How Far...

[RBBailey]

...will his supports let him go?

When he gets frustrated dealing with the likes of Rush, will he simply write up a new executive order and claim that the dissent causes too much controversy, that it is a clear and present danger?

http://www.nypost.com/seven/0123200...zings_gop_foe_in_a_timulating_talk_151572.htm

"I won. I trump you." What a childish remark.

Who does he think he is that he speaks out against the 1st Amendment?

Would any of you liberals step up if they break out the Fairness Doctrine?


I had a dream on the night before inauguration day, that I was being forced to take a written quiz regarding my views on social, religious, and economic issues in order to keep my job.

Would any of you liberals step up if he goes this far?


Would any of you liberals step up if, in the wake of another school shooting, he issues an executive order to ban the sale of ammunition in the interest of public safety, of course?

Would any of you liberals step up if he gave away $400,000,000.00 of our money to foreign countries so they could tell people how to get abortions? Something tells me abstinence education and ultrasounds don't go with that money.

 

[JMK]

Fuck him. Let him fail. Prove to the world that maybe bush wasn't so bad after all. atriot:

 

[eric w siepmann]

Fuck him. Let him fail. Prove to the world that maybe bush wasn't so bad after all. atriot:

Exactly. CBO is telling him that his bail out will not in fact be able to impact the economy in the near term. Take the pragmatic approach by the Republicans with less spending and the use of tax breaks to encourage spending on the CONSUMER level. Love the welfare refunds to people who have no taxable income to begin with.

I hope he is one and done.

 

[antichrist]

When he gets frustrated dealing with the likes of Rush, will he simply write up a new executive order and claim that the dissent causes too much controversy, that it is a clear and present danger?

Get real Ben. He didn't mean he was going to cut them out if they don't stop listening to Rush, but he couldn't very well say, "Listen people, Rush Limbaugh is a complete idiot. If you keep basing what you do on the crap he spews on the radio, we're never going to work together. You'll just be continuing what both parties have done for years when the other is in the majority, be a roadblock to getting anything important done."

Would any of you liberals step up if he gave away $400,000,000.00 of our money to foreign countries so they could tell people how to get abortions?

I'm glad he rescinded the Mexico City rule. Now US foreign aid rules match domestic rules. The foreign aid groups can receive money for contraceptives, as long as they don't use any of that money for abortions.
Of course, there are always those who want to make it out as something it isn't.

 

[RBBailey]

Tom, I wasn't talking about his issues with the Republicans in congress, I was talking about the fact that a president just spoke out against the right of a person to speak out against the government. He is setting the stage for the Fairness Doctrine. It is an assault on the Freedom of Speech.

Could you please point to the part of the Constitution where the president is able to give away tax money? I could care less what it's for. It is unconstitutional for him to give our money away -- I know, I know, according to him, we can spend our way out of debt. So maybe you can explain that one while you're at it.

By the way, if you agree with foreign aid groups getting contraceptives, why don't you buy a box of condoms and send it away? Why do tax dollars have to be used? There are hundreds of thousands of dollars in free, non-government grants that you can get from the hundreds of thousands of philanthropic organizations in the U.S., why does the government have to take it by force?

 

[antichrist]

Sorry, you linked to an article about his comments to congress about Rush.

He's not giving it away, he's rescinding an executive order put in place by Reagan. Way too many executive orders are signed blocking funding and/or laws that congress passes because presidents know their veto will be overridden. If you don't like it Ben, write your congressman and urge them to change the law.
The more important question is why are you singling out family planning money? A drop in the bucket in foreign aid spent, and does much more good than a lot of the other stuff tax dollars are spent on. I think everyone knows why.

 

[RBBailey]

Understand, I believe the pre-born are human. If you take a look at it from my angle, it is a pretty important issue.

Also, I've been able to get my hands on some of the PP literature. They usually only give it out if you are female, and actually are in their clinics. My sister got it when she was considering an abortion. The literature doesn't mention the possibility of an adoption. They don't offer ultra sounds. And they wanted to sign my sister up for an abortion the next day.

In this state, my sister couldn't even have got her ear pierced without parent permission. You can't buy a firearm without 3 days waiting in a lot of places. I just think the whole thing is absurd.

Why should my tax dollars go to special interest groups of any kind? Who, besides the special interest groups, thinks this is Constitutional? Now, I see that Pelosi is taking her cue from China: http://www.drudgereport.com/flashpbc.htm

Who?... what?... where am I? Is she seeing a doctor for this? This is getting serious -- whatever it is that is afflicting her. So now the chief legislator of our country is advocating a control on births to help with the economy? Seriously, where am I living right now? Is this China?

 

[antichrist]

I think including it in an economic stimulus package is stupid, but how exactly is providing the means to prevent more children ending up on welfare roles making you feel like you're living in China? She said "contraceptives". In case you didn't realize it, abortion is not a contraceptive. Contraceptives are things like birth control pills, condoms, diaphragms, IUD's, etc.
Need more tinfoil for that hat Ben?

 

[Skaramunga]

...hmmm

 

[mgreenspan]

OMG something from the national review oh God!!!... just give it a quick read. Rush's response to Obama's comment. http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=OTU5MjE3MmQ0NWU1Zjc1YzYyMDE1NzNmZmM2MzYxMmI=

fairly interesting at least.

 

[antichrist]

I like this

Obama was angry that Merrill Lynch used $1.2 million of TARP money to remodel an executive suite. Excuse me, but didn't Merrill have to hire a decorator and contractor? Didn't they have to buy the new furnishings?

I certainly hope people in Congress aren't basing decisions on idiotic statements like that.

 

[RBBailey]

I think including it in an economic stimulus package is stupid, but how exactly is providing the means to prevent more children ending up on welfare roles making you feel like you're living in China? She said "contraceptives". In case you didn't realize it, abortion is not a contraceptive. Contraceptives are things like birth control pills, condoms, diaphragms, IUD's, etc.
Need more tinfoil for that hat Ben?

The reason I don't like it is that it is government getting involved into the private decisions and family planning. You always have to ask: What will be the next step? And; How will they screw this up like they screw everything else up?

I don't mind a private organization doing this. It's when Government gets involved that I have a problem.

It is a double standard, if you remember Roe v. Wade was all about government v. private choice. The more influence the government has, the less of a private decision and actual choice it becomes.

-----

On the Rush Limbaugh issue: I am, admittedly, just picking on Obama because I don't know of any other president who has come out and personally, directly attacked the 1st Amendment in the form of a personal attack on someone (Rush) who makes a living by exercising, in a nearly pure form, the 1st Amendment. I think it is dangerous ground to tread to allow our president to attack the Freedom of Speech.

Take note though on my background with this: with the Fairness Doctrine, targeting Rush, hovering just over the horizon, the comments Obama made can be, will be, and probably should be viewed as a veiled threat. We will see. He has spoken out against individual's in dissent, exercising their Freedom of Speech before, lets see how it develops now that he is president. I am predicting more comments like this from him, and I am predicting that they will eventually combine with the push to pass the Fairness Doctrine.

If it comes down to a war of words between Obama and Rush, who does the Constitution protect? That is all you need to know.

 

[antichrist]

The reason I don't like it is that it is government getting involved into the private decisions and family planning.

Oh, you mean like Bush not allowing any organization that gets federal money for condoms to also mention abortion as an option? Obama's executive order reversing Bush's actually prevents exactly what you say you hate, the government telling Dr.'s what they can and can't tell their patients.
I'm not aware of the government forcing anyone to go in to Planned Parenthood and pick up a handful of condoms.

I think it is dangerous ground to tread to allow our president to attack the Freedom of Speech.

It would be, if he had. But he didn't say, "Rush has no business saying the things he says."
He didn't even say they aren't allowed to listen to him, not that there's a "freedom of listening" clause in the constitution.

If it comes down to a war of words between Obama and Rush, who does the Constitution protect?

Hopefully both of them.

Also, I've been able to get my hands on some of the PP literature.

"been able to get my hands on" :rofl:
Ben, you crack me up. You make it sound like it's some sort of secret NSA document.

They usually only give it out if you are female, and actually are in their clinics.

BS. I've been to Planned Parenthood numerous times, it's not under lock and key.

 

[d2dave]

Fuck him. Let him fail. Prove to the world that maybe bush wasn't so bad after all. atriot:

exactly.atriot: atriot: atriot:

 

[RBBailey]

Oh, you mean like Bush not allowing any organization that gets federal money for condoms to also mention abortion as an option?

No, the programs in the school district I work for allow for both -- they hand out the condoms and the PP literature when they are on campus. That's bad info you have.

It would be, if he had. But he didn't say, "Rush has no business saying the things he says."
He didn't even say they aren't allowed to listen to him, not that there's a "freedom of listening" clause in the constitution.

Did you realize that one of the items on the list for why they were going to impeach Nixon was that he had identified political enemies in the private sector? I understand what you are saying -- he didn't say Rush couldn't say that stuff. And I'm not claiming a non-debatable point here. But I am making the argument that for the POTUS to step into the issue at all, to use the bully pulpit of the office, to continue his campaign, from his seat of power, against the talkers who don't agree with him, is wrong.

"been able to get my hands on" :rofl:
Ben, you crack me up. You make it sound like it's some sort of secret NSA document.

BS. I've been to Planned Parenthood numerous times, it's not under lock and key.

Well, Hu... I don't know what else to say. The PP offices in my area are very secretive. In fact, the one my sister went to is right next to a camera shop I used to go to for supplies. I was once approached by some sort of security guard when I parked and finished the phone conversation I was having in front of the office.

And it is true that they do not hand out their literature to just anyone. You can go in and grab what is on their front counter, but I'm talking about the stuff they give to their clients. I also know that my sister left their in tears because she thought that Planned Parenthood actually meant that they would help her in Planning for Parenthood. Her words to me were that she felt pressured into having an abortion, and that she didn't even know what the paperwork was that they had her working on before she got scared and ran.

...Humm, I wonder if anything would be different if they simply changed their name to "Free Abortions", instead of the semi-Orwellian harmless sounding Planned Parenthood.

If planned parenthood actually provided as much support for adoption, or for simply keeping the baby the girl chose to create in the first place, then I would not have a problem with them. It's the double standard thing that really galls me.


So, how is your state going to run with the new emissions standards?

How about that first T.V. interview? Where do his loyalties reside anyway?

 

[antichrist]

No, the programs in the school district I work for allow for both -- they hand out the condoms and the PP literature when they are on campus. That's bad info you have.

Can you document that they are getting Federal dollars?

But I am making the argument that for the POTUS to step into the issue at all, to use the bully pulpit of the office, to continue his campaign, from his seat of power, against the talkers who don't agree with him, is wrong.

Wrong? I don't know about that. Stupid, yes, 100%.

In fact, the one my sister went to is right next to a camera shop I used to go to for supplies. I was once approached by some sort of security guard when I parked and finished the phone conversation I was having in front of the office.

Do you think maybe, possibly, it could be because people have been attacking them, their doctors, nurses, harassing patients up to and including bombing the offices and killing people? Nah, couldn't be that. It's just PP trying to intimidate people and forcing women to have abortions. :yawn:

If planned parenthood actually provided as much support for adoption, or for simply keeping the baby the girl chose to create in the first place

Those damn girls, choosing to get raped.

 

[maxyedor]

Well, Hu... I don't know what else to say. The PP offices in my area are very secretive. In fact, the one my sister went to is right next to a camera shop I used to go to for supplies. I was once approached by some sort of security guard when I parked and finished the phone conversation I was having in front of the office.

And it is true that they do not hand out their literature to just anyone. You can go in and grab what is on their front counter, but I'm talking about the stuff they give to their clients. I also know that my sister left their in tears because she thought that Planned Parenthood actually meant that they would help her in Planning for Parenthood. Her words to me were that she felt pressured into having an abortion, and that she didn't even know what the paperwork was that they had her working on before she got scared and ran.

If you pass air over your voice-box to create sounds, and form those sounds into words, thus forming questions, questions such as "May I have a copy of your literature on (insert topic you're interested in)" they will just hand the stuff to you, they have the most requested stuff out in the lobby, but the sheer number of leaflets they have is staggering, you really want to sort through 1000 fliers to find the one about how to get rid of crabs? Or would you rather they just hand a flier about abortion to everybody who walks through the door, to me that sounds more like "encouraging abortions" than having people to talk with a doctor who can help them weigh all the options before handing them literature on just the few options they want to consider.

Don't take this the wrong way, but your sister sounds like a moron. Why would anybody ever start blindly filling out forms without asking what exactly they're for? Key words in your statement are "her words to me" was that actually what happened, or is it how she described It, or is it how you remember her describing it, possibly how you would have liked her to describe it? If I walk into a doughnut shop and they offer me a maple-bar, are they pressuring me into eating a doughnut? Or are they just assuming since I was there, and inline to order a doughnut (sort of like your sister filling out the paperwork to get an abortion) that I want a doughnut and are thus assisting me in getting a doughnut?

I'm going to have to agree with Tom, if crazies would stop harassing people outside PP, and bombing them, I doubt you'd ever get a second glance from security, I doubt they'd even have security.

 

[RBBailey]

My sister is sort of strange, but for you to assume that since she spoke to me about what happened, I am telling you a lie -- what else can I say? I can't prove it. I'm only passing on what she said. Sort of like when a reporter puts something in a newspaper.

I don't condone the harassment and other stuff. I think the protesting is OK, but it isn't my style.

What I am getting at is the issue I have with public money going to PP. Why should my money go to something I am morally opposed to when it is not Constitutional? If it is something that is listed in the Constitution -- too bad. But giving public funds to special interest groups or individuals is wrong.

What I'm saying about the literature is this: You can't ask for it. It is only the stuff they give to their clients. What I saw was a "selection" of options for when you get pregnant -- keeping the baby or adopting it were not on the list. That is a problem, and a double standard. If Abortion is about choice, why are not all choices offered with public funds?