What's new
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

ObamaRama 8

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: ObamaRama 8

Uhh....she made a point about the belief system of Americans. Not sure where the controversery is.:confused:

That a) the change was not commisioned by a Democratic Congress and president but rather under a Republican Congress and administration, rendered her criticism moot and b) the wording was restored by bipartisan action, rendering her criticism even more mooter.

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/change-we-can-believe-in-fox-news-shoots-down-palins-coin-theory/

But she's not like those inside the Beltway elitists who research their points or anything.
 
Re: ObamaRama 8

The fact anyone in the GOP even views Palin as a serious candidate for any office above meter maid is enough to keep me in the Indie camp.
 
Re: ObamaRama 8

That a) the change was not commisioned by a Democratic Congress and president but rather under a Republican Congress and administration, rendered her criticism moot and b) the wording was restored by bipartisan action, rendering her criticism even more mooter.

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/change-we-can-believe-in-fox-news-shoots-down-palins-coin-theory/

But she's not like those inside the Beltway elitists who research their points or anything.

But she's a maverick. ;)

"More mooter".....nice.:D

Anyhow, my point was this: She doesn't make mention of WHO made the change to the coin. She doesn't criticize either party. And since the speech she was giving was made three days after Obama was elected, it was obvious that she wasn't blaming the Obama Administration. Pretty sure she was merely pointing out how American's belief in God is being disregarded.
 
Re: ObamaRama 8

And since the speech she was giving was made three days after Obama was elected, it was obvious that she wasn't blaming the Obama Administration.

Good point, for some reason this just started popping up everywhere in the last few days. Though that still doesn't negate the fact that the redesign was eighty-sixed well before she gave the speech, still rendering the complaint quite mooty.
 
Re: ObamaRama 8

Good point, for some reason this just started popping up everywhere in the last few days. Though that still doesn't negate the fact that the redesign was eighty-sixed well before she gave the speech, still rendering the complaint quite mooty.

Meh. I still think she was merely giving an example. It didn't seem to be so much a complaint.
 
Re: ObamaRama 8

This should really be in the health care thread.

I'm proud of the Yooper of the House.
http://lifenews.com/nat5651.html
Yea, tacking on an amendment that will cause sweeping issues for any woman seeking an abortion, even with a private insurer, is something to be proud of. That and linking a site that uses the term "Pro-abortion" often and repeatedly.

He's also not a Yooper, he was born in Milwaukee.

Something from the opposite side of the spectrum.
http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2009/11/09/stupak-amendment-jessica/

1. It effectively bans coverage for most abortions from all public and private health plans in the Exchange: In addition to prohibiting direct government funding for abortion, it also prohibits public money from being spent on any plan that covers abortion even if paid for entirely with private premiums. Therefore, no plan that covers abortion services can operate in the Exchange unless its subscribers can afford to pay 100% of their premiums with no assistance from government “affordability credits.” As the vast majority of Americans in the Exchange will need to use some of these credits, it is highly unlikely any plan will want to offer abortion coverage (unless they decide to use it as a convenient proxy to discriminate against low- and moderate-income Americans who tend to have more health care needs and incur higher costs).

2. It includes only extremely narrow exceptions: Plans in the Exchange can only cover abortions in the case of rape or incest or “where a woman suffers from a physical disorder, physical injury, or physical illness that would, as certified by a physician, place the woman in danger of death.” Given insurance companies’ dexterity in denying claims, we can predict what they’ll do with that language. Cases that are excluded: where the health but not the life of the woman is threatened by the pregnancy, severe fetal abnormalities, mental illness or anguish that will lead to suicide or self-harm, and the numerous other reasons women need to have an abortion.

3. It allows for a useless abortion “rider”: Stupak and his allies claim his Amendment doesn’t ban abortion from the Exchange because it allows plans to offer and women to purchase extra, stand-alone insurance known as a rider to cover abortion services. Hopefully the irony of this is immediately apparent: Stupak wants women to plan for a completely unexpected event.

4. It allows for discrimination against abortion providers: Previously, the health care bill included an evenhanded provision that prohibited discrimination against any health care provider or facility “because of its willingness or unwillingness to provide, pay for, provide coverage of, or refer for abortions.” Now, it only protects those who are unwilling to provide such services.

I like the presidents comments on the amendment.

http://www.opencongress.org/articles/view/1348-Next-Steps-for-the-Stupak-Abortion-Amendment

“I want to make sure that the provision that emerges meets that test — that we are not in some way sneaking in funding for abortions, but, on the other hand, that we’re not restricting women’s insurance choices,” he said.
 
Last edited:
Re: ObamaRama 8

Yea, tacking on an amendment that will cause sweeping issues for any woman seeking an abortion, even with a private insurer, is something to be proud of. That and linking a site that uses the term "Pro-abortion" often and repeatedly

"Keep your hands off my ovaries.....but your tax dollars.....yeah, that's fine by me.":rolleyes:
 
Re: ObamaRama 8

Getting us back on track here, some porn star is running against Vitter for Senate in LA. This interview is priceless, especially the 1st question...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Porn star Stormy Daniels talks to Marie Claire about her transition to politics as a U.S. Senate candidate from Louisiana.

Q: How much will your résumé be a factor?

A: It's actually starting to work in my favor -- I have nothing to hide. A sex tape of me isn't going to pop up and shame me; there are 150 of them at the video store.

Q: Do you think you're more qualified than Senator Vitter?

A: Absolutely not. But in one movie, I did play a Secret Service agent marooned on an island controlled by North Korea. I butt heads with dictator Kim Jong-il and come out on top.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

:eek: :D :cool:
 
Re: ObamaRama 8

This should really be in the health care thread.
Yea, tacking on an amendment that will cause sweeping issues for any woman seeking an abortion, even with a private insurer, is something to be proud of. That and linking a site that uses the term "Pro-abortion" often and repeatedly.
He's also not a Yooper, he was born in Milwaukee.

Stupak represents the Upper Peninsula of Michigan. I'll leave the rest of that connection for your keen intellect (*that's sarcasm*) to figure out. ;)
Concerning pro-abortion activism, I think the most horrible travesty (irony being too weak a word in this case) is that we've allowed our society to effectively define abortion as a "health care" issue. It has nothing to do with health; in fact, the opposite. The arguable exceptions being those allowed for by the amendment.
How long will BO be able to ride the fence on this one before he gets called out? It's either health care or it's killing kids.
 
Re: ObamaRama 8

Is it a medical procedure? Is it legal under the law? Then why shouldn't insurance cover it?


If you want to restrict any public option, or any government subsidy money to buy private insurance from covering abortions, then why not also restrict them from covering Viagra, hair replacement procedures, etc.?

I mean, after all, it's God's will if a guy can't get it up anymore, or his hair has fallen out, right?
 
Re: ObamaRama 8

Is it a medical procedure? Is it legal under the law? Then why shouldn't insurance cover it?


If you want to restrict any public option, or any government subsidy money to buy private insurance from covering abortions, then why not also restrict them from covering Viagra, hair replacement procedures, etc.?

I mean, after all, it's God's will if a guy can't get it up anymore, or his hair has fallen out, right?

I'd say the same about fertility treatments too. Surgical and medical advances should not thwart "God's will" ...
 
Re: ObamaRama 8

I mean, after all, it's God's will if a guy can't get it up anymore, or his hair has fallen out, right?

Fine with me. Having insurance pay for hair transplant shows whats really wrong with our system. Thats elective, you want it, you pay for it.
Same for liposuction, nose jobs, gender reidentification etc
 
Re: ObamaRama 8

Fine with me. Having insurance pay for hair transplant shows whats really wrong with our system. Thats elective, you want it, you pay for it.
Same for liposuction, nose jobs, gender reidentification, abortion(s), etc

Truth. And FYP.
 
Re: ObamaRama 8

Rufus may have been sarcastic (or not?) but I agree that tax money should be paying for none of these things. Essential bypass surgery for a poor person is one thing (and we have Medicaid already)... want new boobs? Buy them yourself. (or viagra, hair, fertility drugs, toenail fungus cream, etc. etc.)
 
Re: ObamaRama 8

Is it a medical procedure? Is it legal under the law? Then why shouldn't insurance cover it?


If you want to restrict any public option, or any government subsidy money to buy private insurance from covering abortions, then why not also restrict them from covering Viagra, hair replacement procedures, etc.?

I mean, after all, it's God's will if a guy can't get it up anymore, or his hair has fallen out, right?

The problem you're dealing with rufus is that most conservatives are celibate, and not by choice, so none of these issues affect them. :D ;)

As abortion is a medical procedure, its part of health care. Forcing insurance not to cover it is a back door attempt at subverting the law of the land, Roe v Wade, by making the procedure too expensive to obtain (because, as all of us know, its only poor people doing this).
 
Last edited:
Re: ObamaRama 8

The problem you're dealing with rufus is that most conservatives are celibate, and not by choice, so none of these issues affect them. :D ;)

I can't have you speading deliberate falsehoods about our good Repub friends.

They like sex as much as anyone, they're always looking for it in airport men's rooms, and Congressional page dormitories, and Louisiana prostitutes(complete with accessory diaper), and other such places.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top