Good morning, and Happy Mothers Day! Here were my top five six favorite political cartoons this week. Be sure to vote for your fav in the poll at the bottom of this post! We begin with a twofer by Dana Summers at Townhall.com…
and a twofer by Michael Ramirez at Townhall.com…
by Steve Breen at Townhall.com…
by Chip Bok at Townhall.com…
Violations will be deleted and you may be banned.
Threats will be immediately reported to authorities.
Following these rules will make everyone's experience visiting JillStanek.com better.
Our volunteer moderators make prudent judgment calls to provide an open forum to discuss these issues. They reserve the right to remove any comment for any reason. Jill's decisions on such moderations are final.
Go to gravatar.com to create your avatar.
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
In b4 Clive.
As far as Mr. Roberts and baking the cake – if you don’t want to run a business that is open to the public, then don’t.
First off – I call on the editors and mods to remove the third cartoon. On a conservative site, the third cartoon makes sense being posted. On a site that wants all babies to be born, I can’t for the life of me reconcile the massive disconnect going on between the pro-life message and the policies that the site actively promotes.
The welfare state is not chains that drag people down, and thus we should get rid of support. The welfare state takes people who are in desperate times and gives them the support they need to help keep them from falling through the cracks.
Plain and simple, for many decades, and for many decades more (even if R v Wade is overturned), many women will become pregnant on a daily basis that aren’t sure if they can afford or should have their baby, or if they should kill it. To help women choose life, we need a strong social network. We need a strong medicaid system so that the woman knows that she and her baby can get medical care. We need food programs so that the woman knows that if she has the baby, she’ll have food security for her family and herself. We need a strong educational system so that she knows her child will have opportunities, and that she will as well.
To the credit of a lot of Catholic organizations, they ‘get it’. They are the first to jump on cruel and lame budgets written up by folks like Paul Ryan – budgets that slash care and support. They know that if a person transcends politics and follows the Bible first – that we should protect life – both the pre-born and the born. They scold both parties, as both parties need to be scolded.
The attitudes on this site often times are the very reason why churches avoid abortion conversations – it is because pro-lifers often make idols out of babies while making demons out of those that are pregnant. It’s a ongoing chorus of shame and condemnation…shame if you take birth control, shame if you have sex, shame if you receive food stamps, shame if you are on medicaid. It’s really quite sad if you ask me. The ‘movement’ has become corrupted by anger and bad policy. It’s clear in budgets and conversations that most would rather give a dollar as corporate welfare to an oil company than towards a food program that feeds a family.
So again – I call on the site to remove the cartoon on the ‘welfare state’. The ‘welfare state’ are those we need to love – to support. And yes, a lot of that support should come from churches and individuals – but even those organizations that feed the poor and clothe the needy say that the government has a large role in that.
I actually agree w/ you Ex-Gop, which is why I don’t frequent this website as much as I used to, I just can’t get on board w/ the conservative policies & homophobia associated w/ this sec of the pro-life movement. Fortunately there are an increasing number of non-traditional pro-life groups, which do not oppose any of what you’ve discussed: Secular Pro-life, Pro-Life Humanists, Feminists for Life, & Democrats for Life come to mind. Please feel free to check them out.
BTW, the Tom Brady cartoon was funny, though.
In cartoon #1, is Rubio supposed to look Japanese?
Mods, please don’t remove #3. It conveys a profound message that must be shouted from the housetops.
This dynamic is at the heart of the conservative / liberal perspectives. Conservatives promote personal responsibility. Liberals want to help those less fortunate. The balance must be found so that you’re not helping the lazy. The lazy need to feel the hardship of their self-induced poverty. Giving handouts to the lazy only enables and perpetuates their sad condition.
Dependence on welfare is one of the biggest problems facing our country today. While I appreciate EGV’s sentiments and good intentions, they are sadly misguided and misinformed.
I have known real people who were trapped in the welfare system.
It was many years ago. There have been improvements in welfare since then, such that people do not have to refuse work and take welfare just to have healthcare. And Wisconsin is more progressive in welfare reform than many other states. It has been years since I have heard anyone complain about having to stay on welfare in order to survive.
I know persons today who have been on welfare for many years, but they seem to have chosen this life. Some of them are not adequate to care for themselves or hold a job.
Ed – you 100% proved my point.
“lazy”
“self-induced poverty”
“handouts”
“Sad condition”
Do we love the women we’re trying to help, or do we shout in shame or condemnation?
Pro-life isn’t conservative or liberal – pro-life is pro-life. And Ed pointed it out well – it is at the dynamic of the conservative/liberal perspective. But this is a pro-life site, not a conservative site. We should care more about women and babies than politics.
So what is it?
Part of Pro-life is helping people make good choices from the beginning. Most any part of poor choices end up being not very good and certainly not the best. If people cannot add up the way they got to the place they are at, can we, at least, give them a tip sheet or a calculator? No shame if one is not a ‘math wiz’.
Some people who are going to buy a product check it out in Consumers Report. If one is the maker of a badly scored product and one wants to sell it in the future, one fixes it. Same thing with making a baby and hopefully a marriage partner first.
Part of the post-abortion grief is on the level of, “Why didn’t my friends, family, teachers and preachers tell me? Didn’t anybody care enough about me to tell me or are they all as dumb as I was?” Possibly, “Oh! Is that what they meant. A fetus is a baby, just not born yet.”
If we cannot stop the abortion of this baby, can we stop the same poor choice of a sex partner cycle from happening again and what is known as a “replacement baby”?
Maybe on a religious level, since the Catholic Church was mentioned, who do you really love, Jesus and His 10 commandments which will lead you to Heaven or this person who is leading you to Hell on earth and possibly Hell forever more?
How about a level of welfare or standard of living that is the same as Mother Teresa’s nuns? There is an $18 Trillion and counting National debt, and how many cities and states not making their budgets? This sounds like a great time for some tough love.
Do remember that the CDC says that in the US the prevailing number who have a STD/STI/HIV is 110 Million. In their ads even birth control says it does not stop that. Some of these diseases are on areas that are not covered by a condom. For that matter, one can touch those sores putting on or taking off the condom. Not enough doctors out there to take care of everybody and their many medical problems. Not enough money to bankroll the kind of life that many seek on welfare. Tough love indeed! The welfare state cartoon is to real for everyone to be funny.
EGV.
I support helping those legitimately in need of help as much as you do. Unfortunately another side to welfare is the ball and chain, people trapped into lives of dependency, poverty, and family breakdown.
I have personally witnessed it on the maternity wards of hospitals, where girls and young women told me their pregnancies were no accidents. I’m talking about their 3rd+ pregnancies, not the first time mistake. Guess who’s paying for it? Bingo.
I’ve had young girls express to me a desire to become pregnant, despite my pleading with them that pregnancy could only mean a life of welfare dependency and poverty. What fantasies are these young women entertaining about motherhood and some devoted “baby daddy” by their side? I’ve seen too many of these young women and their children end up trapped in a survival mode.
I don’t blame just the women. I am enraged at “baby daddies” who think their responsibility to the pregnant girl/woman begins and ends with an offer to pay for an abortion. Would these losers be carelessly reproducing if they had to actually get jobs and support the children they produce instead of dumping them on the taxpayer? Does the knowledge they can dump them on the taxpayer relieve them of any sense of responsibility? From my own experience the answer to that is a resounding “yes”.
A video I saw absolutely enraged me. This “baby daddy” is touring the garbage dump his “baby mama” raises their children in. Of course he is critical. My question. SO WHERE THE HELL HAVE YOU BEEN?? Why are your children forced to live this way? What are you doing to change this? Where is your sense of responsibility to these children and their mother? Most likely he’s off producing children with other women, who he also does not support. But why should he EGV, that’s why you pay taxes.
Do I argue this is typical of all people receiving assistance? Absolutely not! I argue this is a side of the coin, a side people like you choose to ignore. A side I’ve seen, and still see, time and again.
Doug, 9:47am
Unless of course its your sensibilities that are being offended, right?
Everything is connected, Ex-GOP.
Welfare policy is very important to pro-lifers, because there is a large chunk of our population who believe that children cause poverty or make poverty worse. They insist that we must reduce poverty by encouraging and paying for poor women to kill their children.
A similar problem with #6 and the Supreme Court consideration of gay-marriage. There are children who must be considered, children who have a natural right to a natural home with a natural mother and father.
As a pro-lifer, I wish that the marriage debate could be ignored as irrelevant. I wish I didn’t have to care. But gay-marriage creates even more scenarios in which children are treated as property to be purchased and discarded when unwanted.
“I just can’t get on board w/ the conservative policies & homophobia”
Ladybug, homosexuals can’t conceive so why is that so relevant to your pro-life position? Or are you just saying that you wish to avoid discussions about homosexuality cause they make you uncomfortable.
I know I have been one of the most vocal posters against ‘homosexual marriage’ and it is very simple for me. I am unabashed in my opposition not because of homophobia but because it is against God’s design and against God’s plan for the family.
That’s a good question truthseeker, what does homosexuality have to do with the pro-life position and why do I see that issue as well as other unrelated conservative topics keep coming up on this blog if they’re not relevant to the pro-life position?
Unless of course its your sensibilities that are being offended, right?
Mary, nope.
Mary
Sure – there is fraud in just about every sector of society. The VA, military spending, welfare, corporate welfare, taxes in general. I don’t ignore them – I just don’t make some weird logical jump that because there is fraud, you should massively axe the program. That’s just foolish.
But that whole rant has very little to do with my point.
If a poor woman gets pregnant, and statistically a lot do, and there are no social programs to support them, you are practically yelling “have an abortion”.
Del
Your first comment makes no sense. I think you’re arguing that poor women who are going to have a child are going to be in worse financial shape – so therefore we should encourage them to choose life by cutting social assistance? That seems to be what you’re saying.
Your second comment makes very little sense as well. Are you hinting are IVF? Or are you saying gay people are stealing children?
truth
For every 100 statements about homosexuality, how many statements do you make about divorce? Care for the orphans and widows? Gossip? Careless use of words?
Oh wait, or are you just massively, massively selective of which parts of God’s plans we should stand up for?
You don’t need to answer those questions…I know the answers already.
“That’s a good question truthseeker, what does homosexuality have to do with the pro-life position and why do I see that issue as well as other unrelated conservative topics keep coming up on this blog if they’re not relevant to the pro-life position?”
In the past it was usually brought up by the trolls. In this thread it being brought up cause it is currently before the SCOTUS and according to pundits and lawyers the ruling could force people of faith to participate in actions that go against their faith. If this happens could the government use it as precedent to force us to also participate in people right to abortion?
Doug,
Should a mason have to build an abortuary if Planned Parenthood asks them too?
Should a mason have to build an abortuary if Planned Parenthood asks them too?
Truthseeker, Scott Walker should have to do it, for being a bad, bad boy.
?(????)
More seriously, good question – and I’d say probably not. Anti-discrimination laws as we are talking about here refer to privately-owned businesses and facilities that offer certain goods or services to the public, primarily lodging, food, gasoline, and entertainment.
So there is a limit as to what type of businesses are covered. For “disability discrimination,” as with access for people in wheelchairs, for example, it is a wider class of businesses that are covered.
I used to be a mason, and in practice, it’s not that the contractor is taking every job that is presented to him or her, i.e. there is no requirement to serve everybody. Jobs are normally put up for bids, and the lowest qualified bidder gets the job.
If a kid on your block mows yards for money, does he have to take on every job that is offered to him? I’d say no, and the same with our mason friend. Now, if that same good old buddy of ours had a masonry-supply business, selling bricks, mortar, etc. to the public, then I’d say he’s not going to be allowed to discriminate among customers, even though it’s not “lodging, food, gasoline, and entertainment” that’s for sale. I don’t know if this has ever come up as a court matter. Perhaps we are close to where the line is drawn?
“how many statements do you make about divorce?”
Whenever somebody feigns that divorce is just another option in God’s plan for the family.
““lodging, food, gasoline, and entertainment”
Who laid down that as the criteria, the SCOTUS?
EGV,
In fact it was abortion advocates who were yelling at poor women to “have an abortion”. It was abortion advocates who went through the death throes when medicaid funding for abortion was cut. It was abortion advocates who made no secret of the fact they wanted legal abortion so that the poor could “take advantage of it”. It was abortion advocates who made no secret or their elitist contempt for the poor and the cost of their support, especially when they reproduced.
It was PL people who argued that social problems are not that easily solved and that it is poverty and dependency that must be eliminated, not the unborn children of the poor.
I never suggested axing the program. I said you need to look at its other side. Yes it can indeed be a form of slavery, trapping people into lives of poverty and gov’t dependency. Yes I am angry at the waste of lives and potential that welfare dependency can perpetuate.
Doug
I believe there is a legal distinction regarding discriminating against somebody because of their viewpoints, and discriminating against them for who they are. A lesbian is a protected class in many states – same as a person of faith – so saying you won’t sell to them is bad. However, somebody who hates NASCAR isn’t a protected class of people. It might be bad for business, but it isn’t discrimination that is legally barred. To my understanding, that is why in Indiana they had issues – the law was so broad, and the gay community was not a protected class. They are now.
Mary –
I am against just blank checks being handed out – and that’s for people on welfare, but corporate welfare as well (why doesn’t the funding of oil companies bother us?)
I am for good programs and education to help people better themselves.
What I am against is somebody saying “cut food stamps, education, we don’t care about living wage, and let’s get rid of all other welfare”. I acknowledge you aren’t saying that. I believe some people say that. The way out is education and training programs – not ‘motivating’ people through making their lives more miserable.
Doug 5:45PM
So if the NNs want a cake celebrating Hitler’s birthday the baker must bake it. If the NOI baker has religious objections to interracial marriage, he must none the less bake a wedding cake for the interracial couple requesting it.
As you say, if you don’t want to run a business that is open to the public, then don’t.
EGV,
I am none too thrilled with corporate welfare either.
I advocate people being given every opportunity to better themselves as well.
What I have a problem with is people like my daughter’s friend who has 4 children by 3 different fathers, none of whom supports them. You and I do. BTW, she’s plenty old enough to get birth control. These pregnancies weren’t accidents. I have a problem with children trapped into a cycle of family breakdown and poverty through no fault of their own. I have a problem with people who say “I can always depend on welfare”. Yes I’ve heard that more than once.
I have no problem with people legitimately in need of help getting it. Yes, that has included family members and friends.
“These pregnancies weren’t accidents. I have a problem with children trapped into a cycle of family breakdown and poverty through no fault of their own. I have a problem with people who say “I can always depend on welfare”. Yes I’ve heard that more than once. I have no problem with people legitimately in need of help getting it. Yes, that has included family members and friends”
So…. what do you want done with your friend’s daughters children then? Should they starve and go without heat, lodging, and medical care because their mother (and apparently absent/uninvolved fathers) don’t “deserve” help or don’t “legitimately” need it? Don’t get your argument, those kids need to be fed and cared for properly regardless of your disdain for their mother.
“In the past it was usually brought up by the trolls.”
Nope. It’s posted repeatedly on this and other pro-life blogs. And has been for years.
Ex-GOP, aside from all arguments and differing viewpoints, I must say that you were there in full measure in your first post, and that is a special thing.
Very hard to leave all other considerations out of it. Our country has so many people being supported by the gov’t, as things are now, and my gut feelings always include that any system which supports large numbers of people without them in turn supporting the system, is a system in trouble. While still obviously functioning, it’s hard for me to see the federal gov’t as anything other than bankrupt, already.
Ed H spoke of promoting personal responsibility. I don’t see how this can be anything but good. While I realize that things can rapidly become complicated, and that, for example, kids are involved here, I also feel like people should only do what they can afford.
Patty talks about people making good choices from the beginning. Wow, now as far as an area where lots of people have massive room for improvement, this is it.
Del speaks of people trapped in the welfare system. This cannot be dismissed – whatever is the totality of the causes in the past, isn’t there a cultural change that has occurred in some areas, in some families, where literally millions of people are unable to get out of the welfare system?
Mary gave good examples of people with a relatively limited view of their options, of their futures, possibly even delusional expectations. Assuming we have free will, and given that there is “human nature” that accounts for what Mary is talking about, then “how to improve things” seems like a tall order to me – do we penalize them for acting in ways we deem as foolish? Do we proceed as if we can take care of everybody, no matter what?
Ex-GOP: pro-life is pro-life
Is it really possible to leave all other considerations out of it?
Homosexuals can conceive truthseeker.
I’d hazard a guess that Ladybug would rather avoid discussions about homosexuality because of the attitude and approach of people like you.
according to pundits and lawyers the ruling could force people of faith to participate in actions that go against their faith. – they’re wrong then aren’t they.
“lodging, food, gasoline, and entertainment”
Who laid down that as the criteria, the SCOTUS?
I’m not sure, Truthseeker. I imagine it goes back to the 1964 Civil Rights Law, at least.
Mary: So if the NNs want a cake celebrating Hitler’s birthday the baker must bake it. If the NOI baker has religious objections to interracial marriage, he must none the less bake a wedding cake for the interracial couple requesting it.
Yep – same as a NN landlord can’t refuse to rent to Jewish tenants and same as an Islamic landlord can’t refuse to rent to Christians.
DLPL,
Of course I want those children to get the care they need. That’s not the point. I would also like their fathers to take responsibility for them and their mother to have been more concerned about producing children she couldn’t care for. I don’t like seeing these innocents trapped in lives of poverty and family breakdown. I don’t like seeing their mother waste her potential. BTW, I have always liked her.
“I’m not sure, Truthseeker. I imagine it goes back to the 1964 Civil Rights Law, at least.”
Seriously, gasoline?
Doug,
I will say you are consistent.
It doesn’t matter if it violates your religious or ethical beliefs.
The other examples you give fall under our civil rights laws.
Doug –
What’s funny is that conservatives TALK about personal responsibility, but they only live it when it is convenient to them.
The Heritage Foundation originally pushed the idea of a health care mandate on the platform of personal responsibility. Flash forward, now you have GOPers encouraging people to skip out on health care and shed the responsibility onto others.
“according to pundits and lawyers the ruling could force people of faith to participate in actions that go against their faith. –”
‘they’re wrong then aren’t they.’
Reality, I guess forced may not be accurate. When the homosexuals attack you, you could choose the option not to participate in their ‘marriage’, lose your business, pay fines and pay damages to the homosexuals that attacked you.
And by ‘attacked’. you specifically mean “try to pay you money for a business service”.
This is why Christians are losing the culture war right now…
“The Heritage Foundation originally pushed the idea of a health care mandate on the platform of personal responsibility -”
What they were NOT pushing is for the mandate to require thousands and thousands of pages of government bureaucracy and over-reach and they were NOT pushing for it to be rolled out by such a bunch of inept partisan statists.
truth
What you mean is, somebody else beat them to the punch in actually doing something, and they stuck their collective thumbs in their mouth and have been whining every since.
I still love your prediction last year that more people would be uninsured at the end of the year compared to the beginning of the year. Swing and a miss!
Homosexuals aren’t attacking ‘you’, they’re defending themselves against your attacks.
You don’t have to participate in their marriage, but if you are operating a business in the public domain you have no more right to refuse them service than if you attempted to do so on the basis of race or gender.
You wouldn’t be “paying damages to the homosexuals who attacked you” you’d be paying damages to the homosexuals you attacked.
“You don’t have to participate in their marriage, but if you are operating a business in the public domain you have no more right to refuse them service than if you attempted to do so on the basis of race or gender.”
Not true. Homosexuality, in my faith, is a sin. Race and gender, in my faith, are not sins.
“I still love your prediction last year that more people would be uninsured at the end of the year compared to the beginning of the year. Swing and a miss!”
And I still remember you, being the ferret that you are, ducking on a challenge regarding that prediction. Voting present!
Truthseeker, what about people which consider interracial marriage a sin and women inferior, or something, according to their religious beliefs? Do you think you have the right to deny service to a LGBT person, but they don’t have the right to deny on the basis of gender or race?
“I don’t like seeing these innocents trapped in lives of poverty and family breakdown. I don’t like seeing their mother waste her potential.”
No one likes seeing these things. The kids still need to be taken care of, and if the fathers won’t step up even with court-ordered child support and the consequences of not paying it, and the mother either refusing to work and abstain from getting pregnant, we’ve got to step in because kids shouldn’t be punished for their parents’ crappy choices.
Not true. Homosexuality, in my faith, is a sin. – that’s why no one is demanding that you participate. If running a particular business may cause crises of confidence for you, do something else.
Race and gender, in my faith, are not sins. – ‘your faith’ has been used to claim the right to discriminate on the basis of color or gender by certain people at certain times. This is no different.
I’m voting for #2 this week as it was by far the best.
DLPL,
I’m not arguing with you. I want to see these children taken care of. They are the innocent victims.
There is no court ordered support. There is no obligation or responsibility of any kind on the part of the fathers. That’s the problem.
“Truthseeker, what about people which consider interracial marriage a sin and women inferior, or something, according to their religious beliefs?”
Deluded,
I am catholic and our deposit of faith has been passed on for centuries in fairly explicit terms that can be referenced in the catechism.
We can discuss other religions though if you can give me a specific example.
Uh, like strict Muslims who may want to refuse service to a woman who is uncovered? Or maybe don’t even believe that women should be out without a man? Should they be able to refuse service to these women?
You know some extremist Mormon sects still believe that black people are inferior, should they be allowed to refuse service?
And then there’s the long, long history of Christians in this country who refused to acknowledge black people as equal to whites, and refused service at “whites only” places for years. This was okay, right, since it was their religious beliefs?
But I already know, you’ll claim that is different because Catholicism is special, or more true, or whatever. Your discrimination is fine, other people’s aren’t.
But I already know, you’ll claim that is different because Catholicism is special, or more true, or whatever. Your discrimination is fine, other people’s aren’t. – ah, wisdom is in your grasp grasshopper :-)
“Uh, like strict Muslims who may want to refuse service to a woman who is uncovered?”
Service for what?
“Mormon sects still believe that black people are inferior, should they be allowed to refuse service?”
Service for what?
“And then there’s the long, long history of Christians in this country who refused to acknowledge black people as equal to whites, and refused service at “whites only” places for years. This was okay, right, since it was their religious beliefs?”
I know many Christians who also supported segregation. I just don’t know any who based this opinion upon their religious beliefs. Can you give me an example?
truth – if I can step in for an example
Loving vs Virginia – a judge wrote in his opinion:
“Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.”
This was a landmark case on interracial marriage – there’s a great documentary on it.
My opinion is that if a person wants to allow smokers in their bar, then smokers should be allowed. If a person wants to deny smokers from their bar then smokers should be denied. The owner of an establishment should be able to allow women who are ‘covered’ or deny women who are ‘covered’.
“But I already know, you’ll claim that is different because Catholicism is special, or more true, or whatever. Your discrimination is fine, other people’s aren’t.”
Grow up. What I said is that what constitutes sin in the catholic faith is well documented and easily referenced.
Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
It makes sense to me that the government should treat all people equally. But private businesses should be able to service the people that they want and deny service to people. Society will work it out without government takeover over private business.
“Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.”
Ex-RINO, I don’t see that as an example of ‘religion’ being the reason for segregation. This was a judge, who may have had sincere beliefs, but the Bible doesn’t say anything about God placing races on different continents and he did not reference “religion” in the opinion you posted. Rather he referenced an inaccurate account og how God ‘created’ man. God created man and woman. The color of one’s skin is just a chemical reaction of melanin that pigments our skin.
My opinion is that if a person wants to allow smokers in their bar, then smokers should be allowed. If a person wants to deny smokers from their bar then smokers should be denied. – what about a smoker who doesn’t smoke whilst in the bar? Can they get served?
It makes sense to me that the government should treat all people equally – so you’ll support same-sex marriage. That’s great news!
So if you live in a remote one-horse town with only one doctor or one store or one gas station the homosexuals can walk, starve and die?
Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness – except for those you don’t like or agree with eh truthseeker.
“My opinion is that if a person wants to allow smokers in their bar, then smokers should be allowed. If a person wants to deny smokers from their bar then smokers should be denied. – what about a smoker who doesn’t smoke whilst in the bar? Can they get served?
Sure
So you don’t think they should be denied service because they smoke elsewhere?
Seriously, gasoline?
This made me laugh, Truthseeker, but yeah – no discrimination when you’re selling fuel.
I want to see these children taken care of. They are the innocent victims. There is no court ordered support. There is no obligation or responsibility of any kind on the part of the fathers. That’s the problem.
Mary, where is this? Only state I really know about is Ohio, where I’ve got two brothers who both got divorced after having two kids, and there is most certainly enforcement there, in spades – really, to such an extent that I think it’s unfair to the non-primary-custodial parent, many times.
Truthseeker: The owner of an establishment should be able to allow women who are ‘covered’ or deny women who are ‘covered’.
Okay, Holmes, we’re gonna open a bar and only uncovered women are allowed, and I mean *UNCOVERED* if you know what I mean ha ha ha.
My opinion is that if a person wants to allow smokers in their bar, then smokers should be allowed. If a person wants to deny smokers from their bar then smokers should be denied.
There is something in this vein that I agree with – many places are simply outlawing smoking on a blanket basis. Now, if we’re talking about McDonald’s or a restaurant, that is one thing. If we are talking about a place that serves booze but is primarily a seller of food, okay – there too I’m not against it being no-smoking.
But if it’s the corner tavern, where smoking has always been allowed, then let it continue. My opinion.
truthseeker, if you live in a remote one-horse town with only one doctor or one store or one gas station the homosexuals can walk, starve and die?
the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents.
Ex-GOP, interesting quote. I take it that “malay,” here would be akin to “Brown,” but had never seen it that way – with five colors or classifications. Anyway, Malay women are hot!
Ironically, #1 is unintentionally funny. None of those four will win the nomination.
Doug,
Where have you been? You can’t get blood from a turnip and if the guy isn’t working, is in the slammer, is some street lowlife or just has no sense of responsibility, you expect what?? Would these guys be fertilizing all these women if they actually had to fear someone holding them responsible for the children’s support?
That’s what YOU pay taxes for.
In the mentoring program I was involved in some of the gals were fertilized by the same guy. My “teen mom” was fertilized by some guy who simultaneously fertilized another gal. He of course supported none of them. My “teen mom” thankfully had the help of her widowed mother with whom she lived, and personal ambition of her own. She and her daughter did quite well.
“My opinion is that if a person wants to allow smokers in their bar, then smokers should be allowed. If a person wants to deny smokers from their bar then smokers should be denied.”
‘There is something in this vein that I agree with’
Doug, That’s big of you to consider allowing the owners of bars to permit smoking (a legal activity) in their establishments. Now how the hell do the statists get away with telling them no?
Where have you been? You can’t get blood from a turnip and if the guy isn’t working, is in the slammer, is some street lowlife or just has no sense of responsibility, you expect what?? Would these guys be fertilizing all these women if they actually had to fear someone holding them responsible for the children’s support?
Mary, I’ve been here, as always. Of course it’s true that we don’t really force people to pay child support, as you illustrated. There are the mechanisms of attached wages and withheld income tax refunds, etc., but if the guy is determined to never work on the books again, then as of now we can’t do anything.
However, what you said was: There is no court ordered support. There is no obligation or responsibility of any kind on the part of the fathers.
That is well before we get to whether the father will pay or not. So, is this in Wisconsin, or what? This isn’t dependent on the guy in question, this is dependent on the courts.
TS: Doug, That’s big of you to consider allowing the owners of bars to permit smoking (a legal activity) in their establishments. Now how the hell do the statists get away with telling them no?
Well, Truthseeker, I’m a big guy. Dude, when smoking is made illegal, then it’s no longer a legal activity. I figure the grounds for banning smoking are mostly based on health concerns.
I don’t think it has to be a blanket policy – most decent areas have a huge number of bars, taverns and pubs – IMO enough that not all have to be non-smoking so that health concerns of customers argue for a total ban. The question of employees – that may be subjected to a whole whack of second-hand smoke, as they say – is a problem for me. Customers can choose between vast numbers of non-smoking establishments in my scenario, whereas smokers would have a lesser, but still substantial, array of options. As a practical matter, and not at all one of law, this is the way it’s been, everywhere that I’ve seen the smoking bans, i.e. there are establishments where smokers are accomodated.
So I think truth has shown why I think allowing discrimination based on religious beliefs is a horrible idea.
Some people legitimately didn’t like interracial marriage and used Biblical verses to back it up – same with slavery in general. Truth wants proof there beliefs are legitimate, which seems good.
So what are we going to do? Have a government panel on legit beliefs? Some beliefs are deemed legitimate by the government and some aren’t? Or is it all in the eye of the seller?
And who is the seller? If Joe owns a bakery shop and doesn’t want to sell to gay weddings, but somebody who works there has no issue and takes an order, is Joe being harmed by selling the cake?
Or let’s flip it – if Joe has no issue, but Diane, who works for him, does. Does Diane as a worker get to overrule Joe as the owner? If Diane sells to somebody, is she violating her faith and overruling Joe’s? If she does then deny selling, Joe could fire her with no issues, correct?
And if Joe is a different entity all together because he formed a company so that he himself had protection as an individual, how the stink can a business, which isn’t a person, be offended anyway?
So my final two thoughts of this rambling post: It is a slippery slope with too much that can go wrong.
And second – I think it is massively lame for people to claim this offense anyway. What – they themselves are sinning if they sell to a sinner? How do we have no issues buying shoes made by 9 year olds in a third world country, but two gay people want to do something that’s legal, and now Christians are being “loving”. Come on…
Hi Doug,
What I’m saying is THESE guys are under no court order. No one is going to force them to do anything. You can’t get blood from a turnip.
Of course women can go to court…and do. Whether they get anything is another story.
I know of situations where the guy is in prison, gets out on parole or work release and fertilizes the woman every time. They wound up with about 4 kids.
Reality the problem is that tried and true Christianity has protected children and empowered them through the ages, homosexuals as a group, have have not benefitted society as has Christianity. Homosexual marriage advocates are focused on putting faithful Christians in prison and punishing us if we don’t help them do things which we see as confusing to children. In California, we voted against homosexual marriage several times. However, homosexual marriage advocates in overturned our votes several times, and during those times, we saw homosexual couples getting married in parks, we saw homosexual ad displays at the Gap and Lush as well as other companies. It is fine that they display these acts, but these acts are not focused on protecting children. If you see MassResistances website, you will see that many adoption agencies protecting children and advocating on their behalf, were shuttered because people like you and your friends didn’t think they were doing enough for GAYS—GAYS, not children. YOUR FOCUS IS HELPING GAY MEN, NOT KIDS. So you don’t count as much as other people, and you are not the new Black. I am sorry, this is a completely different cause than Black Civil Rights. Gay Marriage ? Civil Rights. The reason Gay became a thing it because men who were called Gay, were called that because they were shirking their duties to children AKA, they were running around having a “gay” old time, ALL the time, and their kids were losing out. Hence the redefinition of the word gay from meaning happy, to meaning your not engaging in creative reproductive activity with the opposite sex, but fruitless relationships with the same sex.
Children are not a commodity for gay men who CHOSE a lifestyle-gay gene or not. Children DESERVES a mother and a father. That is civil rights. I am not saying worst case scenario two men and two women can’t raise a kid, I am saying, marriage shouldn’t be used as a status symbol to officiate or mandate the behavior of others because of that issue. Gay marriage is terrorizing business owners whos lives are ruined. Their children’s lives are ruined. If only gay marriage had not been illegalized these NON-CRIMINALS could live their productive, socially healthy, lives of promise unterrorized by harassing phone calls, physical violence, police and judicial brutality, sexual harassment that comes along with the homosexual marriage & discrimination agenda. Arrest criminals. This isn’t going to change america in any way but for the worse. You won’t gradually convince good Christians to your side by terrorizing and criminalizing our religion. You will only push us underground and away from you, and you will force us to take our morality away from your community and into communities where your watchful, bullying, big brother style of governing can’t find us and we will be forced to leave you to yourselves and RUN from you as you slowly try to terminate our right of free speech and religion. Criminals will run free because the system will be so junked up trying to determine which citizens they have to arrest based on homosexual discrimination laws, and which citizens they can legally arraign because the homosexual discrimination laws are so incredibly petty and insignificant to the majority of citizens that acting on them is nothing but enforcing the petty vendetta’s of people who are so in denial about who they are in the eyes of God they must force others out of commission as a punishment for their success. This, mark my words, will be the end of America IF it gets passed. And the justices who pass it, IF they pass it, will go down in history as THE judges who did this to men, women and children, and destroyed America for the sake of frivolity/homosexuality.
Interesting that you are posting your responses all over the place. I wonder what that tells us.
Reality the problem is that tried and true Christianity has protected children and empowered them through the ages, homosexuals as a group, have have not benefitted society as has Christianity. – leaving aside the argument as to what extent christianity may or may not have protected and empowered children (I sure don’t see much empowering), it could equally be said that heterosexuals as a group haven’t benefitted society as has christianity either. Do I also need to point out that some homosexuals are christians and vice versa?
Homosexual marriage advocates are focused on putting faithful Christians in prison and punishing us – why do insist on repeating this nonsense? It’ll never suddenly come true for you.
if we don’t help them do things which we see as confusing to children. – it is attitudes and behaviors such as yours which confuse children.
In California, we voted against homosexual marriage several times. However, homosexual marriage advocates in overturned our votes several times, – interesting version of events.
and during those times, we saw homosexual couples getting married in parks, we saw homosexual ad displays at the Gap and Lush as well as other companies. – did your eyes melt? Did your children go insane? Did you lose your faith? Your marriage? What harm did it do you, apart from remind you that the world isn’t all about you ??
It is fine that they display these acts, – what acts? Standing smiling and happy? How dreadful.
but these acts are not focused on protecting children. – neither are the same ads featuring heterosexuals.
If you see MassResistances website, you will see that many adoption agencies protecting children and advocating on their behalf, were shuttered because people like you and your friends didn’t think they were doing enough for GAYS—GAYS, not children. – if any were ‘shuttered’ it would have been because they were unjustifiably discriminating.
YOUR FOCUS IS HELPING GAY MEN, NOT KIDS. – these are not mutually exclusive concepts.
So you don’t count as much as other people, – really? Well there you go. There we have it. You are on display for all the world to see.
and you are not the new Black. I am sorry, this is a completely different cause than Black Civil Rights. Gay Marriage ? Civil Rights. – it’s still about civil rights. That’s all that matters.
The reason Gay became a thing it because…activity with the opposite sex, but fruitless relationships with the same sex. – what a strange little mélange of fantasy and paranoia.
Children are not a commodity for gay men – there is no difference between same-sex couples who wish or need to adopt and heterosexual couples who need or wish to adopt. Why can’t those heterosexual couples unable to conceive just accept they aren’t meant to have children. But no, it’s all about them and they demand the same commodity as anyone else.
who CHOSE a lifestyle-gay gene or not. – no more than you’ve chosen your lifestyle.
Children DESERVES a mother and a father. – then you’ve got a whole lot of more significant work to do than worry about what a few homosexuals may do haven’t you.
I am not saying worst case scenario two men and two women can’t raise a kid, – that’s good, because you’d be wrong if you did.
I am saying, marriage shouldn’t be used as a status symbol to officiate or mandate the behavior of others – no? Yet that is exactly what you are trying to do.
Gay marriage is terrorizing business owners whos lives are ruined. – not true.
Their children’s lives are ruined. – not true.
If only gay marriage had not been illegalized these NON-CRIMINALS could live their productive, socially healthy, lives of promise – that sounds like a fine argument in support of same-sex marriage.
unterrorized by harassing phone calls, physical violence, police and judicial brutality, sexual harassment that comes along with the homosexual marriage & discrimination agenda. – doesn’t happen.
Arrest criminals. – I’m not a police officer but they usually do.
This isn’t going to change america in any way but for the worse. – not true. As is evident by your inability to demonstrate how it is or will.
You won’t gradually convince good Christians to your side – I think that’s already been done.
by terrorizing and criminalizing our religion. – your religion is not being terrorized or criminalized in any way, shape or form. If anyone is practicing terror and criminalizing it is those discriminating against same-sex folk.
You will only push us underground and away from you, – please, tell me how I can help.
and you will force us to take our morality away from your community – good. I don’t like your so-called morality.
and into communities where your watchful, bullying, big brother style of governing can’t find us and we will be forced to leave you to yourselves – are you supposed to be making me unhappy somehow with all this?
and RUN from you as you slowly try to terminate our right of free speech and religion. – back to your inverted world again I see. The paranoid one. No one is terminating your free speech or your religion.
Criminals will run free because the system will be so junked up trying to determine which citizens they have to arrest based on homosexual discrimination laws, – I think you’ll find that in most states homosexuality isn’t illegal but yes, there are still some laws allowing discrimination against homosexuals.
and which citizens they can legally arraign because the homosexual discrimination laws are so incredibly petty – yes, laws allowing discrimination against homosexuals are petty. And vindictive. And unjust. And unjustifiable.
and insignificant to the majority of citizens that acting on them is nothing but enforcing the petty vendetta’s – you are the one seeking to perpetuate a vendetta.
of people who are so in denial about who they are in the eyes of God they must force others out of commission as a punishment for their success. – exactly what you are demonstrating a fine example of. Are you really so scared that allowing others to live in a manner you don’t like is going to damage or demean your faith.
This, mark my words, will be the end of America IF it gets passed. – nothing could be further from the truth.
And the justices who pass it, IF they pass it, will go down in history as THE judges who did this to men, women and children, and destroyed America for the sake of frivolity/homosexuality. – no they won’t. You are on the wrong side of history. It’s up to you whether you stay there.
Doug,
imo it is patently absurd that your opinion, or the government’s opinion about smoking dictates who a bar owner can serve.
“So you don’t count as much as other people,”
O.o
“The reason Gay became a thing it because men who were called Gay, were called that because they were shirking their duties to children AKA, they were running around having a “gay” old time, ALL the time, and their kids were losing out.”
O.O
“harassing phone calls, physical violence, police and judicial brutality, sexual harassment that comes along with the homosexual marriage & discrimination agenda”
????
“. This, mark my words, will be the end of America IF it gets passed. And the justices who pass it, IF they pass it, will go down in history as THE judges who did this to men, women and children, and destroyed America for the sake of frivolity/homosexuality.”
Um. There’s really no way to reason with you, or even have you think of gay MEN as you’ve said about a million times (why just men, do you think lesbians don’t exist?) as humans.
I think it’s hilarious that WBC gets their freedom of speech upheld in court time and time again, along with the KKK and other hate organizations, and you freak out and create this whole end of the world scenario over extending marriage rights. Hate groups are free to spill their vile crap all over the place, and it’s legally protected, just like you’ll be free to spew your hate all over the place too. The only thing that will be different is that gay couples will be capable of getting married, and that people can’t discriminate on basis of sexual orientation anymore for goods and services. And no one is getting arrested, priests are not going to be forced to marry gay people, and the rest of your fever dreams will not come true.
You sound like the articles I’ve read against miscegenation from the fifties and sixties.
You’re much, much more patient than I am, Reality.
And I think the whole “you don’t count like other people” thing takes it beyond the claims of “I just disagree with the lifestyle, not the people” into the realm of pure, old-fashioned, nasty bigotry.
I’d rather wake people up to their own thinking than just slam dunk them Jack.
I don’t have an issue with people such as Angel thinking homosexuality and same-sex marriage are wrong based on some belief they may have. But when they think that their beliefs should dictate the lives of others they need to be pulled up. Especially when they come out with extraordinary claims of persecution and such when the fact is that it will have zero impact on them.
They seem to need constant reminding that the removal of their ability to discriminate against others does not constitute them being discriminated against. What has been referred to as ‘christian privilege’ was never actually legal or constitutional but because of the power structures of the past it was gotten away with. That is changing.
“I think it is massively lame for people to claim this offense anyway. What – they themselves are sinning if they sell to a sinner?”
Ex-RINO, your analogy/rationality is what is ‘massively lame. Do you understand that it would be a sin to sell someone BC if you know they are going to use it to abort a baby?
Truthseeker, do you consider buying Nike or Apple products sinful? And on a related note, are you part of that Starbucks boycott or do you support it?
I have never bought an Apple product or a Nike product but it was not cause I thought it would be sinful. If I did believe it was sinful then I would look for alternatives. Also, I am unaware there was a Starbucks boycott, I make my own cup of coffee at home every morning.
Starbucks is being boycotted because they support gay marriage…
Apple and Nike use child labor in other countries so they can price gouge.
Do you think it’s sinful to buy products from any of these three companies, or only one or two, or what? Do you consider it as sinful as baking a cake for a homosexual couple, or not?
I’m not being snarky, I’m genuinely interested in your thoughts here.
“create this whole end of the world scenario over extending marriage rights”
Deluded Lib,
There never was, isn’t now, and never will be such a thing as ‘homosexual marriage’. They can ‘unite’ all they want but it will never be equal to the union of a man and a woman. And government forcing ‘homosexual marriage’ compliance would have destructive consequences on our future, especially the most vulnerable among us.
Do you think it’s sinful to buy products from any of these three companies, or only one or two, or what?
If I validated what you say about these companies I would avoid purchasing products from them cause I would not want to support child labor…
Do you consider it as sinful as baking a cake for a homosexual couple, or not? Both are sins but baking the cake is a much more direct participation. As members of society we are all somewhat tied into the sins of the society however indirectly.
“Especially when they come out with extraordinary claims of persecution and such when the fact is that it will have zero impact on them.”
Reality, You would have to be an ostrich with your head in the sand to deny that the homo-nazi’s are attacking good people like bakers and forcing them out of business cause they refuse to participate in their ‘marriage’.
The reality is that people like Reality who deny there are those in the homosexual community attacking good people of conscience marriage are not helping the dialogue. Why should people with religious objections support the homosexual agenda when the people who support the homosexual agenda either support the lawsuits and attacks on the people who have religious objection or deny that the attacks even exist?
The Democrats better start looking harder for an alternate to run in the Democrat primary against Hillary. A federal judge just re-opened the case to recover emails off of Bill’s server. This is going to dog her throughout the campaign.
What I’m saying is THESE guys are under no court order. No one is going to force them to do anything. You can’t get blood from a turnip.
Mary, yes of course – we really don’t force anybody to pay, do we?
Of course women can go to court…and do. Whether they get anything is another story. I know of situations where the guy is in prison, gets out on parole or work release and fertilizes the woman every time. They wound up with about 4 kids.
It’s also why a lot of women have abortions. It’s also why some states have “family caps” on welfare where past a number of kids, there’s no increase in payments with more kids.
imo it is patently absurd that your opinion, or the government’s opinion about smoking dictates who a bar owner can serve.
Truthseeker, the gov’t really doesn’t “have an opinion.” It’s people that make the rules, and I vote like other people, so you could say that my opinion plays a part, at times.
However, a bar is not a “smoking place,” per se. Whether or not smoking is allowed, while the normal bar activities of serving up booze and people sucking it down go on, is what we are discussing.
Let us say that all the bar’s customers and employees want smoking to be allowed. In that case, then I see no need for any prohibition. It gets more complicated with multiple bars and some customers not wanting smoking.
Ex-GOP: And who is the seller? If Joe owns a bakery shop and doesn’t want to sell to gay weddings, but somebody who works there has no issue and takes an order, is Joe being harmed by selling the cake?
Or let’s flip it – if Joe has no issue, but Diane, who works for him, does. Does Diane as a worker get to overrule Joe as the owner? If Diane sells to somebody, is she violating her faith and overruling Joe’s? If she does then deny selling, Joe could fire her with no issues, correct?
And if Joe is a different entity all together because he formed a company so that he himself had protection as an individual, how the stink can a business, which isn’t a person, be offended anyway?
So my final two thoughts of this rambling post: It is a slippery slope with too much that can go wrong.
Exactly – and this is the reason for keeping religion separate from government.
truth
You are massively confusing issues here. If somebody comes into a gun shop and says “sell me a gun, I want to go shoot somebody” – there’s no law that says that common sense goes out the door and you must sell somebody a gun.
That is much different than a bakery, which bakes cares for a living, saying “I won’t bake this person a cake because their legal activity is one I disagree with”.
And again – I threw out about 10 good questions that you’ll ignore, but still exist. You, personally, want to selectively make the rules as you see fit, and you’ll have a fit when they somehow twist from how you like them.
There never was, isn’t now, and never will be such a thing as ‘homosexual marriage’. – there are actually two ways to respond to this. The first, which doesn’t shine a particularly good light on you, is to point out that there already are, and will increasingly be in the future, homosexual marriages. The second, which puts you in a better light, is to say yep, ok, there’s no such thing as ‘homosexual marriage’. There’s just ‘marriage’, consisting of both heterosexual and same-sex couples.
They can ‘unite’ all they want but it will never be equal to the union of a man and a woman. – you mightn’t. The rest of us mostly do. What about that ‘equal but different’ ploy some people of faith use to deny that the men having the power roles and the women the subservient roles isn’t tantamount to inequality?
And government forcing ‘homosexual marriage’ compliance would have destructive consequences on our future, especially the most vulnerable among us. – the government isn’t forcing homosexual marriage compliance. You still haven’t been able to enunciate what these ‘destructive consequences’ may be. Who are the ‘most vulnerable’? That’d be the same-sex folk who are discriminated against and legislated against wouldn’t it?
You would have to be an ostrich with your head in the sand to deny that the homo-nazi’s are attacking good people like bakers and forcing them out of business cause they refuse to participate in their ‘marriage’. – ‘homo-nazi’s’ now is it? Like ‘femi-nazi’s’? Given the basis on which these ad hominems are derived, shouldn’t something like ‘faith-nazi’s’ be right up there? No one is being forced out of business.
The reality is that people like Reality who deny there are those in the homosexual community attacking good people of conscience marriage are not helping the dialogue. – the homosexual community and their friends are defending themselves against the attacks that people such as you have been perpetrating for too long.
Why should people with religious objections support the homosexual agenda – they don’t have to.
when the people who support the homosexual agenda either support the lawsuits and attacks on the people who have religious objection or deny that the attacks even exist? – discriminating against people on the basis of their sexuality is no more justified than doing so on the basis of their color or gender. Laws are starting to reflect that.
Truthseeker: The Democrats better start looking harder for an alternate to run in the Democrat primary against Hillary. A federal judge just re-opened the case to recover emails off of Bill’s server. This is going to dog her throughout the campaign.
This reminds me of something from one of Obama’s campaigns. There was somebody on this site, not you, was it, TS? They said there was a video that was going to come out which would put the kibosh on Obama. Heh.
Mary,
The Democrats in Congress are getting a taste of Obama’s narcissism over this trade deal Obama is negotiating.
“They said there was a video that was going to come out which would put the kibosh on Obama. Heh.”
You don’t have to wait for the video to come out this time. Hillary thought she was in the clear because Obama/Holder and the DOJ had their back so there was no way that congress could to her. But now Judge Reggie is pissed off cause he was told these emails did not exist and now he wants to know if Hillary wipe that server clean (she already said she did) and destroyed them. Do you think this is going away?
Hi ts,
Obama has gotten a royal b—-slapping from the Democrats on TPP.
As a Tea Party member I never thought I would ever say this but…..
HOORAY for the Democrats! OK, the Tea Party has sided with the Democrats on this! Politics does indeed make strange bedfellows.
If only the Republican “leadership” had the cojones and conviction of Elizabeth Warren.
BTW Liz, expect a visit from Obama’s IRS brownshirts any day now. Der Fuehrer does not take kindly to being defied.
Why do people believe these ‘scandals’ are going to matter to anybody except people who have already made up their mind? Do you think the middle cares much about Benghazi, email servers, Scott Walker scandals, or anything like that?
The Republicans got whipped in the last Presidential election, and put together a study that says how they need to change to win in Presidential election years. The report said to get more moderate. They’ve gotten more hard core crazy, so thus, they’ll lose the senate and most likely lose the Presidency again.
These Hillary issues – do you know who cares about them? Fox news watchers. Nobody else. They just don’t.
“These Hillary issues – do you know who cares about them?”
Very Hillaryesque of you Ex-RINO. I can see her saying it again’ “What difference, at this point does it make”? That is if the press is allowed to ask her any questions.
“These Hillary issues – do you know who cares about them?”
Judge Reggie?
TS: Do you think this is going away?
Truthseeker, I don’t know – I don’t even know what’s going on in the news lately. But Ex-GOP is right – there is nothing really big going on, and it’s only the fringe nutters and people whose votes won’t change, anyway, that give two hoots. That was my point about that video that somebody here claimed would sink Obama – probably some wacky stuff designed for people too gullible to know any better – and of no real account anyway, even if not a total fake.
Ex-GOP: The Republicans got whipped in the last Presidential election, and put together a study that says how they need to change to win in Presidential election years. The report said to get more moderate. They’ve gotten more hard core crazy, so thus, they’ll lose the senate and most likely lose the Presidency again.
Barry Goldwater needs to be resurrected.
Doug, a real case of cover-up in front of a federal judge is a bigger deal than a phony story about a non-existent video, at least to people who are not so politically biased that they don’t know the difference.
Well Truthseeker, we’ll see what happens….
Yes we will. The issue will likely dog her throughout the campaign.
Hi ts,
Since you brought up our narcissist in chief(10:03PM) I thought you would find this article interesting.
http://observer.com/2015/05/obama-hurls-insults-at-liberals-on-trade/
You will find that narcissists are extremely petulant people. Its my way or hell to pay. Our dear leader is acting true to form. Honestly, its not even a challenge anymore. I know exactly how he’s going to react. Like I said ts, know the personality disorder and you will know exactly what to expect. A lifetime around these people has taught me a lot.
As for Senator Warren, she would do well to watch her back. She has defied and enraged a powerful narcissist, not an enviable position to be in. Just ask Ben Carson.
truth – here’s a test for you.
Take Scott Walker’s various scandals. Write on a piece of a paper, 1 being you don’t care, and 10 being you care a lot.
That number is how most people will feel and do feel about Hillary’s scandals.
It’s just the truth – I don’t know what to tell you. Fox blows up about scandals on the left – MSNBC blows up about scandals on the right – and most of the public can’t keep all the freak outs straight anymore, so they don’t care. They just don’t.
I would bet you that a majority of Americans couldn’t even tell you watch country Benghazi is in. The more freak-outs there are, the more the actual things become like the boy who cried wolf.
It’s D section news. You think it’s A section. Go to some other websites than where you go. It’s D section news.
Ex-RINO,
The fact that it is an current ongoing federal court case will keep in the news whether people care about it or not; and she will have to respond to it.
Ex-RINO,
I posed a challenge to you last year that fewer people would be covered by PRIVATE health insurance at the end of 2014 then were covered by health insurance at the end of 2013. Were you able to find the numbers? Remember, my challenge wasn’t the total number of people who would be insured, cause I granted that millions were being thrown onto the Medicaid rolls.
…and the case of Scott Walker could end up in the Supreme Court – and still, Americans won’t care much. Sure, people who weren’t going to vote for him might be mad. But if you think for one second that somebody who was going to vote for Hillary is all of the sudden going to flip because of how some emails were handled – or somebody who was going to vote for Walker is going to change because of his issues – I mean, come on.
Scott Walker is a career politician, flip flopping candidate with a terrible economic record – and still you would vote for him and vote for him proudly, and that’s your right. I’m saying that you completely overestimate these ‘scandals’.
“…and the case of Scott Walker could end up in the Supreme Court”
lol. Seriously? If it does it will be good for Wisconsin politics and good for the Wisconsin Club for Growth.
Private health insurance was up but quite a few million – could work on the number if you really care. Employer sponsored was pretty much the same (per Kaiser), and those purchasing private plans went up solidly again.
So I know it breaks your heart to see people with health insurance, but the trends continue to be better for America.
Yup – seriously. Walker seems to want it, given this article at least.
http://www.nationaljournal.com/2016-elections/scott-walker-supreme-court-20150512
Mary,
The Democrats in congress are showing their racist roots when they go after Obama like that. It is really ugly to watch.
“Private health insurance was up but quite a few million”
Where are you getting your data? A few million would mean a fairly large failure for the a health plan that supposed make insurance affordable to everyone. Obamacare really only helped the people who were already affluent by adding benefits but it has turned out to be really expensive.
Hi ts,
Yes I forgot, criticizing Obama is racist. Disagreeing with him is racist. What a collection of racists those Democrats are. Sure can’t accuse the Republican “leadership” of racism. They can’t find enough different ways to kiss Obama’s backside.
But Obama was being sexist when talking down to Senator Elizabeth Warren. So we have the narcissist talking sexist to the racist.
“They can’t find enough different ways to kiss Obama’s backside.”
We need Republican leaders like Scott Walker who aren’t afraid of getting audited by the IRS or investigated by the DOJ; those are the ones who stand up to Obama.
truth
My go-to on healthcare data is typically Kaiser.
It hasn’t been a failure compared to projected numbers, but you don’t understand it enough for me to explain it to you – so I’m not going to. If you do some research though, you’ll see that it has been much better than expected. I might say it has been one of the more successful pieces of legislation in our lifetime.
Countdown until we get rid of Ron Johnson is on! Love it…
“It hasn’t been a failure compared to projected numbers”
Don’t hurt your brain trying to explain, just tell us how may people did Obamacare insure with private insurance and how many did Obamacare throw onto the Medicaid rolls?
“Countdown until we get rid of Ron Johnson is on!”
Oh, is Feingold coming back after his seat?
Two posts for truth:
1) Here is a site with all the info you need. http://kff.org/health-reform/issue-brief/data-note-how-has-the-individual-insurance-market-grown-under-the-affordable-care-act/
2) Yes – Feingold will be back in the Senate in 2017…
Ex-RINO,
Feingold again? The Democrats really have a limited field to choose from don’t they?
Ex-RINO,
The data you referenced only shows a very small portion of the private insurance market, the individual market. Anybody with even the slightest understanding of the total private insurance market would understand that relevant data would also need to include people who have private insurance through their jobs. I appreciate the effort but either you don’t understand what we are talking about or you intentionally posted a useless link.
I don’t hold it against you that you can’t find the data. I looked for it too and I couldn’t find it either.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2014/05/10/new-mckinsey-survey-74-of-obamacare-sign-ups-were-previously-insured/
truth
Here’s the simple fact of the matter. You felt like the the whole market was going to collapse, no doubt because you had read some article on Fox or something like that. The market didn’t collapse, and we’ve simply moved into a new reality. If you want accurate month-by-month numbers, call your congress person and ask that there be mandatory health insurance reporting for all Americans.
Approximately 16 million people who didn’t have insurance now have insurance. The number of those without insurance have been decreased by a third.
Yet if you were in charge, you’d kick most of these people back to the ranks of the insured. You are one of the most bizarre debaters I know – you pick at the small scabs of a system, while advocating to slice it wide open. And the plans you promote would make the problems you see ten times worse.
Face it – Obamacare has largely been good, and it kills you to see a Democrat actually accomplish something after years and years of GOP nothingness. The party of no almost crashed the country, and Obama turned things around. You should be more respectful.
“Here’s the simple fact of the matter. You felt like the the whole market was going to collapse”
Ex-RINO, That is not the simple fact of the matter regarding the challenge I gave you last year, but you know that so you are trying to change the subject.
“Approximately 16 million people who didn’t have insurance now have insurance. The number of those without insurance have been decreased by a third.”
And most of them were thrown onto the Medicaid rolls. We didn’t need a clusterf@*& like Obamcare to add people to the Medicaid rolls.
“Yet if you were in charge, you’d kick most of these people back to the ranks of the insured.”
Speak for yourself and quit bloviating lies about what I would do.
1) Most of those people who have private insurance on the Obamacare exchanges had private insurance already before Obamacare.
2) I wouldn’t throw the people Obamacare put on the Medicaid rolls off of Medicaid.
So you are once again patently full of it
Most of them? Not true truth.
http://www.rand.org/news/press/2015/05/06.html
Among those newly gaining coverage, 9.6 million people enrolled in employer-sponsored health plans, followed by Medicaid (6.5 million), the individual marketplaces (4.1 million), nonmarketplace individual plans (1.2 million) and other insurance sources (1.5 million).
You are lying truth. If you look at all the readily available information out there, the rate of the uninsured has gone down by 15 million plus people. These people obviously didn’t have coverage before they have coverage now.
And did you get kicked in the head today? How do you suppose you are going to repeal obamcare, and keep everyone on the expanded Medicaid roles? You have some right wing math going on here? News flash – if you get rid of the law, medicaid changes back to how it is, and you’ve kicked millions off.
I also love how you say that we didn’t need to add all these people to Medicaid, and now you say we shouldn’t kick them off.
I’m just happy that you seem to possibly know what Medicaid is now compared to Medicare. Progress!
“Among those newly gaining coverage, 9.6 million people enrolled in employer-sponsored health plans, followed by Medicaid (6.5 million), the individual marketplaces (4.1 million), nonmarketplace individual plans (1.2 million) and other insurance sources (1.5 million).”
So by your numbers 4.1 million uninsured individuals got health insurance policies on the Obamacare individual marketplaces and 18.2 million uninsured people got health insurance policies from places other than the Obamacare exchanges?
That means less than one fourth of the uninsured since Obamacare actually got coverage on the Obamacare marketplace. That is a good thing because even with billions of dollars in government subsidies the Obamacare Exchanges are failing and the SCOTUS can’t fix that. It sounds like repealing Obamacare would really only effect 4 million people and that is manageable. And the cost of insurance policies would go down without all those government subsidies artificially flooding the private marketplace.
“You have some right wing math going on here? News flash – if you get rid of the law, medicaid changes back to how it is, and you’ve kicked millions off.”
Congress could fix that when they repeal those 3 thousand pages and the tens-of-thousands of pages added since it was passed. Keeping people on Medicaid as part of the repeal would probably only take about 10 pages.
“I also love how you say that we didn’t need to add all these people to Medicaid”
Ex-RINO, I challenge you to show me a post where I said that. We both know you can’t find one. What I always said we didn’t need the Obamacare clusterf@*& of bureaucracy and government regulation of our health care and intrusion into our medical care just to add people to the Medicaid rolls. Do you never tire of perjuring other people?
“I’m just happy that you seem to possibly know what Medicaid is now compared to Medicare. Progress!”
Thank you. Now if only you could learn to stop perjuring people on a regular basis by attributing falsehoods about them you could make some progress too.
truth
On your first point, do you even have a clue on why some of the state exchanges are failing, and what would happen? You seem to think that those states would no longer have health care reform – is that what you think?
On your second post – how would you pay for it? This is very, very interesting from you – this is more progressive than many progressives – a large expansion of medicaid even without health care reform? I’m all ears? Could we just expand Medicaid to any American who wants it – nationwide? Would you be in support of that?
On your third post – I assumed you were being like a conservative, saying get people off Medicaid. I didn’t know you had new progressive roots – so I apologize – I did jump to a conclusion, because again, you don’t hear conservatives talking about expanding Medicaid. They might make you give back your right winger card…
“so I apologize – I did jump to a conclusion, because again, you don’t hear conservatives talking about expanding Medicaid.”
Now that is the type of ‘progress’ we like to see from our progressive citizens. Apology accepted. Now realize that you do it all the time and try and control yourself.
“On your second post – how would you pay for it? This is very, very interesting from you – this is more progressive than many progressives – a large expansion of medicaid even without health care reform?”
Ex-RINO, I am assuming the people on Medicaid are indigant and it would not be a Medicaid expansion because Obamacare already threw them onto the Medicaid rolls. What I said is that I wouldn’t throw them off without caring about them. It would require intelligent and informed discussion and number crunching to come up with a gracious exit strategy.
So truth – you are going on the record in saying that you would keep the taxes in place that pay for the Medicaid expansion, and would not reject that part of the law?
So you would repeal the part of the law that outlawed discrimination against pre-existing conditions, and you are a-okay with bringing back lifetime and yearly caps, but you would fund, through tax increases (already in place), the Medicaid expansion. Yes?
I would repeal Obamacare in it’s entirety and use thoughtful discussion of the problems left behind by it’s failed implementation to resolve what we can without the panic and partisanship that drove Obamacare’s passage. I see no problem with letting people get policy’s with lifetime caps or without free BC etc.
Allowing people to purchase low cost catastrophic plans should allow many of the people who were forced off these policies and onto Medicare to get back in control of their own health care without government care.
truth
You don’t understand again. You don’t.
By repealing, you are kicking people off of MEDICAID.
People weren’t forced onto MEDICARE – that’s for old people.
And nobody was kicked off plans and FORCED onto MEDICAID. That’s now how it works.
You have no business talking healthcare – you don’t understand it. You have a 7th grade understanding of it, at best.
Later
Truthseeker: I am assuming the people on Medicaid are indigant
Dude, I saw this as “indignant,” and cracked up. (???)
“And nobody was kicked off plans and FORCED onto MEDICAID. That’s now how it works.”
I understand that. I just interposed the words cause they are so similar and being the progressive liberal you are you took that as a gotcha moment to insult and run. Do everybody a favor and make it much,much later.
truth – don’t minimize it to one mistake. You had multiple mistakes that proved you are in over your head.
– Nobody was forced onto Medicaid – there’s been outreaches in states and people sign up for Medicaid – not a ‘forced’ thing.
– The Medicare/Medicaid switch – you’ve only made that mistake about 8 times
– You say that you won’t roll back the Medicaid expansion…but you’d repeal Health Care Reform, which would roll back the Medicaid expansion – so you are essentially just playing ignorant here. Either admit that you’d completely cut the Medicaid expansion, or say you’d raise taxes after a repeal to keep that in place.
You keep talking about “the rush”. You know what – the GOP has had what, 5 years to come up with their own plan? Crickets…crickets….
It’s good to poke holes in things, but when you did it in an ignorant fashion, without knowing what you stand for, and without proposing an alternative, you are just whining.