Tuesday, February 21, 2012
Obama - more concerned about birth control than rising gas prices
It'd be like if JFK were more worried about fat kids during the Cuban Missile Crisis. Obama's Political Understanding of Sex: Get Involved. Do you really want government in the bedroom though telling insurance companies they have to pay for contraceptives for women? Now to me Sex is a private affair and I wouldn't think of walking around White Plains all day begging for a handout to pay for some rubbers and a tube of Astroglide but they're saying now gas is gonna hit some kind of record this summer, might reach $5/gallon and this of course has to do with Iran (many say oil speculators - http://weblogs.wpix.com/news/larrymendte/2011/05/wall_street_does_it_again.html). Now you'll notice once Khadafy bit the dust the price of regular began to dip ever so slightly but Jim Cramer of Mad Money said this morning on the Today Show that as long as Iran has its nuclear program gas will be a problem, oh God you mean 'til the End Times!?! True Iran only exports about 2.5% of its oil to the US but the bulk of it goes to Europe and then there's the critical Strait of Hormuz to consider which Iran has threatened to cut off. So what does Obama do? he grabs the horns of the Catholic Church over an issue formerly understood and settled, Don't Go There. Pick a fight with the RC Church in an election year with gas set to hit $5/gal - WTG!!! your political advisers must hate you. BTW congrats to His Eminence from NY Cardinal Dolan. I was reading in the paper the other day that David Brock of Media Matters is literally spending millions of dollars to get more favorable media coverage of Obama (HUH?). They'll be more than happy to do it for free David with Brian Williams sucking on his left nut and Rachel Maddow directing the jizm onto a poster of Rick Santorum. Just read on Drudge the European Union has just approved a whopping $172B bailout for Greece. Of course there has to be some deep cuts and oversight......hey Obama are you following any of this? Now I realize many of the Kool-Aid drinkers out there still see Obama as some kind of Savior but even as Messiahs go he's pretty weak. I think Dolan sucked all his charisma out of him and I just know he has a big old cold one on tap if Obama goes down to defeat.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
"..they're saying now gas is gonna hit some kind of record this summer, might reach $5/gallon and this of course has to do with Iran."
ReplyDeleteNo, it really doesn't. The propagandists tell you otherwise but the propagandists have zero cred.
"Do you really want government in the bedroom...?"
ReplyDeleteApparently the evangelical lot does. Hence their unwavering support for Santorum.
Soap I'm only going with what's been reported. My own personal opinion is they always find any excuse to raise prices and with all that's going on in the Middle East right now and Iran who's the average yokel too tired from holding down two jobs to question it?
ReplyDeleteI think Saty started a rumor that Santorum actually wants to outlaw birth control. Talking to Beth the other day and we both agreed that'd be political suicide, he wouldn't have gotten as far in politics as he has if it were true. If you're talking about gay acts I'm with you and he has to get off that Robert Bork bandwagon in a hurry.
ReplyDelete"Soap I'm only going with what's been reported. My own personal opinion is they always find any excuse to raise prices and with all that's going on in the Middle East right now and Iran who's the average yokel too tired from holding down two jobs to question it?"
ReplyDeleteAnd...that's what they hope for Z; that people won't question it. They'll merely take their little pill, accept it as truth, and worse still they'll go on reporting it and regurgitating it as if it were truth as well.
Case in point is this assertion that Irananian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has stated he wants to "wipe Israel off the map".
Such is a wholly inaccurate translation/interpretation that the pundits and the media presstitutes have put forth as gospel and their viewing masses have taken it and run with it (Lista is one such character).
I think I speak for Tony Montana when he asked:
"You wanna be a sheep? You wanna be like all those other people? Baaa baaaa."
Even were we to accept the propaganda; accept that it has everything to do with Iran, one would hope the hell that any level headed individual would stop to ask themselves:
Who is the agressor? What are the special interests? What might be their motivations and have we seen these acts similarly and previously placed before us and if so what were their consequences?
Or...we can just go back to watching the telescreen.
I don't think Saty's assertion is that far off the mark.
ReplyDeleteSantorum isn't the sort of individual I'd entrust with political power of any kind. Hell, I don't know I'd even let him walk my dog.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C2MKZZ9c4kQ
Obama nixing that oil pipeline from Canada to Texas making us more dependent than ever on foreign oil, yeah he said they didn't give him enough time to study the proposal. At a time like this he could've hunkered down and boned up on it, taken a few nights off and did his homework instead of worrying about the whole birth control thing which last I checked was still quite legal.
ReplyDeleteSaty's assertion is just Saty's assertion and common sense not too mention conventional political wisdom would tell you Rick Santorum would be a mere political footnote, a trivia question by now is this were so. Ah political gossip gotta love it, those Nat'l Enquirer headlines!
ReplyDeleteThe Keystone project has some
ReplyDeleteconstitutional issues which upset even Texas
conservatives.
If you watched the youtube video you'd know that Saty's assertion was more than just a simple assertion.
ReplyDeleteThe guy doesn't like birth control. He makes that crystal clear. Whether or not he'd use the bully pulpit to launch a crusade against is remains to be seen but I have my suspicions as I'm sure Saty does.
You have to read BB's link, it's right up your alley. Well speaking personally I don't like taking a shower with a suit on but I ain't for passing a law against it, there's a difference.
ReplyDeleteLibertarians of the Ron Paul ilk against the Keystone XL Pipeline, go read it now soap!
ReplyDeleteWell here's my take, which will probably piss off my more liberal friends...
ReplyDeleteWhen gas prices spiked during the Bush Admin, the Dems were pretty strident in their criticism of him and his supposed lack of concern for what those price increases would do to the economy and us regular guys.
To many, his inability to keep prices low, was reason enough to be critical and to vote against all of the GOP.
Putting aside whether a President can really move the price meter on issues like this, here's my question...
Will we be seeing liberals holding President Obama to the same standard?
I suspect not, as this is what politics has become...
When your guy does something I don't like, he's the devil/antiChrist/socialist/commie/idiot/ etc.
When my guy does something you don't like, your an idiot/stupid/intolerant/libturb/rightwing extremist/etc.
Whether I like Ron Paul or not, he is at least consistent in his views, something others cannot say about their candidate, or even their own views for that matter...
Man, it took me 7 tries to post my comment with the new blogger anti robot crap...
ReplyDeleteAre you guys having the same problems?
"Libertarians of the Ron Paul ilk against the Keystone XL Pipeline, go read it now soap!"
ReplyDeleteNot many things that run roughshod over property rights gets by me.
"Whether I like Ron Paul or not, he is at least consistent in his views, something others cannot say about their candidate, or even their own views for that matter..."
Ding! Ding! Ding! We have a winner!!!
Political options concerning oil
ReplyDeleteprices are pretty limited. Of each
dollar we pay, it breaks out:
•Taxes: 13 cents
•Distribution and Marketing: 8 cents
•Refining: 14 cents
•Crude oil: 65 cents
..from my POV, the controllable
variables would be perhaps lowering the tax, freeing up
reserves and maybe even looking into why the US EXPORTS over 3
billion barrels a day. Factors
such as greatly increased consumption in Asia, OPEC pricing,
refinery capacity bear on the pricing...factors we have little control over. I've never blamed
any administration over oil prices..for those reasons.
Dave has brought up the 'captcha'
log-in situation; not sure who is
responsible, but it is getting
a great deal of negative comment
in the blogosphere. ..we will
see if bloggers have any influence.
Just to top off Soap's day:
ReplyDeleteRon Paul stopped by the hinterlands of Idaho last weekend.
Big enthusiastic crowds in both the Mormon Twin Falls area as well as the liberal bastion of the University up north.
There's even more to it than that BB.
ReplyDeleteThe dollar has lost over 90% of it's purchasing power since the creation of the Federal Reserve. Consider, the value of the 1945 90% silver dime is on average about $4.00.
Were it not for inflation you'd still be paying about a dime for a gallon of gas.
Secondly, the Summer driving months are approaching which gives rise to the oxygenated blends which are mandated under the Clean Air Act.
It is primarily for this reason that we see a spike at the pump around Memorial weekend and then a noticeable drop in prices when the mandates expire at the end of Summer around Labor Day weekend.
"Ron Paul stopped by the hinterlands of Idaho last weekend.
ReplyDeleteBig enthusiastic crowds in both the Mormon Twin Falls area as well as the liberal bastion of the University up north."
The revolution continues...
You know Z...I got to thinking about the crux of your post and I can't help but notice a bit of irony here.
ReplyDeleteIt is your suggestion that Obama is focused on birth control when he ought to be focused on the Keystone pipeline or other, shall we say..., more pressing issues.
Isn't this the staple at the Republican table?
I mean shit...let's consider how many times Republicans are elected out of apparent economic necessity (funny since most of them are Keynesians anyway but I digress...) only to take their newfound political clout and squander it away on some social nonsensory.
Case in point (I just love these cases in point) is here in the lovely northern state of MN where the Republicans took over the state legislature for the first time in nearly 40 years in light of rampant DFL spending which moderate governor green jeans (TPaw) largely endorsed.
What's the first order of business??
Oh how about a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between one man and one woman followed by some corporate welfare for the Wilfs and the Vikings organization, possibly a state run gambling casino, and the coup de grace...a sex scandal involving former state Senator, Majority Leader, and (would ya believe...) staunch advocate of them family values and traditional marriage Amy Koch's rendevous with a paid staffer (Michael Brodkorp).
BB hit on a good point... it is possible that raw crude is not the problem... but rather refined product.
ReplyDeleteWhat can any President do when our refineries are operating at over 90% capacity?
We can pump all the oil we want, but no more oil will be flowing to our tanks because of this reality.
As for us exporting crude, think of it more as a trade... we export a different type of crude than we need...
Sadly, no one can demonstrate how any solution, other than cutting consumption, in classic supply demand theory, can move the meter in this area.
And BTW... great points on the GOP in MN... we are seeing the exact same thing across all levels of government as the GOP wins elections...
ReplyDeleteWhy are they fundamentally unable to leave social issues behind and focus on economic issues?
Isn't this hurting their brand?
"Why are they fundamentally unable to leave social issues behind and focus on economic issues?"
ReplyDeleteBecause A) the social issues are what resonates with the very evangelicals that elect them; and B) their economics is little different than that of the 'opposition' party.
"Isn't this hurting their brand?"
Yes, but not amongst the evangelical crowd who elects them. What's more, I don't know that they much care as in their heart of hearts they know they are the flip side to the same coin. Both the Dems and Repubs know they both like and want big government. The only question is what kind of big government it's going to be. All indications at present are that they are not altogether different (Preemptive wars of aggression, deficit financing, corporate welfare, trampling on civil liberties, upending the rule of law, etc.)
There's only one GOP candidate committed to eliminating 5 departments and cutting $1 Trillion in his first year but eh...go figure he's apparently unelectable.
ReplyDeleteI rest my case. Big government sells and just about everyone is buying.
Dave, bear in mind that I didn't even touch on the resignation and financial debacle left by former state party chair Tony Sutton.
ReplyDeleteIs isn't an either/or thing, I myself am interested in both economics and social issues in my candidate.
ReplyDeleteI'm no conspiracy theorist, but
ReplyDeletethe fusion of fundamental evangelicals and rightwing catholics, formalised in the
Manhattan Declaration is suggestive of
a theocracy. We recall the theocracies of the Dark Ages and
are reminded how the US constitution, Art VI, para 3
protects us. Besides, IMO, Cardinal Dolan and Chuck Colson
seem an unlikely, even weird pair.
"Pick a fight with the RC Church in an election year with gas set to hit $5/gal - WTG!!! your political advisors must hate you."
ReplyDeletePresident Obama did not "pick a fight" with the RCC. The mandate to cover contraception insurance for Catholic organizations has been around for years and Catholic organizations have been supporting it. The mandate did not cover Churches themselves, only business.
There was no fight until hypocrites in the RCC thought there should be because it would hurt Mr. Obama. It hasn't.
"BTW congrats to His Eminence from NY Cardinal Dolan. I was reading in the paper the other day that David Brock of Media Matters is literally spending millions of dollars to get more favorable media coverage of Obama (HUH?). They'll be more than happy to do it for free David with Brian Williams sucking on his left nut and Rachel Maddow directing the jizm onto a poster of Rick Santorum."
Sounds like a certain Z-man is ripping angry.
"...hey Obama are you following any of this? Now I realize many of the Kool-Aid drinkers out there still see Obama as some kind of Savior but even as Messiahs go he's pretty weak."
No, we don't see Mr.Obama as any sort of Savior/Messiah. That is how you people define those of us who do not regularly engage in hate-fests over this president. We live in the real world, understand Mr. Obama's weaknesses and strengths. It's called being a mature adult.
"I think Dolan sucked all his charisma out of him and I just know he has a big old cold one on tap if Obama goes down to defeat."
Catholics, by a majority, are on Mr. Obama's side on this issue, not Dolan's.
"... many of the Kool-Aid drinkers out there..." Surely, Z-Man, you
ReplyDeleterefer to the GOP politician who is afraid of
Girl Scouts?
Shaw you really don't get it or choose not to. I don't care if Rick Santorum and all of his male poker pals were on that committee Boxer and Pelosi lambasted, it has nothing to do with access to contraception but everything to do with religious liberty. Soap I don't think the GOP is fixated on birth control just on leave the Church alone. Personally I don't think any law should mandate contraception coverage by insurance companies, that should be an entirely free-market decision.
ReplyDeleteDave I was pondering this the other day and I think it's inevitable you're gonna run into social issues in politics in one form or another. Used to be zoning ordinances designed to shuttle around porn shops and Giuliani when he was mayor of NYC garnered alot of popularity by cleaning up Times Square even though he was a pro-choice mayor. Nowadays there's a controversy in NYC about allowing religious groups to hold after-hours prayer services in public schools as they've been allowed to do for years. Like it or not social issues are always on the table, I think the real issue is how much weight to give them. Some think not much others much more and I think it kind of extreme to only focus on the Economy but if the economy is your thing then rock on!
ReplyDeleteUnless you believe the government should legislate social mores, hand down edicts, and the like you don't focus on the social issues.
ReplyDeleteThere is a dark and rather unpleasant history with such governments.
The Catholic Church, Shaw, is not on Mr. Obama's side, Shaw, and the Catholic Church is a religion, and the State is not supposed to mandate what Churches should do, maybe the fact that you are an Atheist makes you uncaring about the First Amendment, but for those of us who do care about it, Mr. Obama is flat out wrong.
ReplyDeleteBeth, you didn't read my comment.
ReplyDeleteI wrote "Catholics," not the "Catholic Church."
The "Catholic Church" is a business organization. "Catholics" are people. And I am correct when I say "Catholics" support Mr. Obama on this issue.
"In a compromise last week, President Obama said insurance companies could shoulder the costs required under the new federal health care law, but the Conference of Catholic Bishops and other religious leaders continue to oppose the rule.
A majority of Catholic voters in the poll were at odds with the church’s official stance, agreeing with most other voters that religiously affiliated employers should offer health insurance that provides contraception. Jennifer Davison, 38, a Catholic from Lomita, Calif., agrees with the federal requirement. “My opinion is that it is a personal issue rather than a religious issue,” she said in a follow-up interview."
Please don't make incorrect assumptions about me and my belief in the First Amendment, especially when you get what I write completely wrong.
If you don't think paying for contraception against the Catholic Church's teaching, then you don't care about the First Amendment.
ReplyDeleteInsurance companies get their money from people like me, who oppose contraception, so saying that insurance companies should pay for it IS saying that I should pay for someone else's birth control pills, against my religious beliefs.
Really, where do you think insurance companies get their money? From trees?
Beth, your argument falls apart in this way:
ReplyDeleteOther religions, besides the RCC, have religious prohibitions on medical procedures. If I worked, say, for a Christian Science or Jehovah Witness organization, would that religious organization be able to withhold insurance coverage for blood transfusions? Scientologists don't believe in using psychosomatic drugs. If someone worked for their organization, would they be able to withhold covering for legitimate medicines to control depression or psychoses?
Almost every religion, not just the RCC, prohibits something and it is impossible to give exemptions to them all, otherwise we'd have a chaotic system.
This is a phony issue, since Catholic organizations like hospitals and universities that employ thousands and thousands of nonCatholics, have been covering contraception for their employees for years without any complaints.
Mitt Romeny approved of contraception coverage inclusion in insurance policies for RCC businesses while he was governor of Massachusetts. That's a fact. The Church never made a peep back then about it. Not a word.
Explain why this has become an issue now.
"The "Catholic Church" is a business organization. "Catholics" are people."
ReplyDeleteCareful...Corporations are people dontcha know. #BadSCOTUSDecisions
Shaw it was the concession that wasn't. Now my pastor almost never discusses politics from the pulpit and never even uses the names of even our local politicians but he said last week that Obama is the most anti-religion president in history. About your comparison a blood transfusion may be necessary to prolong one's life, sex is not.
ReplyDeleteSoap you have such a nightmarish vision of things, a kind of Alex Jones/George Orwell hybrid. It's the liberals this time who are dragging the government into the bedroom by saying we all need to chip in to pay for some working woman's contraceptives. Now if we're talking about real sluttery that's gonna run you into some serious money.
ReplyDelete"Soap you have such a nightmarish vision of things, a kind of Alex Jones/George Orwell hybrid."
ReplyDeletePerhaps you can clue me in as to what you're talking about. I just call it how it is Z.
"It's the liberals this time who are dragging the government into the bedroom by saying we all need to chip in to pay for some working woman's contraceptives. Now if we're talking about real sluttery that's gonna run you into some serious money."
Red team/Blue team.
Last time it was the Republicans. If you want to get into a discussion of Obama and rubbers and this that and the other thing then have at it. It seems to be a favorite passtime that people spend time doing in a futile attempt to make Democrats look back and Republicans look good in a political season.
I am much more interested in asking why the hell when Republicans had majorities they weren't committed to getting government out of the medicine entirely. Had they done so instead of actually adding greatly to it, these ridiculous political footballs they pass around would be a thing of the past.
You wanna assign motives soapie that's fine but what Obama did is just plain wrong. I'm just focusing on the plain wrong part. The whole Alex Jones/George Orwell hybrid thing like everyone's a threat to your liberty even conservatives, no one can be trusted, no one has the right motives. We're all a bunch of shadowy dark figures, we want to legislate social mores which isn't even possible and we're either for liberty or against it which roughly translated means we either agree with you and Ron Paul or we don't.
ReplyDeleteI never inferred everyone is a threat to my liberty.
ReplyDeleteThe state is.
The banksters are.
The politicians that get their campaign funds from the banksters are.
The people who support the state and the banksters with their money and their votes are.
As for "focusing on the plain wrong part"...
That's what I am doing. That's what Ron Paul is doing.
This is why, contrary to say someone like Santorum who attempts to counter Title 10 and funding for planned parenthood by adding Title 20 to fund abstinence programs thereby growing government, you have someone like Ron Paul who "does the right thing" and takes a position against them BOTH.
Santorum is a conservative in the modern mold. He too grew government by leaps and bounds. I don't like an overgrown Federal Government. I think I make that perfectly clear.
Thus, I don't like Rick Santorum and other politicians like him Z. He is a threat to my liberty.
I suppose it's sorta like those who don't actively work to outlaw abortion are pro-abortionists in some people's view. If, as a politician, you're not actively working to shrink the federal government then yeah....you are an enemy of freedom and liberty.
Here is where your argument falls apart, Shaw:
ReplyDeleteIf an employer was of a certain religion, then yes I would say they can find an insurance company that will not pay for drugs or procedures that are against their religion. And any employee who doesn't like those things can find employment elsewhere.
Shaw just finds rationales for whatever Obama does. Hey many people did when Bush was president, it's just a team thing, a bunker mentality. I agree with the soapster here and Paul on the abstinence thing and I've said so myself - Gov't don't talk about Sex period. Let the folks have that discussion.
ReplyDelete