

ksw--you have a serious inability to see further than your nose. This is about Limbaugh. This is who we're talking about. It's about what he did in the past week. It's not about what other people have done in the past year. Everyone has addressed the fact that we don't support what other people have done in the past. But you yammer on and on and on. If anyone has "a serious comprehension issue," it is surely you. And here's the thing: by constantly referring to what other people have done in the past, you are deflecting from the real issue, and therefore minimizing what Limbaugh did. We all see what you're doing. You don't. That is why you are in over your head.

Ah Jack chiming in with your smarter than thou attitude. I am moving on as I am talking to "intellectual superiors'' who can only focus on what is happening at the moment.

Ah Jack chiming in with your smarter than thou attitude

You're the one who said newday has "a serious comprehension issue." She is one of the clearer posters on this site and she cuts to the heart of the issues. If you don't "get it", it is surely not her fault. There are only so many times and so many ways she can say the same thing before it becomes--as she says--"ridiculous".

HI, Jack:

Thanks for your support. You are, of course, correct. What we have learned from this is the right wing cannot have this be about Rush. If it is, they have to own it.

And they have never been about personal responsibility.

ksw's attack on you? A laugh riot. He is indeed correct. He was talking to his intellectual superior!

NDD wrong on so many levels. I am a she not a he, Independent not Republican and vote for person not party. I am about everyone's personal responsibility not just one side or the other. I never did consider narrow minded people superior.

Ah-ha! I knew you were a woman, ksw. In the beginning I thought you were male, but over time I have begun to suspect I was wrong. And I believe you are young--young enough to not know yourself; young enough to fool yourself.

On a number of occasions you have said that you are an independent. But today your true colors have come out. You are definitely on the Right, though you won't admit it to yourself. But you know what? I think you are going to get smarter with time. You'll never be on the Left. But you may become a true independent. And when you do, you will look back on what you wrote today and cringe.

ksw62118

I feel for you. I bagged this line when it became apparent that NDD / Jack et al can't get it through their heads that it is not about Rep/Dem, Left/Right - it's about what is right or wrong.

These people just want to make it political all the time. They have only succeeded in reinforcing my belief that they are only about their own political beliefs and not about what is right and decent.

I read where it is okay to slander Palin because she is a public figure but you can't sat anything about Michelle Obama. No mention of the double standard there. In fact their arguments are so duplicitious that it makes my head spin with such circumvented logic.

I read where NDD has satellite Tv and that somehow absolves her from worryiing about what they say on HBO. My God what are you talking about?? ALL misogynist behavior by who ever does it is unacceptable. As a woman I would have thought you would accept that but no for you it's only about WHO said it and not WHAT was said. If you didn't hear it on HBO then it never happened!! I'm sure you don't listen to Rush either so in youre logic that never happened either.

You madame can continue to put your head back in the sand after you respond to this with some lame BS answer. As for me I am out of here. Can't waste my time with such uninformed people such as yourself.

Reb,

Can you read? Below is what Jody wrote earlier. I and others have said again and again that what certain people on the Left have done is WRONG. Put on your damned glasses and READ!

However, we are talking about what Rush Limbaugh did last week. The fact that you and ksw and others on the Right keep referring to what happened some months or years ago is a stark admission that you an apologist for Limbaugh's behavior. Furthermore, you are equating his behavior with what others have done and saying the behaviors are equally bad. They are not, and if you don't understand the difference it's useless to talk with you.

We have repeated these things ad nauseam and you can't get out of your own way to understand what's being said.

Reb, I would suggest you avoid getting your talking points on this subject from the sources who think such behavior is acceptable. Others have already responded regarding Maher, Matthews, Olbermann; none of them ever called any women the vile terms Rush Limbaugh spoke; none of them spent 3 straight days attacking a young, college student and all the other Georgetown women students. I'd suggest you check the facts about Ed Schultz. He made one unacceptable, nasty comment about Laura Ingraham lasting about 9 seconds on radio; he called her directly and apologized to her and she accepted his apology; he spent about 10 minutes on his MSNBC show apologizing and explaining what he had said and done and how sorry he was; then took a week's suspension without pay. Many liberals, myself included, posted on FR that Ed was wrong to have made the comment and whatever MSNBC chose to do would be deserved.

Just came in from the barn, and much to my amusement ksw says she is a woman.

Then let me say this, short and sweet, so you can get it.

Shame on you, for making this about anything else than Rush Limbaugh, who asked for women to post videotapes in exchange for their insurance premiums going for contraceptives.

You are far worse than I thought.

And Reb, having satellite means I can pick and choose the stations I want to pay for. Do you really not get that?

But, Reb, at the end of the day, it is right back to where you started..."Look what they OTHER guy said." No. Not this time.

We will deal with what Limbaugh said. ONLY.

And then there is this: the number of sponsors who have pulled their ads from Rush's show is now up to 33. . . and counting. Since these are mainstream capitalist companies, it is apparent that Reb and ksw are outside the mainstream--and on the wrong side of history.

@reb,

I never once heard anyone say it was "okay" to call ANY women "names"...only that there IS a DIFFERENCE between a "public figure" and a "private person"

Get OVER IT!

Jack, they are indeed, and so is Limbaugh! Have a good evening!

@Jack I hesitated to respond as this thread has gotten overly ridiculous but I think you need glasses now. Can you please point out where I supported Limbaugh or his sponsors or his show in any way? I think you see just what you want to as it suits your comments. I am not on the wrong side of history as I wholeheartedly agree this jacka$$ should be held accountable.

ksw62118

You are 100% correct.

If it's not what THEY want to talk about then it doesn't count. "We will deal with what Limbaugh said. ONLY as per NDD" I suggest you get back to the barn before all of the horses/cows get out.

We are not on the wrong side of history. Ours was a generic issue and they tried to make it political. We are apologists for Limbaugh's behavior but it seems via their logic that they are for their guys.

Jo-An Michelle Obama is a public figure so what is your point? You can slander public figures and it doesn't matter?

Damage123 would like you all to rush over and sign IStandWithRush.org because you have now fallen in line after having read an article by a far right blogger ... He is so cute, muddled in hope, but cute.

The proposition that insurance companies can be mandated to provide certain kinds of coverage is certainly not new, nor is it in any way "radical." Almost every state has statutes that require certain coverages in group health insurance plans. The federal government has COBRA, HIPAA, and other requirements for employer-provided health insurance.

What's phony here is the outrage from the right, as if this is something heretofore unheard of in the annals of private insurance law. It's not. And even when coverage is not mandated for certain prescription drugs, patients are permitted to apply for waivers, in this state at least, with evidence from their physician that the drug is medically necessary:

632.853 Coverage of drugs and devices. A health care plan, as defined in s. 628.36 (2) (a) 1., or a self-insured health plan, as defined in s. 632.85 (1) (c), that provides coverage of only certain specified prescription drugs or devices shall develop a process through which a physician may present medical evidence to obtain an individual patient exception for coverage of a prescription drug or device not routinely covered by the plan. The process shall include timelines for both urgent and nonurgent review.

So stop the phony baloney objections and just say what you really want to say and be done with it -- you and your fearless, sniveling Jabba the Hut leader want to keep women barefoot and pregnant and under your collective thumbs. Period.

By the way, exactly how does denying women birth control fit into the radical LGBTQ agenda? Last I heard, getting pregnant is not a probable outcome of sexual activity between consenting gay adults.

I think it's fair to say that -- at best -- you're mixing your metaphors.

Anna Molly wrote:

"What's phony here is the outrage from the right, as if this is something heretofore unheard of in the annals of private insurance law."

Dear me, Anna Molly. Anything the right heard more than 15 minutes ago, is for all intents and purposes - UNHEARD.

Anna Molly,

Good morning, Yes the tea party (formerly known as the GOP) are mixed up in lots of areas of their speech.

Still looking for a message that is coherent...fiscal conservative, no cultural warriors; need an energy plan, no it all about more military action in the Middle East; need to run government like a business, no run it like a theocracy ; I am a outsider, no I know how Washington works; need to reduce the deficit, no need to reduce the people who can vote;represent the middle class, no not if you are gay , a woman or person of color.

This article you presented MIGHT had held a little bit of credibility if it hadn't been posted directly above a tribute to Andrew Breitbart with a photograph of the king of hate along with the article's author. If figures Damage that you would get your quotes and information from hypocritical "religious" hate sites.

Perhaps you'd like to weigh in on the Free Exercise clause of the First Amendment- and the numerous cases- most recently, by nine to nothing decision of the SCOTUS- that exempts religious institutions, including schools, hospitals, and, in one case, a major newspaper- from Title VII?

Though not a lawyer, I could find only two cases wherein Free Exercise was found irrelevant- and both involved criminal activity. The reasoning in both cases was that, when criminal activity was involved, the rights of the community took preference. Therefore, human sacrifice would never be accepted due to the free exercise clause. Good for us.

If, however, a Jewish Community Center that serves the general public is free to fire a bookkeeper simply because a Jewish applicant showed up, or a major newspaper is allowed to TELL a job applicant that his application is not even being considered because he is not a member of the church- how can you possibly believe that the Court will allow this intrusion into Free Exercise?

Moreover, NO ONE is banning anyone from obtaining birth control. In fact, Planned Parenthood, on it's website, states that birth control has a monthly cost of between $15 and $50- not exactly a hardship, considering that is about the cost of unlimited texting on most cell phone plans.

Perhaps some workers will choose to work only for schools and hospitals that include birth control coverage, rather than those that do not. That is their choice.

Consider this, though- my son's law firm provides, as a benefit, compensation for public transportation. Does that imply that other firms that do not wish to ban public transportation?

This entire argument is nothing more than an attempt by the DNC to raise a wedge issue. Except on these boards,I see very little evidence that it is working.

Most people are still more concerned about the economy, jobs, and the debt.

Ah. I see, David. So, that probably explains why discussions with righties always remind me of the movie GROUNDHOG DAY, or even more like 50 FIRST DATES.

LoL Reminds me of a song ....

"O-o-over and over, what more can I do?"

Anna Molly, just because certain procedures are mandated in various states such as mammograms doesnt necessarily equate the two or make it equal. I know its convenient to attack those who are against mandating coverage for non medically necessary contraceptives as being against woman's health but if that were the case, wouldnt we all be attacking mandated mammograms too? Why not debate and explain why this isnt another freebie by the government pandering to woman voters? Why not debate the astute political tactic by Obama to make it about gender rather than economics? You know very well that Hippa and other mandated coverages are completely different than this issue. Manadating coverage for children to a certain age etc are economic issues too and you can argue whether its good government policy or not but that should be the debate. If you were so worried about gender issues, shouldnt you be arguing that the government should mandate coverage for Obstetrics? Employers choose to cover or not cover that but its not mandated? What about mandating coverage for AIDs medication? Or anti depressants or if its all about gender what about mandating genetic testing for breast cancer. Many insurance policies cover some of this but its not government mandated. Shouldnt you be worried about that more than lifestyle decisions like contraceptives?

no joe --

Perhaps you'd like to weigh in on the Free Exercise clause of the First Amendment- and the numerous cases- most recently, by nine to nothing decision of the SCOTUS- that exempts religious institutions, including schools, hospitals, and, in one case, a major newspaper- from Title VII?

You betcha, no joe. I'll be happy to.

First, no religious institution is TOTALLY exempt from Title VII. Only those employees who are involved in the actual religious -- i.e., "ministerial" -- work of the institution are not subject to the protections of Title VII.

Otherwise, churches, religious schools and hospitals, ARE subject to Title VII, as well as federal and state wage and hour laws. They are regulated for that purpose under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution, a co-equal clause with the First Amendment, which permits Congress to regulate commerce, unless some exception applies.

So, religious employers have NEVER had complete freedom from regulation by the federal government. It always depends.

Now as to the argument that they SHOULD have such freedom under the Free Exercise clause with respect to prescription drugs or any other medical procedures that they might object to as part of their insurance plans, there are several responses.

First, it is a pretty well established legal principle that, to the extent institutions accept federal funding in any way, they are subject to regulation within those funding parameters.

And also, consider this, which I believe to be the definitive answer in such cases -- in Garcetti v. Ceballos, the SCOTUS ruled that individual employees forfeit their First Amendment right to free speech in the public employment context, because in those cases, the employer is acting AS EMPLOYER, not as government. So, too, then, when a religious institution provides health insurance coverage to its employees, it does so as an ordinary garden-variety employer, not as a church or a religious school or a religious hospital. Just as employees forfeit THEIR First Amendment rights when they become public employees, so too, do religious employers forfeit theirs, when they are acting in their ordinary capacity as employer.

Under this principle, churches must pay non-ministerial employees minimum wage and cannot discriminate against them on any protected basis, including THEIR religion. Under this principle, there is no doctrinal support in the First Amendment to exempt such entities from providing mandated health insurance coverage -- at least to non-ministerial employees.

Does that about sum it up for you no joe?

The Catholic president of Georgetown University said this:

“She was respectful, sincere, and spoke with conviction. She provided a model of civil discourse,” DeGioia wrote in his e-mail. “And yet, some of those who disagreed with her position – including Rush Limbaugh and commentators throughout the blogosphere and in various other media channels – responded with behavior that can only be described as misogynistic, vitriolic, and a misrepresentation of the position of our student.”

heh eh heh

AM, you said annals,...damage is going to call you a sodomist now. hee hee

I kid; but the subject is not a joke. Many of us believe the deliberate discrimination of ALL citizens is a crime. Transgendered people are citizens who deserve the same benefits and protections as ALL other citizens. The fact that people think your GENDER is a choice just shows how completely uneducated and uninformed they are. Of course, I feel the need to defend damage. I don't think it is a choice that he doesn't have a fully functioning brain and that he was TAUGHT to hate any minority that didn't fit his narrative of normal. I shudder to think that there but for the grace of G-d goes any one of us - in the hate filled, warped 'norm' of being Damaged.

Kirk --

What about mandating coverage for AIDs medication? Or anti depressants or if its all about gender what about mandating genetic testing for breast cancer. Many insurance policies cover some of this but its not government mandated. Shouldnt you be worried about that more than lifestyle decisions like contraceptives?

One of your classic red herrings. Why must these things be mutually exclusive?

And what on earth continues to make you say that certain lifestyle decisions, like the use of hormonal birth control, should not be covered, while I don't hear your arguing that treatments for lung cancer or emphysema, caused by smoking, should not be covered.

Could the difference possibly be ... sexism?

Just remember this, Kirk. It isn't all that common for men to refuse to have sex with women because their women use hormonal birth control. As far as my own experience carries me, men are always more than willing to accept the benefits of birth control without making ANY phony baloney objections on the grounds of morality.

But keep it up, right wing men. You will soon be living proof that politics makes ESTRANGED bedfellows.

Don't assume that women like me aren't listening to you and others like you, Kirk. We surely are.

Well, AM, the court disagrees with you.

Read Feldstein v. Christian Science Monitor. Seems that as employers there is a different threshold. Has to do with how much money, how many board members, and how much "support", (other than financial), an employer is given by a church.

Under that threshold, this mandate will fail-.

This being the key passage, no joe --

Because I find that the Monitor is a religious activity of a religious organization, I find that it is permissible for the Monitor to apply a test of religious affiliation to candidates for employment.

The guy was applying for a job as a reporter for a religious newspaper that the IRS had declared to be nothing more than a journalistic outlet for the church. A reporter's work would necessarily implicate the religious viewpoint of the church.

By the way, this is a US District Court case, not a Supreme Court case, and it's nearly 30 years old.

In a subsequent decision, citing Feldstein, another court said this:

However, no court has made funding an essential criteria, or even named it as the most important of the many criteria examined.

http://www.paed.uscourts.gov/documents/opinions/05d0220p.pdf

In that case the court noted that other cases have come out differently --

In Fike v. United Methodist Children’s Home, 547 F. Supp. 286 (E.D. Va. 1982), aff’d 709 F.2d 284 (4th Cir. 1983), a nominally Methodist children’s home was found not entitled to the § 702 exemption because “as far as the direction given the day-to-day life for the children is concerned, it is practically devoid of religious content or training as such.” 709 F.2d at 290.

This article may be instructive as to the scope of the Section 702 exemption --

http://www.skadden.com/content/Publications/Publications1379_0.pdf

Second, the exemption only applies with respect to employment decisions regarding hiring and firing of employees based on religion. Religious organizations that decide to hire individuals with other religious beliefs cannot choose to discriminate against those individuals with regard to wages or other benefits that the organization provides to employees. EEOC, Notice No. N-915, Religious Organization Exemption Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (1987).

Finally, the §702 exemption covers only religion-based discrimination and does not allow qualifying organizations to discriminate on the basis of race, sex, color, national origin or age. See Fremont Christian Schools v. EEOC, 781 F.2d 1362 (9th Cir. 1986) (“[R]ather than creating a blanket exception...section 702 is simply a means of acknowledging the right of [a religious] institution to employ individuals who share common religious beliefs.”); EEOC, Notice No. N-915.

It should be noted, however, that a number of federal and state courts have recognized a broader “ministerial exception” to Title VII which prevents any interference with the relationship between a religious institution and its clergy. As articulated by the Fifth Circuit in McClure v. Salvation Army, 460 F.2d 553 (5th Cir. 1972), applying any of Title VII’s protections to such relationship “would result in an encroachment by the State into an area of religious freedom which it is forbidden to enter by the principles of the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment.” Id at 558 (holding that a female minister of Salvation Army who was paid less than similarly situated male employees could not maintain sex discrimination claim under Title VII).

Who Qualifies?

While the scope of the §702 exemption is largely settled, the question of who qualifies for it is not. The statute does not define what constitutes “a religious corporation, association, educational institution, or society.” Rather, “[a]ll significant religious and secular characteristics must be weighed to determine whether the corporation’s purpose and character are primarily religious.” EEOC v. Townley Eng. & Mfg. Co., 859 F.2d 610, 618 (9th Cir. 1988).

The organizations which courts have found to qualify for the §702 exemption have by and large been either formal houses of worship or entities affiliated with such. See, e.g., Amos, 483 U.S. at 327 (nonprofit gymnasium operated by religious entities associated with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints); Hopkins v. Women’s Div., Gen. Bd. of Global Ministries, 238 F.Supp. 174 (D.D.C. 2002) (an affiliated auxiliary of the United Methodist Church); Little v. Wuerl, 929 F.2d 944 (3rd Cir. 1991) (a parish-operated Roman Catholic school). On the other hand, defendant organizations not owned or operated by a formal house of worship have generally not qualified for the exemption, even where the organizations were founded based on religious principles, engage in religious activities or have boards of trustees comprised of church members ....

The LeBoon court set forth nine factors that courts have looked at over the years to determine if an employer is a religious organization qualifying for the §702 exemption, including whether:

(1) the entity operates for a profit, (2) it produces a secular product, (3) its articles of incorporation or other pertinent documents state a religious purpose, (4) it is owned, affiliated with or financially supported by a formally religious entity such as a church or synagogue, (5) a formally religious entity participates in its management, (6) it holds itself out to the public as secular or sectarian, (7) it regularly includes prayer or other forms of worship in its activities, (8) it includes religious instruction in its curriculum, to the extent it is an educational institution, and (9) its membership is made up by coreligionists.

The court stated that not all factors are relevant in all cases, and the weight given each factor may vary from case to case ....

In Catholic Charities v. the Diocese of Albany, 7 NY3d 510 (2006), the Court of Appeals unanimously rejected the argument of 10 faith-based social service organizations that they should be exempt on religious freedom grounds.

As I said, it depends.

Anna Molly, no its not about sexism. I have a wife that gets the benefits in Illinois and two adult daughters, one still in college and covered by Illinois mandated coverage. Its not about sexism and you know it. How are my questions a red herring? Of course they are not mutually exclusive but thats the point isnt it? From the beginning I have said this is an economic issue and not a gender issue. If you want to argue that its good goverment policy to mandate contraceptive coverage and increase the employer's cost for insurance benefits, that is a perfectly fine argument but it doesnt mean that someone who thinks that employers shouldnt be required to cover it is sexist. There is a gigantic beyond belief difference between some sort of life threatening illness being covered (by the way I dont even know if lung cancer coverage for smokers is mandated by the goverment. Is it?) and non medically necessary contraceptives. I have nothing against birth control and I have no issue with the morality issue and have never brought it up.

Not sure about women listening to people like me comment because you keep trying to make this about gender and you know very well it isnt. We could be having this same debate about Xanax and it, Cialis or any other drug and we could discuss whether it should be mandated for free coverage. I know its convenient to make assumptions about me which you constantly do but it seems like make all your debates about the emotion rather than the economics as if there is the money tree in which every decision doesnt have economic consequences most of them unintended or sometimes just as bad or worse on the people your adovocated policy is supposed to help.

Try LeBoon v. Lancaster Jewish Community Center. You are attempting, it seems to misapply Lemon- that the 702 exemption in Title VII applies only to churches.

In case after case, the Court has held that it does not.

LeBoon, by the way, contended she was fired for being an evangelical Christian, rather than Jewish. She lost- despite the community center serving both Jews and non-Jews, and despite their receiving funds from the United Way and other secular organizations.

The Court seems to have a lot more respect for the Free Exercise clause than do you and Obama. Rail all you will- this case is already filed. Obama is going to lose.

Again.

By the way, in both the New York and California cases, (which were decided by state law), the religious organizations chose, for economic reasons, to drop ALL prescription coverage, rather than to violate their religious beliefs, or to access the federal courts.

Had they chosen to pursue those cases, we would, in all likelihood, not be having this conversation- as the matter would have been settled.

Or, maybe not. Obama has not shown much respect for the Constitution during his tenure- seems to believe it must move to accommodate him, rather than his accommodating it.

UNHEARD. Yep. It's called selective hearing. They have it down to an art form but really it's a medical condition all in their head.

Religious institutions should have little to fear seeing as SCOTUS is 6 Catholics and 3 Jews. A couple of Atheists in the mix are needed.

You'll note that the portion of the article I quoted specifically cites the LeBoon factors, No Joe.

But the fact is that I don't care what one US district court judge said in 1983 on an unrelated issue.

We're talking about the provision of health insurance here, and for religious institutions that DO hire non-members, a category into which many hospitals and schools and other religious-related non-profits fit.

You'll also note from my post that the devil EEOC agrees with my position on the health insurance issue. Where religion is not a hiring criterion, an employer cannot then discriminate on that basis in providing wages or benefits to the non-member employees that it hires.

EEOC, Notice No. N-915, Religious Organization Exemption Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (1987).

Why? Because as to those employees, it is acting strictly as an employer.

You might also be interested in this analysis:

http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1809&context=key_workplace&sei-redir=1&referer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2Furl%3Fsa%3Dt%26rct%3Dj%26q%3Deeoc%2520notice%2520n-915%26source%3Dweb%26cd%3D6%26ved%3D0CFIQFjAF%26url%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fdigitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu%252Fcgi%252Fviewcontent.cgi%253Farticle%253D1809%2526context%253Dkey_workplace%26ei%3DNFdWT4-iFMfqggee3uyCCw%26usg%3DAFQjCNFAouPfBkgt-Z2UzhvjpyCSOvNldg%26sig2%3DkApW_k5nyMDQzrfMVQLt_g#search=%22eeoc%20notice%20n-915%22

Furthermore, the exemptions in Title VII appear to apply only with respect to employment decisions regarding hiring and firing of employees based on religion. Once an organization makes a decision to employ an individual, the organization may not discriminate on the basis of religion regarding the terms and conditions of employment, including compensation, benefits, privileges, etc. In other words, religious organizations that decide to hire individuals with other religious beliefs cannot later choose to discriminate against those individuals with regard to wages or other benefits that the organization provides to employees.

(emphasis added)

See you around, no joe.

And before I go, a little support from the same article cited above for the "ministerial exception" that I mentioned above. These cases are a little more recent, no joe.

The judicially created “ministerial exception,” as this protection has become known, reconciles Title VII with the Free Exercise Clause by allowing religious organizations to select clergy without regard to any of Title VII’s restrictions but requires that employment decisions made regarding other positions within the organization comply with Title VII’s requirements or exemptions.24

24.Each of the nine circuit courts to consider the ministerial exception has recognized the exception to some extent. See, e.g., Petruska v. Gannon Univ., 462 F.3d 294, 303-04 (3rd Cir. 2006) (citing EEOC v. Roman Catholic Diocese of Raleigh, 213 F.3d 795 (4th Cir. 2000); Combs v. Central Texas Annual Conf. of the United Methodist Church, 173 F.3d 343 (5th Cir. 1999); Hollins v. Methodist Healthcare, 474 F.3d 223, 226 (6th Cir. 2007); Alicea-Hernandez v. Catholic Bishop of Chicago, 320 F.3d 698 (7th Cir. 2003); Scharon v. St. Luke’s Episcopal Presbyterian Hosp., 929 F.2d 360 (8th Cir. 1991); Elvig v. Calvin Presbyterian Church, 375 F.3d 951 (9th Cir. 2004); Gellington v. Christian Methodist Episcopal Church, 203 F.3d 1299 (11th Cir. 2000); EEOC v. Catholic Univ. Of Amer., 83 F.3d 455 (D.C. Cir. 1996)). Petruska explains that whether an employee qualifies for the ministerial exception depends on “the function of the position. As a general rule, an employee will be considered a minister if her primary duties include teaching, spreading the faith, church governance, supervision of a religious order, or supervision of participation in religious ritual and worship.” Petruska, 462 F.3d at 304, footnote 6 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).

(emphasis added)

OREO!!! Are those the same cookies that Black liberals threw at Michael Steele when he was running for the Maryland senate? (You get it, right?...they threw Oreos at him because, being a Black Repub, he's "white" on the inside). Wow, gotta love those liberals.

Damage, you are one in a million. Only you could take a simple happy birthday to a great cookie and make it an ugly political statement. What's wrong? Don't like Oreos? One of my favorite things to do is eat Oreos with my granddaughter. I feel sorry for you.

I love Oreos! Don't feel sorry for me. Feel sorry that a Black man can't choose to think for himself and be a conservative without being "accused" of being "white" on the inside, which apparently is a really, really bad thing, according to Black libs.

Yeah Damage is done. He/she has joined my short list of ignore. Offers nothing of value at all....nothing.

Look out, Joe66! Here come the bricks!

I now have the Oreo cookie song in my head "Ice cold milk and an Oreo cookie......." I shall be singing it all day!

I keep Damage on "Ignoring author." However, from time to time I take a peek to see how the crazy one is doing, and it looks like someone has been living in that basement a little to long.

(I need a) Job1- You couldn't put me on ignore if I promised you 10 years worth of entitlements and a Barack Obama tie clasp.

I keep the batsh!t crazies like Damage on ignor. Poor Damage is sadly badly damaged and I refuse to even read his kind of hate BS.

I enjoy conversations with someone from the other side who has at least a couple brain cells to rub together.

Love America? Vote Obama/Biden 2012

Remember, if Mitt Romney sees his shadow it means 6 more weeks of the Primary Campaign!!!

That's Great!

Good one, Da Noid!

But frothy!

In the same interview yesterday, Barbara Bush also said "I hate that people think compromise is a dirty word,” she said. “It’s not a dirty word.”

Proof that some of the Bush's have brains! So odd that we don't hear a peep from/about her son. Maybe the GOP ordered George W. to remain silent...ya know, out of sight, out of mind? Yeah, right. Let George W's mother do all the talking - she's much better at it!

Maybe Jeb Bush will campaign and say----not the brother of George but Barbara's son! She has always made the most sense in that family.

It seems Barbara Bush has the same impression of the GOP that many of us do. A party that has lost its collective mind.

Steeler, wouldn't surprise me to see Jeb do that. I still don't think the country will be ready to embrace another Bush in 2016 any more than 2012--he's got his own baggage with Terry Schiavo, the 2000 hanging chads and fight against a total recount, not to mention George W being the elephant in his suitcase.

That's what their trying to do Job1. The tea people GOP Koch republicans are waiting to see which candidate is best at bowing at and kissing the feet of Limbaugh. But it's fun for the rest of us to watch grown men licking his boots.

Joe66, they call that cutting off your nose to spit your face.

Obama just hasn't done a good job

And you think the do nothing tea people GOP Koch republicans have. What world do you live in Joe?

Mo-1852032

Name us 2 things Obama has done and handouts dont count and the Navy seals killed Bin Laden. We all listening .

Remember Joe. Obama's campaign stump speech is gonna be (Noun) (verb) bin Laden.

Joe66...what is it with you guys always forgetting to mention that our Commander in Chief gave the Navy Seals the order to go in and kill Bin Laden? Go ahead and vote the way you want, but give credit where credit is due.

I keep Damage on "Ignoring author." However, from time to time I take a peek to see how the crazy one is doing, and it looks like someone has been living in that basement a little to long.

K2mn, I think Obama reminds us enough that "he killed Bin Laden". Funny though, every time I hear him say it the image of that published photo of him, Hillary, and other staff watching the mission in real time comes into my head. It's pretty comical really. I bet if they expanded the photo to include the floor, you'd probably see a puddle. And it wouldn't be under Hillary's seat! I don't think Seal Team 6 will take him on their next mission.

Well, Joe, maybe you should check your tax rate; President Obama cut taxes for you. He saved the auto industry and the millions of jobs that are part of it. He brought the country back from the brink of a Great Depression. Then there's the Lilly Ledbetter equal pay for equal work law but then you're a man so what do you care. Then there's the fact that the Christmas Day Bomber was tried and sentenced to life in prison not to mention Osama bin Laden and many other terrorists have met their maker. Don't forget, he re-regulated the financial system to prevent another 2008. He signed the most sweeping addition to Veteran's benefits since the GI Bill. And Health care reform which means your insurance company can never cancel your health care even if you become ill, never prevent you from getting insurance because you have a pre-existing condition, eliminated the life-time cap on health insurance payments so if you become seriously ill the insurance company can't cut off your care, free annual physical exams without a co-pay and no charge preventive cancer screenings and that's just a few of the good things in ACA. He brought the troops home from Iraq, is winding the war down in Afghanistan. He repealed DADT bringing the US military in line with every other civilized country. Etc etc etc.

Here's a thought, Joe, put aside your political ideology and actually look at what he has done instead of listening to those who say he hasn't done anything because guess what, they lie. Try this web site, Obamaachievements.org and there's plenty of sites to find what he has done if you don't like that one. Or you could just go to WhiteHouse.org, they have a list of legislation passed and signed by President Obama.

Houston---turns out Bain Capital is part of the ownership of Clear Channel---think that had anything to do with Mitt's responses?

Houston, short comment but truth doesn't need more than a couple lines.

Romney showed yesterday just how little courage he has. As George Will said, these candidates are ready to bomb Iran but they're scared of Rush Limbaugh.

Steeler Fan, Bain Capital also owns Outback Steakhouse. In Florida, Outback is lobbying to have the minimum wage for waiters cut in half from $4.65 to $2.13 per hour. This is crazy, how can a person live on $17.04 for an 8-hour shift?

Jody---I will miss enjoying a bloomin onion at Outback but will spend my dining out budget where the profits are fairly earned and have no chance of going into Mitt Romney's pockets.

Jody,

I used to like going to the Outback occasionally, but you've just spoiled my appetite for what they sell there. Thanks!

K2- If Obama announces tomorrow that he plans to use air strikes against Syria, you will be 100% in favor of it.

...and the GOP would be against it.

I have not agreed with everything President Obama has done in these three years and have written/called the White House and my State representatives about my disagreements. Have you, Damage123? And IF our Commander in Chief decided to go to war, at least I would know that a lot of serious, intelligent thoughts went into such a decision. And, by the way, the name you chose to use fits you well, all that hate and fear must be hard to carry around. The only person you're damaging is yourself.

Hey Damaged---Thanks for being against the Patriot act and for the closing of Gitmo.

Not a chance that the GOP would be against anything having to do with making money off of killing people. It is their biggest business. And Damage, you need a towel son. You're wet right there behind your ears. No, the left does not think the "Patriot Act" is not a problem, but let's remember who brought us that legislation and keep in mind with the current congress, no way we can get rid of it. I do not remember us getting involved in any way in Egypt other than encouraging a despot to step down. Gitmo, you will kindly remember that Obama tried to close it, and was prevented from doing so by republicans in congress. You are a waste of space and air dude, you blind yourself to facts, you spew hate instead of discourse, you have no solutions to any problem, you just grumble like a 10 year old who cannot come up with language to express himself that isn't inflammatory. Or maybe you, like Limbaugh and ilk intend to inflame. In that case, you SHOULD be ignored by all.

Hey Charles. I'm not. Thanks for being yet another liberal hypocrite who said Bush was a Nazi for The Patriot Act and Gitmo, but now they are A-OK under Obama.

Hey Amused, aren't you that clown yesterday who used that tired, old liberal cliche' "I'm more afraid of American Christians than I am of Muslims?" Was that you? You care to tell me the last time a Presbyterian flew a plane into a skyscraper and yelled "I love Jesus!" How about a Lutheran suicide bomber killing in the name of Jesus? Can you do it?

The lapsed Catholic and Atheist Tim McVeigh doesn't count. He didn't commit his atrocity in the name of his Atheism. He did it out of hate. George Tiller the dead abortionist? He wasn't killed. He was merely aborted in his 234th trimester. C'mon, Amused. Give me some good examples of why you are afraid of Christians more than Islamofacists. Something besides the same ol' liberal, PC, "feel-good" BS you people spout when usually asked this.

Because Damage, Liberals think if you leave them be they won't hurt you. They want to be friends with the radicals. I'm all about peace, but when you have a group who's sole purpose is to kill you, then there's a problem.

as a disclaimer, a group is not a religion, because I know you nut jobs will use my post as something religious.

Holly, I couldn't agree more.

Speaking of cutie pie little Ann Romney, she was just charming in her fox interview saying she really doesn't consider herself wealthy. Good grief, what does it take for the Romney's to accept they are educated wealthy 'snobs'.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/ann-romney-eve-super-tuesday-wealthy-article-1.1033788

Shultz was suspended from his show for a week without pay. MSNBC saw that what he did was beyond the pale of professional journalism, even though it had to do with another public figure (the one who thought democrats should only be addressed with a baseball bat, among other vile gems).

There was no such admission of impropriety with Rush, even though he was slandering a private citizen on a national stage.

Neither is good, but Rush's slander combined with the facts that he was dealing with a private citizen doing nothing but voicing a widely held opinion and that he refused to apologize or even retract his statements makes the world of difference.

Shultz was suspended and he ACTUALLY MEANT IT when he apologized, unlike Rush!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P1mQS3zxPF4

psst,...Schultz also apologized. sincerely. Not three days later, under pressure. Oh,...and Ingram HAS a public forum to address her issues.

Fluke is a private citizen being slandered and having her testimony deliberately misstated and misrepresented.

Aren't there LAWS about that?

Schultz made his comment on his radio show (not on MSNBC) but went to MSNBC about it, made a sincere public apology as well as a private one and accepted an unpaid suspension. All over 1 remark about another public figure. Contrast to Rush who used derogatory language, made misstatements and requested sex tapes for THREE days, then issued under pressure a non-apology apology. There is no equivalence there.

It is all about the free enterprise system. Rush can say whatever he wants (legally) but I don't have to support the advertisers who give him the forum to say it. And I am free to tell those advertisers how I feel. Don't Republicans admire the free enterprise system? THey are always accusing us liberals of tearing it down. Well--we're supporting it here.

The GOP's Wars? This is "borrowed" from an earlier poster.

Get your head out of the sand, these are the people you support and what they said about WMD's. Truth hurts when it hits you in the face.
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998
"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
--Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
--Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by:
-- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
-Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998
"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
-- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999
"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by:
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001
"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."
-- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
-- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002
"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002
"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002
"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do"
-- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
-- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002
"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

Thanks Dahly for supporting the Sen. Obama s vote against invading Iraq.

Obama wasn't a US Senator during that vote.....so therefore..he has NO record on going to war in Iraq.

Per Wikipedia:

He won election to the U.S. Senate in Illinois in November 2004.

O.K., Dahly why don't you be good enough to post what Republicans leaders were saying at the same time? Maybe because you already know what they say?

Mushroom Cloud comes to mind

Yellow Cake Uranium

The 'evidence' was Compelling (and manufactured) and it cost Valerie Plame her job.

Treason? nah,...not when the GOP does it,...then the ends justify the means.

PS. President Obama was NOT in the US Senate for that vote. He was, however, a very outspoken OPPONENT to the trumped up War in Iraq.

GOP/Democrats voted together to go to war. Unlike Pres. Obama, GWB went before congress for authorization. Obama acts on his own, answering to no one. His supporters are so blind with hatred that others would actually expect them to be responsible for their own life and personal situation, they have given him a pass every time. Sleep well.....

And before Bush signed the tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 only 25% paid no Federal income tax and that was with strong employment. Now we have nearly 20% of workers either unemployed or underemployed thus they do not earn enough to pay taxes.

They pay nothing because they make nothing. It's not hard to not pay taxes when your employer doesn't pay a livable wage and buys a political party so it can make sure it never has to. Another right wing troll who cannot put two and two together and figure out what happened. Just listen to fox and parrot the lies and nonsense.

Thanks Dahly for your Christian compassion.

Dahly -

My mother is one of those you mention who does not pay federal income tax. When I became her power of attorney last year I checked with both my own tax preparer and with the IRS to be sure I didn't need to file a return for her. Mom is 80. She's legally blind and confined to a wheelchair from a stroke several years ago and a broken hip a year and a half ago. She's in the early stages of senility. Her monthly income - Social Security and the small pension she receives from her career as a hospice nurse - does not even cover her monthly bill at the modest assisted living home where she lives, let alone her 12 prescription drug co-pays, hospital co-pays, phone bill, etc. I'm stretching her life savings as far as I can and supplementing it with my own savings to keep her safe and cared for. I usually vote early too, because I too have to work harder and longer to support her. I'm 60 years old and have been working since I was 17. I work a lot of late nights and weekends and rarely take vacations because I'm a single woman and I have a mortgage to pay.

So tell me.....what specific jobs do you believe Mom is "fully capable but unwiling to work" at? And how much harder do you think this "so-called Progressive" should be working to support her? Details, please.....

P.S. - And I mean this - good for you for at least voting today. I suspect many of those on here who complain the loudest have never actually bothered.

@Dahly,

THEY are the called WORKING POOR! They live at or below poverty level!

JoAnne--{{{hugs}}} to you and your mom. If your mom had any income left after paying for the basics of care, I'm sure she would be glad to pay taxes on it. You must have income to pay taxes.

I'm not disputing that there are people not working who could---we have always had those in our society. But many more would be grateful for work that paid a living wage and would be happy to pay income taxes on it. Of course, they are paying sales tax (as is your mom), employment taxes, state and local tax, gasoline tax. It is easier for those on the right to condemn them than to say "there but for the grace of God go I."

They pay nothing because they make nothing

And you can thank the hapless President Obama for that!

So, Rob,

They pay nothing because they make nothing

this is a "NEW" phenomenon?

Sheeeesh, short term memory loss???

Joann in pa for everyone of you there are dozens of others who's parents transfer assets to their kids and avoid having to pay for long term care in assisted living facilities or nursing homes. The Medicaid bill in my state runs roughly $6,000 a month for nursing home care. I thought you all were for paying your fair share.

Estate planning (screwing taxpayers) is big business here in Massachusetts.

this is a "NEW" phenomenon?

Relatively "new". Back when Reagan and Bush I were president only 22% of Americans did not pay any income tax.

Rob -

It works both ways. For every person (Republicans and Democrats AND the 50% of Americans who don't vote at all) who figures out a way to scam the system, there are a dozen more like me who not only pay our own share but are struggling to help other family members.

Generalizations and stereotypes like the ones made by you and Dahly demonstrate not only a lack of compassion, as charles pendexter points out above, but a willful disregard of the facts.

Steeler Fan - My Mom's the one who deserves the hugs. She worked from the time my brothers and I were all in school, first as a bank teller, then as an activities director at local nursing homes before finally having the chance to go to college when she was 46 and earning her R.N. degree and later her oncology certification. I suspect she's paid a lot more in taxes over the years than most people who come here to complain about her sucking "their" money away.

P.S. - Did I mention that despite having raised me to be the liberal that I am today, Mom is now a dyed-in-the-wool, Rush Limbaugh worshipping Republican? It's okay, I love her anyway......

Rob and just look at where the republican war on the poor has led us. To even more poor people who can't pay taxes cause they don't earn enough money.

What is the republican answer to all the poor people not making enough to pay taxes, make them pay taxes anyway and have them have even less money so that they can pay for Romney to have even bigger tax cuts.

If you think more homelessness, more starvation, no social security, no medicare, no right to contraception, no rights to education, no rights to choice about your own body, no rights to clean air and water, no right to say no to state mandated rape, raising your taxes to pay for tax cuts for billionaires and no health care is your dream for the future well vote for a republican because they have the same dream.

Generalizations and stereotypes like the ones made by you and Dahly demonstrate not only a lack of compassion, as charles pendexter points out above, but a willful disregard of the facts.

Joann,

Generalizations? I'm a nursing home administrator. I have seen countless people of wealth bury their money and have their parent convert to mass health. Even with the look back period people with money plan ahead.

What is the republican answer to all the poor people not making enough to pay taxes,

AM,

for you I will use a generalization. Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day. Teach him to fish and he will eat everyday. Or something like that. Dependency and entitlements are not the answer. Conservatism, teaching self reliance is the solution.

The republicans while they are at it want to cut education so that teaching self reliance never happens.

Republicans always seem to have a bumper sticker talking point but no real answers to our countries problems.

Obama/Biden 2012

Throwing money at it has been wasteful with no measureable improvement. Money is not the answer. Teacher accountability is something that need more oversight.

But isn't tranferring assets, within the minimum time guidelines, a perfectly acceptable way to protect your wealth? Just like it acceptable for the rich to avoid losing any money through the perfectly legal and acceptable means of tax avoidance.

I grew up in a very poor urban environment. Both my parents worked very hard and instilled in my five brothers and myself, self respect and self responsibility. We worked very at our studies and worked very hard after school too. After graduation, we all took any job we could find and went to school in our off hours. We all learned from our employers and eventually started our own business'. I employ 48 people and turn over is virtually non-existent. I gave 12.2% to charity last year. I also volunteer at least 10 hours a week, every week for the past 30 years helping children escape the cycle of poverty so called "Progressives" have sentenced them too. Where as "Progressives" continue to give a fish, I teach them how to fish and they go on to running their own boat and providing for themselves and family. What do you give of your time and money to help others? Or are you just all lip?

@Rob,

You said it!

Since Bush & Reagan started the wonderful "trickle down economics" the poor have gotten poorer, and the RICH have gotten RICHER! So, don't go blaming OBAMA for this, cause it STARTED long before he came into office!

And, anyone that thought Obama had a magic wand, and could turn the country around in 3 short years is ridiculous!

Rob and Dahly - that fish analogy never fails to make me wonder - why does the "give him a fish/teach him to fish" argument always have to be an either/or choice? If we have more fish than we can ever eat ourselves, what's the harm in giving a guy who is starving enough of our leftovers to help him build up his strength? But then who's going to teach him to fish when we keep cutting educational funding and refuse to invest in job training? And if despite that he does persevere and learn how to fish, how do we help him to compete with the big corporate fishing fleets who want to put him out of business? Which big bank is going to have enough faith in his potential to loan him the money to buy that first boat? And where does he go to fish when we eliminate all of the environmental regulations and we have another BP disaster happen and NOBODY can fish for months and months on end?

It sounds so simple when you say "teach him to fish". In reality, it's anything but.

And Dahly - I respect your work ethic and that of your family. All I'm asking is that you respect mine as well.

Mentally and physically certainly are not part of those who can and chose not to work. It escapes me why that needs to be mentioned every time? Poverty levels, though growing horrifically under President Obama are under 18%. 9% of those living in poverty are either too drugged up or drunk to work, so they are excluded too. The majority of those left either dropped out of High School, had children out of wedlock, children under age 18 or two or all three. My volunteer work is with preteens and teenagers who desire a successful life. We help with homework, securing jobs and mentor their development. Most, not all, become productive, responsible citizens. A dollar just goes so far. Taxes on most of us that are taxed are oppressive. So many people with their hands out when they should and could be working at something, anything. The "Progressives" enable this strife. My friends and I ask nothing of no one and do it all ourselves. We have been successful, thankfully. If more people got off their soap box and spent their time and their money, much more would be accomplished. Enough for now....

Since Bush & Reagan started the wonderful "trickle down economics" the poor have gotten poorer,

Actually, you have to go back futher to the Great Society that was catalyst for our downward spiral. Obama is nothing more than the Great Society Part Two!

Dahly, I live just off 8 mile and John R in Detroit. My life story runs very similar to yours, only I joined the military at 17 (delayed enlistment). The rest is very similar, I decided to become an emergency foster parent (most people avoid this) I get and have gotten knocks at the door at 2am to which I open the door to police officers or Child services with a child and a bag of clothes or a teddy bear. The children stay for up to 2 or 3 months while they go through the court either removal of custody or replacement. The small amount that the states give is returned in clothing and toys kept in the child's room so they dont feel isolated(even though they do anyways). I consider my self a real independent, but most here call me a tea bagger or a RWNJ because I disagree with this administration and some of its decisions.

• Boycott Rush: Netflix, Clear Channel, LifeLock Targeted As Controversy Swells

I did my part. I cancelled HBO because of Bill Maher. Not sure why you pick on Rush when Bill said something much worse.