How Do You Like It Now, Republicans?

[Ulaven_Demorte]

Anyone catch the closing price on Carbonite?




*snicker*

The "Conservative Not Republican" talking point of the day. Carbonite yanked it's ads from Limbaugh's show and their stock went down!

Is it time for a lesson in causation and correlation vs. coincidence? You supposedly have a degree in mathematics to go along with your masters in partisan ideological bullshit.

Surely you can cipher this one out.

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

I don't see a lot of independent libertarians giving Obama PACs a million dollars...



Rush Limbaugh is just an entertainer like Stewert, Colbert and Maher...

Only with an audience.

Using your "logic" from the snark carbonite post one could say that it's because there simpy aren't a lof of independent libertarian millionaires.

Limbaugh has a larger audience? Yet another nail in the coffin of the "Liberal Media" meme.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Carbonite has competitors and was advertising on Limbaugh's show because that's where the money and credibility was, but their friends at Moveon.org leaned on them...

They willingly surrendered that audience to their competition.

Hey, it's still a free country.




Funny thing is though, none of those people pulled out of the Ed Schultz show...



... even though he used the 's' word.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

How can you kill the Liberal Media?

They run the networks and NPR.

Their talk shows fail only because of all the competition from the above, Maher, Stewart, Colbert, Snookie...,

“I used to think the left wing was the home of tolerance, open-mindedness, respect for all viewpoints…
But, now I’ve learned the truth the hard way.“
Juan Williams

The big lesson for me [working at NPR] was the intolerance of so-called liberals. I say intolerance because I grew up as a black Democrat in Brooklyn, N.Y., and always thought it was the Archie Bunker Republicans who practiced intolerance. My experience at NPR revealed to me how rigid liberals can be when their orthodoxy is challenged. I was the devil for simply raising questions, offering a different viewpoint, not shutting my mouth about the excesses of liberalism — a bad guy, a traitor to the cause.
Juan Williams

 

[doctor_insanus]

"Limbaugh is just an entertainer." We're certainly being beaten over the head with that little nugget.

Face it. The GOP has gotten its marching orders from an "entertainer" for the last 20 years, and now he's marched them right off a cliff.

 

[JohnnySavage]

I hear on C-Span that Joe the Plumber won last night.

Not thread worthy, but interesting.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

You kill the liberal media by leaving them alone.

The liberal choir is small, and liberal media locks the doors to all but their choirs.

Media is entertainment, and AMEN! 24/7 aint entertaining.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

"Limbaugh is just an entertainer." We're certainly being beaten over the head with that little nugget.

Face it. The GOP has gotten its marching orders from an "entertainer" for the last 20 years, and now he's marched them right off a cliff.

No. The GOPs problem is its RINO wing. Unlike Democrats RINOs wanna keep their money, and like Democrats they appreciate your average sailors ass. Their loafers make a lighter impression in the sand than other Republicans.

So the GOP is poised for anuther purification season, to expel RINOs like Romney.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

I hear on C-Span that Joe the Plumber won last night.

Not thread worthy, but interesting.

We have a thread.

The downside is that had Dennis won, it would have been a real interesting mash-up!

 

[JohnnySavage]

We have a thread.

The downside is that had Dennis won, it would have been a real interesting mash-up!

I didn't see it. But I have everyone on ignore but you. And me.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

I didn't see it. But I have everyone on ignore but you. And me.

You're a better man than me because I have you on ignore too!

 

[miles]

"Limbaugh is just an entertainer." We're certainly being beaten over the head with that little nugget.

Face it. The GOP has gotten its marching orders from an "entertainer" for the last 20 years, and now he's marched them right off a cliff.

Now i understand your Lit handle.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Mikulski was responding to a bill, narrowly rejected by the Senate, that would have exempted employers and insurers from medical coverage mandates to which they object on moral or religious grounds. "The Senate will not allow women's health care choices to be taken away from them," declared Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.).

It's a mystery how revising a mandate that has not yet gone into effect takes any kind of choice away from anyone. But for Fluke, who spoke to a group of House Democrats last month on behalf of Georgetown Law Students for Reproductive Justice, free birth control at someone else's expense is a straightforward matter of gender equality.

Although Fluke chose to attend a Jesuit university knowing that its student health plan did not cover contraceptives, she believes it is unfair that she has to live with the consequences of that decision. "We refuse to pick between a quality education and our health," she said, "and we resent that, in the 21st century, anyone thinks it’s acceptable to ask us to make this choice simply because we are women."

Fluke claimed that "without insurance coverage, contraception can cost a woman over $3,000 during law school," which translates into $1,000 a year, or about $83 a month. Even taking into account the cost of a medical appointment, that estimate seems high, since you can buy a month's worth of birth control pills for less than $20 online or pay $9 for generic versions at Walmart. Condoms are about 50 cents each in packs of 12, and the amortized cost of a diaphragm, according to Planned Parenthood, averages about $2 a month.

Yet Fluke reported that two-fifths of female law students at Georgetown are "struggling" to pay for birth control, while some cannot afford it at all. If so, abstinence is always an option.

Cost aside, the essence of Fluke's argument is that reproductive freedom requires free birth control. By the same logic, religious freedom requires kosher food subsidies, freedom of speech requires taxpayer-funded computers, and the right to keep and bear arms requires government-supplied guns.

If you do not agree with this reasoning, according to a recent fundraising appeal from House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on behalf of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, you are joining "Republicans' disgraceful assault on women’s rights." I am not now, nor have I ever been, a Republican, but Fluke's idea of "reproductive justice"—compelling other people to pay for her contraceptives, even when they object to that requirement for religious reasons—strikes me as decidedly unjust.

Last week Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius said "the Obama administration believes that decisions about medical care should be made by a woman and her doctor, not a woman and her boss." Yet her boss not only retained the market-distorting, price-inflating tax policies that create an artificial incentive for employer-provided health insurance; he made the connection between employment and medical coverage mandatory, then decreed exactly what it would include, thereby precipitating this whole controversy. If President Obama does not want employers involved in medical coverage, why is he forcing them to be?

Jacob Sullum
Reason.com (Libertarian, you know MAHER's peeps...)

"If a mandate was the solution, we can try that to solve homelessness by mandating everybody to buy a house."
Famous "Activist" Constitutional Law Professor Barack Hussein Obama, 2008

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

More Libertarianism:

Suppose a lot of companies in the U.S. started offering car insurance as a benefit of employment. Then suppose Congress passed a law requiring all companies to do so. And then suppose the White House decreed that, under the new law, employer-provided car insurance policies must cover the full cost of preventive maintenance, including replacing worn-out brake pads for free.

You could make a case for the brake-pad mandate. You could say it would prevent collisions, save lives, and lower medical expenses. You could point out that brake pads are not a frivolous luxury, like leather upholstery, but a vital necessity. You could cite surveys showing that fully 100 percent of motorists rely on brake pads to keep from getting hurt or killed on a daily basis. And you could note that brake pads cost a fair amount of money, so paying for them puts a dent in a driver’s budget.

All true.

What you could not do—at least not without inflicting grievous bodily injury on the English language and basic logic—is contend that a company which preferred not to provide brake-pad coverage to its employees was somehow denying people access to them. After all, those employees could still walk into any mechanic’s shop, Pep Boys, or Advance Auto Parts and buy all the brake pads they wanted.

Indeed, millions of Americans have bought their brake pads in just that way for many years. So you could not pretend the company was “taking away life-saving devices from its motoring employees,” or “denying automotive care to people who need it.” And you certainly could not argue that the company was “imposing its anti-brake pad views” on anyone else. It was not telling employees they could not buy brake pads themselves. It was simply declining to pay for them.

And yet last week countless seemingly intelligent people made just such arguments about the Blunt Amendment, which would have created a conscience exemption from the insurance requirements of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. The amendment was introduced because Catholic institutions such as hospitals and universities objected to paying for contraception, as the Obama administration has required them to do. (The administration has offered a “compromise,” but it is an accounting fiction, especially for those institutions that self-insure.)

According to former DNC chairman and current senatorial candidate Tim Kaine, the Blunt Amendment would have let employers “deny any preventive service to any employee.” According to Jim Webb, the Virginia senator whom Kaine hopes to replace, “any stakeholder could decide to deny health care benefits to any individual.” Maryland Sen. Barbara Mikulski repeated the talking point, fuming that the amendment would allow companies to “deny coverage for any service they choose.” Senate majority leader Harry Reid joined in, too: “The Blunt Amendment would allow any employer or insurer to deny coverage for virtually any treatment for virtually any reason.”

Even the ACLU, which usually stands up for religious freedom, let politics override its principles. “Religious freedom,” it insisted, “does not give religious groups the right to impose their views on others.”

This is Orwellian doublespeak of the first order. It is like saying that if Harvard University does not provide every employee with a free subscription to People magazine, then Harvard is forbidding employees to read it. Absurd. You can get People magazine in any drugstore—just like contraception.

Consider what could happen now that the Blunt Amendment has failed. Some Catholic institutions may decide to drop insurance coverage for their employees altogether, and pay the $2,000-per-worker penalty as stipulated in the PPACA. What’s more, non-Catholic employers might one day decide, on the basis of a simple cost/benefit analysis, that they are better off dropping coverage and paying the penalty, too—contraceptive mandate or not. They don’t even have to claim a conscience objection. They can simply “pay and walk away.”

For that matter, the PPACA’s insurance mandates do not apply at all to small companies with fewer than 50 employees. Not only are such businesses not required to provide coverage for contraception and other preventive services—they aren’t even required to provide coverage for chemotherapy or emergency-room trauma care.

If Kaine, Webb, Reid and the ACLU are right, then it is not just the Blunt Amendment that allows employers to deny any health benefit to any individual for any reason. Obamacare does the very same thing.

A. Barton Hinkle

SLUT!​

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

See merc, I didn't lie when I said Sebelius was ordering companies to provide FREE stuff:

Under ObamaCare, though, if you have health insurance, contraceptives have to be not just inexpensive, but free. That’s right, as President Obama himself explained it on February 10: “As part of the health care reform law that I signed last year, all insurance plans are required to cover preventive care at no cost….We also accepted a recommendation from the experts at the Institute of Medicine that when it comes to women, preventive care should include coverage of contraceptive services such as birth control. … we know that the overall cost of health care is lower when women have access to contraceptive services… we decided to follow the judgment of the nation’s leading medical experts and make sure that free preventive care includes access to free contraceptive care.”

This idea that something that costs money to make can really be “free” to taxpayers or to anyone else is a deeply held left-wing belief.* The New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd over the weekend faulted Mr. Limbaugh for saying that insuring contraception would represent another “welfare entitlement.” That, Ms. Dowd insisted, “is wrong — tax dollars would not provide the benefit, employers and insurance companies would.”

Yet Ms. Dowd’s own newspaper reports that ObamaCare “seeks to extend insurance to more than 30 million people, primarily by expanding Medicaid and providing federal subsidies to help lower- and middle-income Americans buy private coverage,” at a cost of “about $938 billion over 10 years, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.” If Ms. Dowd is correct and “tax dollars would not provide the benefit,” what’s the need for those “federal subsidies”? And if Mr. Obama is correct and dispensing “free” contraceptives really reduces health care costs, why is it even necessary for the government to step in and force insurers to do something that will save them money?

To some degree, the tax-funded contraceptive horse is already out of the barn. A study conducted in 2007 and 2008 by the Kaiser Family Foundation and George Washington University School of Public Health and Health Services found that at least 39 states and the District of Columbia covered oral contraceptives under Medicaid, the health care program for the poor whose costs are split between state and federal governments. That was back during the George W. Bush administration, which is something to remember the next time a Democrat claims that once Republicans come into office they are going to take away access to birth control pills.

Another interesting aspect of Ms. Fluke’s testimony is that so much of it — about a third — concerned the use of birth control pills not as contraception but as a treatment for polycystic ovarian syndrome. The Polycystic Ovarian Syndrome Association lists birth control pills as one treatment for PCOS, but it lists a lot of other treatments, too, including in-vitro fertilization, anti-androgens, and insulin sensitizers. The birth control pills are the only treatment for the syndrome that the government wants to make free to consumers, or that Ms. Fluke emphasized in her testimony. It’s not clear why that treatment should get preference over other ones.

http://reason.com/archives/2012/03/05/rush-limbaughs-slut-comment-is-a-red-her

Of course, as you proved, it's okay for Democrats to lie, even to candicame!

* Just like they believe that a tax on profits or dividends won't be paid by the consumer.

 

[richard_daily]

What Limbaugh thinks actually does matter to Republicans.

He's the head of the republican party.

 

[JohnnySavage]

I'm morally opposed to the government mandating free Cholesterol testing. God determines the amount of Cholesterol in my system and it's none of the Government's business!!!!

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

I'm morally opposed to the government mandating free Cholesterol testing. God determines the amount of Cholesterol in my system and it's none of the Government's business!!!!

I had to go on the long walk to Talequah and all I got was this lousy free cholesterol test?


I might make war.

 

[JohnnySavage]

I had to go on the long walk to Talequah and all I got was this lousy free cholesterol test?


I might make war.

I don't like paying for delivering babies either. Women been delivering babies for 1000s of years without government interference!

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

I want to comment on the commotion over Rush Limbaugh’s use of the word “slut” to describe law student Sandra Fluke. Fluke, as you know, argued before a house congressional committee that women need taking care of. That is, if they should take it into their fluffy little heads to have sex with someone, they can’t be expected to manage the consequences all by their little selves. Someone else has got to pay for their contraception – preferably a big strong man like Barack Obama. Barack Obama has lots and lots of money. Chicks dig that. In fact, he’s so powerful, he just took the money from other people. What a turn on for girly girls like Sandra!

Anyway, Rush called her a slut, probably hoping that that sort of ungentlemanly behavior toward women would land him a show on HBO like that super cool Bill Maher, who called Governor Sarah Palin the c-word (whatever that is) and entertained guests who fantasized about raping Michele Bachmann. If only Rush could get a show like Bill Maher then he could be bitter and irrelevant too – probably the only things missing from Rush’s life.

So now the left is calling for Rush’s head and the right is arguing hotly that the left says equally misogynist things and even sometimes dumps their women into the water and then leaves them there locked in a car to drown while they go back to their hotel to chat with their friends and call their lawyer. And yet a leftist killer of women can go on to become the Lion of the Senate, and even a piece of work like James Carville who implied one of his boss’s sexual harassment victims was trailer trash gets a network gig. Hey, maybe Rush was trying to get a network gig like James Carville!

Where was I?

Oh yeah. Before we were talking about sluts, we were talking about contraception and about how every girl should get her contraception paid for. Dinner too. And flowers. They like that.

But notice something no one is talking about? Try and think what it might be. Correct! It’s the First Amendment of the Constitution. Which Barack Obama shredded by insisting religious institutions pay for what he thinks they should pay for instead of what they believe they should pay for. Also the free market. Which Barack Obama illegally violated by using the power of government to tell private insurance companies what services they have to provide.

No one is talking about those things, because the leftist media knows how to skew the narrative so that all of us – not just them, but every single one of us – is talking about what they want us to talk about instead of what we should be talking about: the real news, the real issues. The left’s illegal abuse of power.

Andrew Klavan
http://pjmedia.com/andrewklavan/2012/03/05/the-true-meaning-of-slutgate/?singlepage=true

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

I don't like paying for delivering babies either. Women been delivering babies for 1000s of years without government interference!

No, you have to pay for everyone else's babies...

It lowers costs.

No, wait, that's abortion..., I get confused...

 

[richard_daily]

I get confused...

Yes you do.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

The fact that contraceptives have become a hot political issue is bizarre beyond belief. Before the January 7 Republican debate in New Hampshire it was nowhere on the political horizon. In that debate moderator George Stephanopoulos badgered Mitt Romney about whether or not states have the constitutional authority to ban contraceptives. Romney was understandably befuddled by the question. In retrospect it is now clear that there was a method to the madness of Stephanopoulos' question.

The Urban Dictionary defines "wag the dog" as follows: "When something of secondary importance improperly takes the role of primary importance.… To start a war or military operation to divert negative attention away from yourself." President Obama cannot run on his record. His reelection team knows that. "We don't want to talk about the economy, Obamacare, or gasoline prices. Let's talk about contraceptives or Rush Limbaugh." In the movie Wag the Dog the president did not start an actual war, he faked one.

Ms. Fluke has become a hero of the Democrats. For what? For whining about the tragedy of having to pay for her own contraceptives? She is the latest in a long line of pathetic people who have been used to further their despicable objectives. Ms. Fluke has allowed herself to be used as a Democrat prop.* Like those who have preceded her she will soon be dumped on the land-fill of no-longer useful chumps. Cindy Sheehan and Monica Lewinsky are two names that come to mind. For the rest of her life Ms. Fluke will be known first and foremost as the woman who publicly pleaded for free contraceptives. I feel sorry for her. I'm extremely thankful that she is not my daughter. Ms. Fluke is a sad commentary on our dysfunctional educational system. Her bachelor's degree was in "Feminist, Gender, and Sexuality Studies." What a joke!

SEE! She won't be remembered as a SLUT!

http://spectator.org/archives/2012/03/07/wag-the-coed



* she WANTED to be used... see next post...

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

March 4, 2012
No Fluke at all
James V. Capua

Charles Murray would recognize the Sandra Fluke we all met at Nancy Pelosi's dog and pony show as the very model future denizen of the "archetypal upper-middle-class" enclave described in his recent Coming Apart. This alarm-clock owning, well put together, marriage and childbearing-deferring young woman seems well on track to permanent residence in Belmont, Murray's term for the places where the new elite tend to live. She exhibited the civilized, but self-assured and poised demeanor, down to that annoying slightly breathy dropping of the voice at the end of her sentences that marks a woman who has punched the proper baccalaureate and professional school tickets.

Like a true aspiring Belmonter she embraces civic involvement, which, in her case manifests itself in joining the struggle to foist some form of liberal orthodoxy on the rest of us -- in her case the notion that "access" to contraception is a problem for women in this country. Her willingness to pick up and carry the banner of a lie, even if subjecting herself to a little derision and criticism for doing so, is just the kind of individual initiative that will set this successful striver apart from all the also-rans at Georgetown Law.

Her Beau Geste will not go unnoticed or unrewarded. Something tells me Ms. Fluke's first job after graduation will relieve her permanently of the nagging fear that she will not be able to pay for the contraceptive of her choice. Sandra Fluke will thus join the long line of those like our President himself, who chose to enter the charmed precincts of Belmont through the vocation of promulgating the lies necessary to sustain progressive politics.

In Ms. Fluke's case the greatest betrayal is joining in the great elite conspiracy Murray calls not preaching what you practice. Take a good look at Sandra Fluke; she is no one's victim. She appears to be a gutsy, ambitious striver who put in the library and class time to finish her degrees. But she did more than just show up on time for class, regardless of what many of us may think of her actions. In the manner of successful people, she grasped an extraordinary opportunity for advancement that presented itself in the form of Nancy Pelosi's political requirements of last week.

But successful individual striving is not the story Sandra Fluke chooses to tell all the little girls of Murray's down and out Fishtown. She has, instead, thrown in her lot with those whose goal is to convince those little girls that the deck is stacked hopelessly against them, and that they can only get what they need through the beneficence of a nurturing government. For so doing she has already been rewarded with a congratulatory phone call from the President of the United States.

Rush Limbaugh used a word to describe Miss Fluke that upset a lot of people. If understood in a political rather than behavioral sense, that word does not seem an unreasonable characterization.

Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2012/03/no_fluke_at_all.html at March 04, 2012 - 06:57:35 AM CST

 

[Liar]

Well, ms Fluke seems to be getting a completely different type of gangbang than mr Limbaugh was fantasizing about...