Letter to a future Republican strategist regarding white people

Eric Garland Greatest Hits, Political Trends 2494 Comments

To whom it may concern regarding the United States federal elections of 2014, 2016 and beyond:

Allow me to introduce myself to you, the existing (or aspiring!) strategist for the Republican Party. My name is Eric Arnold Garland and I am a White Man. Boy, am I ever – you need sunglasses just to look at my photo!

If I read the news correctly, I fit a profile that is of extreme importance to the GOP, as I embody the archetype that fits your narrative of Real Americans. Just how much should my profile interest you? Are you sitting down?

  • My family lineage goes back to the MAYFLOWER, BOAT ONE!!! (Garland family of New England-> John Adams -> John Alden -> Plymouth colony ->KINGS OF MUTHAF***IN’ ENGLAND)
  • I am a heterosexual, married to the super Caucasian mother of my two beautiful children who are, inexplicably, EVEN WHITER THAN I AM.
  • I am college educated (Master’s degree!) and affluent.
  • I am a job creator and small businessman.
  • We pay a lot of taxes! Every year!
  • I grew up in a rural area and despise laziness!
  • Having started my own business, I have complained at length about the insanity of federal, state and local bureaucracy – and its deleterious impact on the innovative small businessman.
  • I currently live in the suburbs in a historically Red state.

HOLY WHITE PEOPLE, BATMAN!!! Wow, you’re thinking – this is not some Mexirican in the Sun Belt we need to attract via harsh anti-Castro policies or appeals to “valores de familia” – this is the BREAD AND BUTTER OF THE GRAND OLD PARTY, a Mayflower-descended small business owner, burdened by taxation, looking out for his beautiful White family in the suburbs of a city (St Louis) surrounded by racial tension and urban blight!

How can I put this gently? My wife and I are not sensitive to your messaging, nor did we vote for the candidates you proposed for us this past Tuesday. 

B-b-but, what? Aren’t we investors, hard-workin’ white folk surrounded by same in a manicured cul-de-sac, scared by a vision of economic collapse amidst the takers in a land of fewer givers? Didn’t Mitt Romney’s strong family, wealth, leadership history and chiseled chin give us the uncontrollable urge to high-five him into the White House?


May I explain why not, purely for your education, such that you might be interested in winning an election on the national level at some point in the future? It bears pointing out that I should be your Low Hanging Fruit, the easy vote to get as opposed to, say, African-Americans, Latinos, or Asians – and you’re not even speaking well to me. The reasons why ought to concern you deeply.

As a Card-Carrying White Male I love expressing my opinion irrespective of whether people care to hear it, so let’s get started.


Science – One of the reasons my family is affluent is that my wife and I have a collective fifteen years of university education between us. I have a Masters degree in Science and Technology Policy, and my wife is a physician who holds degrees in medicine as well as cell and molecular biology. We are really quite unimpressed with Congressional representatives such as Todd Akin and Paul Broun who actually serve on the House science committee and who believe, respectively, that rape does not cause pregnancy and that evolution and astrophysics are lies straight from Satan’s butt cheeks. These are, sadly, only two of innumerable assaults that the Republican Party has made against hard science – with nothing to say of logic in general. Please understand the unbearable tension this might create between us and your candidates.

Climate – Within just the past 18 months the following events have come to our attention: a record-breaking drought that sent temperatures over 100 degrees for weeks, killing half the corn in the Midwest and half the TREES on our suburban property – AND – a hurricane that drowned not New Orleans or Tampa or North Carolina but my native state of VERMONT. As an encore, a second hurricane drowned lower Manhattan, New Jersey and Long Island. The shouted views of decrepit mental fossil Senator James Inhofe of Oklahoma that this is a fraud perpetrated on the American people by evil, conspiring climate scientists is belied by such events and is looking irresponsible to even the most skeptical.

Healthcare – My wife and I are quite familiar with America’s healthcare system due to our professions, and having lived abroad extensively, also very aware of comparable systems. Your party’s insistence on declaring the private U.S. healthcare system “the best in the world” fails nearly every factual measure available to any curious mind. We watch our country piss away 60% more expenditures than the next most expensive system (Switzerland) for health outcomes that rival former Soviet bloc nations. On a personal scale, my wife watches poor WORKING people show up in emergency rooms with fourth-stage cancer because they were unable to afford primary care visits. I have watched countless small businesses unable to attract talented workers because of the outrageous and climbing cost of private insurance. And I watch European and Asian businesses outpace American companies because they can attract that talent without asking people to risk bankruptcy and death. That you think this state of affairs is somehow preferable to “Obamacare,” which you compared ludicrously to Trotskyite Russian communism, is a sign of deficient minds unfit to guide health policy in America.

War – Nations do have to go to war sometimes, but that Iraq thing was pretty bad, to put it mildly. Somebody should have been, I dunno – FIRED for bad performance. Aren’t you the party of good corporate managers or something? This topic could get 10,000 words on its own. Let’s just leave it at: You guys suck at running wars.

Deficits and debt – Whenever the GOP is out of power, it immediately appeals to the imagination of voters who remember the Lyndon Baines Johnson (!) administration and claim that the Republican alternative is the party of “cutting spending” and “reducing the deficit.” The only problem with your claim is that Republican governments throughout my entire 38 year life (Reagan, Bush 41, Bush 43) have failed to cut spending and deficit and debt EVEN ONCE. I hope you understand that your credibility suffers every time you promise one thing for three decades and do the EXACT OPPOSITE. Egads – if you actually were the party of fiscal responsibility – you might win our votes despite your 13th century view of science!

Gay marriage – As the child of Baby Boomers who got divorced (as was the fashion!) in the 80s and 90s, and for whom 50% of my friends had their homes broken by divorce in the critical years before age 18, I sure am unsympathetic to your caterwauling bullshit that “gays will destroy the sanctity of marriage.” Perhaps if everyone in your generation didn’t take the period of 1978 – 1995 to start surreptitiously banging their neighbors and coworkers, only to abandon their kids because “they just weren’t happy,” I would take your defense of marriage more seriously. The institution of Middle Class suburban marriage was broken by the generation of aging white Baby Boomers who populate what is left of the Republican Party, so your defense is wrongheaded and disingenuous. And moreover, as someone who got called “faggot” about 127 times a day from the years 1985 through 1991 – guess what – I grew up to be pretty good friends with actual homosexuals, whose sexual orientation is usually the least significant thing about them. The Republican perseveration on homosexuals as any sort of threat consigns them to history’s trough of intellectual pig dung.


That’s quite enough for one essay, wouldn’t you say? Now, given my initial description as a wealthy, hard-working, job creating, heterosexual, married suburban White Male – doesn’t your current platform look woefully insufficient to the task of gaining my vote? This doesn’t even get into the demographic tensions that show that people of my exact profile are going away permanently in America. You can’t even win on what you perceive to be “home field advantage.”

Uh oh, wait, I can already hear you through the web browser, dismissing all of my above points because THAT GUY WAS NEVER GONNA BE A REPUBLICAN ANYHOW, CUZ HE’S A LIBRUL WHO HATES AMERICA AND…

All right, let’s do one last point:

Meanness– Your party is really mean, mocking and demonizing everyone who does not follow you into the pits of hell. You constantly imply – as Mitt Romney did in his “47% speech” – that anybody who disagrees with you does so not by logic or moral conviction, but because they are shiftless, lazy parasites who want “free stuff” from “traditional Americans.” Wow, you guys managed to follow up a stunning electoral defeat with insulting the very people you wish to attract for a majority in the political system! Brilliant! You are losing elections because being angry and defensive and just-plain-mean is more important than being smart and winning elections – and thus you deserve everything happening to you.

If you want to know exactly where you failed in 2012, and will continue to fail, here it is. Look you assholes, I’m as traditional an American as it gets, and I do not “want free stuff.”  I am a taxpayer, and ALWAYS HAVE BEEN. I got my first job – dragging bags of cow manure, horse feed and fertilizer around a farm store – when I was 12. I started my first company when I was 28. I have followed the vast majority of the rules set out for middle class white males (for good and for ill.) And if it weren’t bad enough that your policy positions are a complete clusterfuck for the reasons I lay out in great detail, you manage to follow up the whole exercise with insulting me, my wife, and my friends of every stripe who didn’t vote for your political party – all of whom are hard-working, taxpaying, job creating, law abiding, great AMERICANS of EVERY COLOR AND CREED.

From this white, Mayflower-descended strategic analyst, allow me to offer you the three strategic options you have before you:

1. You drastically moderate your platform to harmonize with the policy positions I present above

2. You disband the party and reorganize it to reflect current realities

3. You kick and scream and stamp your feet and call me and my friends names – and submit to several decades of one party rule

While I do not want a one-party system, I also don’t particularly care which of these options you choose. If you look carefully at the numbers on Tuesday, nobody else cares, either.

Just a word to the wise from one White Man to (presumably) another.

  • With you up until the end. We’re not designed to work as a one-party system, so we need the GOP to rediscover the benefits of rationality and constructive engagement. It would make both parties better.

    • I agree completely! But it’s not up to me whether they make this rational and positive choice.

    • John Kusters

      We need two parties, sure, but not necessarily Democrats and Republicans. If Republicans squander their opportunities as badly as they did this election cycle, there are other parties that might be willing and able to step up. The Libertarian Party candidate for President got significantly more votes this year than in years previous. If the Republicans don’t watch out, in a few cycles, it may be the Democratic Party versus the Libertarian Party at the top of the ticket.

    • To be fair, we don’t work well as a two-party system either, once both parties begin to forcibly lean toward extremes and are more willing to hurt the American people instead of compromise on something. Moderates need a more powerful voice in Congress.

  • what is your take on direct democracy?

    in a hyperconnected age where space and time have melted, the representative form of government where elected locals are sent to washington seems nearly anachronistic ..

    as for parties, i see the usa as a one-party state; yes, there are two factions, but they are mutually funded by the same interests, preside over the same impulses present in NSA, FBI, SEC, CIA, FDA, FCC, etc … and direct democracy could bypass much of that ..

    anyway, i wanted your opinion .. thanks, gregory

    • Great question! Actually I think a “one party” system will be the same as the dissolution of the current paradigm. The disappearance of the second-half of the system will result in the dominant paradigm separating out into new factions along different lines of thought. The old myths are the ones dying, not just a single, poorly-run political party. And the new myths will come from the demographic make-up of the country, not to mention the incredible new technologies that will connect us.

      This is much MUCH bigger than the GOP melting down – it is the end of an era. Right in time for 2012.

  • This article is FUCKING AWESOME! I liked it so much I posted it to Reddit’s Politics section. Hope it sends you a ton of traffic.

    Here is an answer I posted on Quora: http://www.quora.com/Republican-Party-U-S/What-are-some-good-arguments-for-and-against-the-Business-Insider-claim-that-the-Republican-Party-is-imploding-in-Presidential-races/answer/Paul-Denlinger

    Be sure to check all the links.

  • Wonderful article, Mr. Garland. Maybe email a copy to the local GOP?

    • Todd Akin lives five minutes from my house. I don’t figure the local GOP is likely to accept this essay in the spirit of Socratic dialogue for which it is intended.

      • Just go tape it to his door like an eviction notice. 🙂

        • Or nail it to his door – like Martin Luther at Wittenberg –

          • Richard Gadsden

            I think he’d need another 88 theses for that.

  • dcarmody

    Thanks for speaking for so many of us who cry from the wilderness.

    • Just callin’ em as I see ’em. Thanks for reading.

      • I read in dismay, you want Republicans to become Dumbocrats. How outlandish. I’m really beginning to wonder if you are really a dumbo rat posing as a real American. I am a real American I am American Indian. Choctaw to be exact. I didn’t need a boat ride to make me more of an American than you my Great Grand Mother was on the Trail Of Tears! Now that said I am a minority that has never never ever ask this country to make my way. I educated myself although I’m not as educated as you pretend to be. I see blue sky all thru your rant. You took my people and put them on reservations killed them in great numbers. Now you want gays Mexicans and Blacks to rule America. All I can say is you get what you vote for good luck with that. I have my own Nation The Great Nation of Choctaw people and I can tell you Oblamer will never be our president we have our own. Hahaha!!! The greatest leader in the world. Thank you Chief Pile.

        • I don’t think Mr. Garland is old enough to have caused The Trail of Tears, sir, nor do I see any suggestion from him that you or the Choctaw Nation should be excluded or in any way penalized for being who you are from the American future. But if you want to excommunicate yourself, no one can stop you.

          • HotMessNSeattle

            The funny thing about the Choctaw Nation has a strong history of slavery. As a result, there are many tribal members of the Choctaw Nation who one would identify as being Black. Plus, there are many, many Choctaws who are part Mexican.

        • HotMessNSeattle

          If you are an enrolled member of the Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma, and you use the Indian Health Service, or any other service indirectly funded by federal funds – guess what, you are taking from this country, too!

        • 20pizzapies

          just don’t get it do ya Linn ? Besides you sound pretty much a white man in Indian charade , a common practice used in deceptive arguments to give an impression of an outside unbiased opinion . It rarely works , since what comes out of your mouth usually gives it all away , as is in your case .Sorry CHUMP , in So.Fla , there are Seminole and Micsukee tribes , none of them would ever talk like you . Beat it and come back with a different disguiase .

        • Deborah Bonner

          Ridiculous!! American Indians came here from somewhere else too. We are willing to be respectful of you IF AND WHEN you accord others the same respect you seem to expect. Until then practice moderating your racist language. You sound very ignorant and totally intolerant and that has nothing to do with your lack of a formal education.

          • HotMessNSeattle

            I’m Black and Native myself, and I personally hate it when people say that Americans Indians came to this place from somewhere else. People usually say that to mean that Indians aren’t truly native to this land, and they immigrated here too. Ultimately, it is an attempt to undermine our claims to being indigenous to these lands.

            The Irish people are the descendants of immigration waves from the Iberian peninsula, Scotland, Wales, France, Scandinavia and England. How come no one ever tells the Irish that they aren’t native to Ireland? Red hair and green eyes came from Scotland by way of Scandinavia but we think those Irish are indigenous to Ireland. There has been evidence that tribes have existed in this place dating back 50,000 years so are you saying that because tribes weren’t here for 50,001 years (which is contrary to our origin stories), that they aren’t native to this land?

            No. That’s ridiculous!!

        • To insert detail into your previous critiques (well earned by you): Your statement contradicts your argument. If you claim to be “more American” than the author, you are adopting a European name on non-European peoples. The notion of “American” refers to the hybrid culture and people composed of: European culture, Native American culture, African immigrant culture, Latin, and various Asian cultures. Where do Apple Pie and Hot Dogs come from? Who invented Baseball? Lacrosse? Rock and Roll? White people, Native people, and Black people: We are ALL Americans now. Some living with freedom and justice and some dis advantaged and living with injustice (of which the Native man and women have certainly had horrifying shares).

          You decry white rule and then blame for the resurgence of Mexican immigration. Guess what: the Mexicans immigrating are descended from both the native peoples and even the European peoples who were already here: we took half of Mexico in war. So do you argue that Land and culture displaced in War means legitimate rule? If so then your own argument for Native culture fails as it too was taken in War. (I do not so believe in the legitimacy of War. I do believe in the fluidity of culture and peoples).

          The worst of your post is the name calling. Did you read the author’s most important point? Mean people suck. What kind of America are you honoring by dividing us with antipathy and silly school boy name calling? We are all Americans now, whatever our Ancestors did. That said, Let’s talk about policies in a mature manner with policy specifics and without hyperbole.

        • Dobbin

          “Now you want gays Mexicans and Blacks to rule America”… as a member of the second* genotype of people to make it to this land, and given your views of The White Man and his historic actions regarding this nation and your people, I am surprised at your vitriolic reaction to the notion of ANYONE other than The White Man being in charge (though I’m not sure how being a homosexual changes you from being White, but no matter). It seems to me that you might be happier to let someone other than The White Man run things for a bit… so why the complaints?

          *recent archeological finds in several locations along the East Coast of the U.S. support the theory that Early Europeans were here as much as 25 thousand years ago, beating the the Early Asians who crossed the Land Bridge by several thousand years.**

          **Regardless of that fact, none of you did anything with this land in the time that the Roman Empire rose and fell. You should have had Jetsons Cities here in the 9000 years you had this place to yourselves. You can’t complain when a more advanced tribe comes along and beats your ass and takes what you have. You wasted your shot. It sucks, but that’s the price we pay as a SPECIES to advance.

        • You completely make his point with the meanness. And underscore it with the fact that you don’t realize your nation is on permanent welfare rolls (that millions of “Mexicans & Blacks pay). Really think that Mexicans & “Blacks” are beneath you?! The Brooklyn Bridge called. It wants you to wake now.

        • Your opinion is yours and yours alone. The Choctaw people and the Nation is a great one but your opinion is limited at best. No one group of people rule the land. You should know better than this.

        • Margie G

          Linn Denton, there is no need to show anger with name calling to Eric for his article above. He is only showing the reader the problems of the Republican Party. Since most all polls and the actual election showed that the Republican party got a higher percentage of WHITE males to vote for THEM, he was showing why HE (a white male) was NOT happy with the GOP platform.
          When he said: “Your party is really mean, mocking and demonizing everyone who does not follow you into the pits of hell,” and then YOU calling him a “dumbo rat posing as a real American,” only reaffirms what he said.
          Don’t blame his ancestors for your Choctaw Indian demise. I actually sympathize with what you are saying, but bringing in that issue has nothing to do with his GOP subject above. Since you have your own president as you say, then you don’t need to worry about “Oblamer” as YOUR president.
          You have YOUR own nation but reap the benefits of the United States. You have access to the internet, you benefit with scientific discoveries in medicine (please thank Eric’s wife), but I do realize that like all of us, you also suffer the degradation of our environment — in which the GOP could care less about.
          Don’t blame blacks because they were brought here as slaves. Don’t blame MY relatives, for they came here as immigrants from Poland in 1900. Don’t blame Mexicans for coming here, I would too if I lived in that country. Don’t blame gays for being born that way. Don’t blame the Mayflower for creating a fantastic ship and bravely coming to a new world. Many countries have done a great injustice to its people, and you need to get over your anger with what was done to your people.
          Another thing that I do not understand is why do you hate “Oblamer” since like you said, he is NOT your president, so what has he done to YOU to cause such hate????

        • tomandyourmom

          HAHAHAHA. The “greatest leader in the world”? You sound like the homeless guy down the street who claims his mutt is the Grand Emperor of Zarbazz.

          “I am a minority that has never never ever ask this country to make my way”

          Except for casinos
          And reparations.
          And relaxed laws beneficial to the reservations.

          Give it a rest.

      • Meredith Bailey

        As a fellow exceptionally Caucasian Mayflower descendant, who grew up, went to college and grad school, and now works for a biotech company in the states to the west, the east, and the south, respectively, of your great home state, no, really, thank YOU. I insist.

  • Ken in NJ

    Great article – thanks so much for making so may key points and making then artfully and succinctly. Staggered by the confirmatory biases and ineptitude of the current version of the GOP which has been hijacked by its worst and meanest elements. Where are the moderate and rational republican voices and the party of Lincoln who freed the slaves? Its a same for the county that the republican party has strayed for its valid core principles into a hateful and exclusionary party dominated by narrow minded and cynical operators. I am Indian and a 1st generation american but we have a lot (in terms of our education and outlook) in common.

  • Excellent article, Eric. I’m a middle aged, partially disabled white woman, married to a Latino man – who works his butt off in the local public hospital, as gasp (this to your imagined audience) not a janitor, but a CAT Scan technologist, whose salary makes us nearly middle class. I say nearly, because, since I became ill, I have not been able to work and our income was cut by a full 2/5ths. We have been struggling since, but we thank God, the Universe, the Great Cosmic Bunny, what have you, everyday that we have health care, enough to eat, the ability to pay for heat and communication services, and not a lot else. You are a bright and entertaining writer – people like a little chuckle with their reality checks. Lets hope that we can come together and fix what is wrong in our nation, and spend our national budget in a positive manner, rather than to blow up people who have resources that we covet. Speak true, Eric, and stand strong. We’ll get through it, or we won’t. Either way, we will have tried our best.

    • God bless you, Lisa, and may you be in good health. As far as the national cohesiveness goes, I think we’re going to be fine, because there is a rising consciousness of sticking together as neighbors, if not as one national entity. Be well.

      • EastAsianNationalist

        Your points are all minor, and too little too late.

        Better strategies for Republicans:

        1. Reproduce as much as possible, even if it turns your lifestyle into that of a 3rd world immigrant. Children means more influence, more opinions, more votes.
        2. Use every method to halt illegal immigration. Minorities in any country become a fifth column for lefists.

        All politics is identity politics. Demographics is everything. Multiculturalism leads to ruin for the local majority.

    • Holy crap! You know about the Great Cosmic Bunny? (May we be forever sheltered by his floppy ears. Amen!)

      • Wait – there’s another god besides the Flying Spaghetti Monster? Blasphemy, I tell you!

        Eric – I am a Democrat, and I really enjoyed (and agreed with) your post. Very well written and humorous!

        • Pastafarian


        • I didnt know about the Great Cosmic Bunny either! Oh my- Fred the Purple People Eating Octopus (who lives under everyone’s beds) is going to be super p*ssed when he finds out. You better check under your beds…. Fred is waiting. Or the Great Cosmic Dust Bunny. VERY well written article Eric- finally an article that makes me feel SMARTER for having read it 🙂

        • Foo Bar

          Hey, don’t disrespect the Invisible Pink Unicorn. Being both invisible AND pink is clear evidence of divine majesty.

      • mikec711

        I’m glad to see this sentiment because, as a Libertarian, I always felt that we had a great story to tell where views were respected even if you didn’t agree with them. This proves that anyone who does not believe like you do is an idiot who has no place. Tolerance at its finest. I’m sure you’ve worked thru:
        1. How the laws of thermoDynamics had to be suspended for big bang to work
        2. How these laws also had to be suspended for aBioGenesis
        3. How the law of conservation of angular velocity needed to be dis-believed for Big Bang to result in a solar system with planets spinning in opposite directions
        4. How the longer days and moon travelling from the earth fly in the face of the farcical science we call Big Bang and evolution

        So for those of us who still believe in laws more than theories … I guess we’re cosmic bunny and spaghetti monster and pink whatever believers. And the message of Liberty only applies if the person thinks the same way you do on matters that have nothing to do with Liberty. Good job y’all.

        • I was also amused at how his post telling us that Republicans are mean immediately got dozens of replies insulting Christians.

          • mikec711

            It’s not mean as long as you’re only being mean to Christians. Mean to any other faith group is biased,, bigoted, racist, etc.. But slamming Christians isn’t being mean.

          • Can either of you please give a specific example of where exactly Christians were “slammed” in the above posts? You seem to be very easily offended, kind of the way you accuse others of being.

          • mikec711

            So likening our belief system to spaghetti monsters and pink bunnies strikes you as a tolerant and respectful thing. Glad you are so open minded as long as it is someone else being ridiculed.

          • Swiftly

            What does YOUR belief system have to do with Pastafarianism, the Church of the Cosmic Bunny, or any other religious or spiritual doctrine?

          • left_from_wrong

            just felt a need to contribute.

          • Texas Dervish

            Pastafarianism, Invisible Pink Unicorns, and the Great Cosmic Bunny all
            originated specifically as parodies of the religious mindset by the
            irreligious. They are therefore equally insulting to Christians,
            Muslims, Jews, Hindus, and people of just about any other creed —
            because they’re meant to be. Pretending not to know this only compounds
            your arrogance with dishonesty.

          • Swiftly

            It’s interesting that you mention arrogance. It’s common in those who take insults more readily than they take counsel.

            Pride goeth before destruction, and a haughty spirit before the fall.

          • steadystate

            Yes, we Christians (I am Catholic) are extraordinarily persecuted. So persecuted, in fact, that we must skulk our way into dark places to find our religion. Most Spring Breaks being timed with Easter is purely coincidence. Christmas being a day off for almost every worker is truly representative of this war on our faith. Let’s can the strawman argument that Christians are hated and persecuted in the US. What most non-Christians – whether they be agnostic/atheist, Muslim, Jewish, etc. – want is that we don’t dictate to them what THEY should believe and do based upon OUR belief system. That’s pretty consistent with Libertarianism. Are you sure you’re a Libertarian?

        • You know those for points you make are not actual issues, right? Id est, they’re not scientific controversies at all or really event debated. They have clearly understood and consistent answers.

          You should treat whatever median you learned that through with seriously heightened scepticism.

          • mikec711

            Possibly you could point me to some of this evidence. Physics does not easily reverse trends (inertia), and I won’t even go into the countless other farcical facades that pass as science because people have an answer and they need to model the facts to match it. It is maybe a lack of skepticism on the part of many which has allowed few to even know about the holes in the science. So my skepticism is up, why don’t you show me some incontrovertible evidence. And then look at the complexity of the cell and the hundreds of millions of tax payer dollars which have gone into creating environments more than could have happened naturally to accommodate the genesis of that first cell, and there was nothing close … one reason is that you need RNA to create protein and protein is one of the key components of RNA (catch 22). But you go on believing in an absolutely purposeless life where everything is a cosmic accident. At least one brilliant atheist had thought it through and let everyone know that anyone or anything that they love … anything they accomplish … anything that could ever be … is all meaningless (“Unless you assume a God, the question of life’s purpose is meaningless.” Bertrand Russell). So you go ahead and look at your children sleeping and realize that they are meaningless accidents who will soon be meaningless fertilizer. I’ll look at mine and see the creation of a great God … in His image … children with purpose who help me see a beautiful creator.

          • There’s no such thing as incontrovertible evidence in science. That’s kind of the first rule of science.

            To address your specific points:
            1. The “big expansion” does not actually violate the 1st Law–of course, the “big expansion” does not actually cover how anything came into existence at the instant before the expansion. Incidentally, matter an energy _can_ be created from nothing, so long as it is for a brief enough time that that it does not violate the Uncertainty Principal.
            2. Biogenesis is a bit vague (and I’ll presume that you are not referring to Haeckel, as that would be rather ironic), or something as outmoded as Pasteur. Feel free to elaborate in hard terms of what you feel “biogenesis” is, and what, specifically, about it is in violation of physics. Also, one should note that those who do study these mechanisms are the least likely to attribute magic to their being. Knowledge has a way of doing that.
            3. This point is bizarre. I can only guess that this is a mistaken elaboration on non-QED symmetry at instantiation of the universe–i.e., needing to explain how an initial void (inherently symmetric) could result in a (as far as we can tell) asymmetric universe. It has been demonstrated numerous times that quantum-scale interactions are non-deterministic and truly random in outcome. Thus, the universe must be asymmetric, and its later states are, therefore, a chaotic system. There are no issues with conservation of momentum here; and retrograde orbits can be created from two bodies in near collision (even if on close to parallel courses).
            4. “How longer days . . . ” Please explain what you meant on this, as it is not evident as written.

            As to your follow-up:
            RNA: it also takes a chicken to make an egg–hardly a great mystery there. Amino acids appear to be a natural consequence of 2nd+ generation star systems, such as our own. In the vastness of the universe, random chance can, in fact, bind them together as proteins–as we have done in laboratories; and they can be bound together to form RNA, as we have done in laboratories.

            The rest of your reply has nothing to do with your original post, so I’m disregarding it.

            Do feel free to supply some of the “countless other farcical façades that pass as science”, so far, you’ve presented what amounts to borderline conspiracy theory mumbo jumbo.

          • mikec711

            I was referring to life from nonLife (abiogenesis … which has newer terms). Something that hundreds of millions of taxPayer dollars have tried to find some clue to … but even stacking the deck as badly as they could (and removing small constructs that did actually result because they continued to break down if left in the soup) … scientists have shown that this is highly unlikely. Something from nothing … good luck with that one … that something the size of a pin containing all the matter of the universe appeared from nothing. If you want to believe that, you have tremendous faith. As for conservation of angular momentum … that simply says that this fast spinning pin that became everything was spinning in one direction. Random accidents say that maybe 1 in a hundred items out there might have completely switched directions. That 2 of the 10 bodies are in our solar system are in that 1% club is as likely as the idea that a Mac computer could find a virus in alien software hundreds of years ahead of our (Independence Day). So if you believe that, then certainly the whole conservation of angular velocity should be easy to understand. Hey, if I believed that I had no purpose and that my loved ones (including my children) were meaningless cosmic accidents … I’d probably be out there slamming others too. Why not? When I kiss my kids good-night … I am kissing the face of God (or as you guys seem to put it … that pink bunny or spaghetti monster) … and I feel for those who see only meaningless cosmic accidents.

          • God loves you so much that he sent his only son to die for you and if you don’t believe that without one shred of evidence for it then he will send you to hell to burn forever and ever. WTF??

          • God got a little P.O.ed after we killed his son. He was so mad he hasn’t talked to us in 2000 years. Now, that is one long temper tantrum.

          • ero marc lamb

            <3 <3 <3. That made me so happy!

    • BarryG

      I in fact blame it all on the great cosmic bunny. Bunnies are cute and all, but they can be quite mean … and they really aren’t too smart. Better to rely on sensible public policy IMHO, sort of act as a civilization again where we all try to keep each other on the boat.

  • ElizabethVT

    As a generally liberal female from your great home state, I thought you hit the nail on the head. What frustrated me most in watching the Republican Party campaign this past fall were not its’ positions on health care, immigration, or gay marriage (although I disagree with them in regards to all three), it was in witnessing how childishly GOP officials conducted themselves. Watching Mitch McConnell say that his greatest goal is to make Obama a one-term president, despite the serious issues his state faces, really makes me wonder why anyone would vote for someone so single-minded and uncooperative. I hope the GOP realizes that it is in need of a serious image change, and that future Republican leaders move more in your direction.

    • I couldn’t agree more. If you read elsewhere on this site, you’ll read some of my recollections of what really happened in the crash of 2008. To believe the briefings of the bankers and CEOs, we were on the brink of a collapse of the world currency system that would have made the Great Depression look like misplacing your wallet for a couple of days. And then, ten weeks later, as banks, car companies and other major corporations announce that they are leveraged 100:1 for the dumbest shit in the world and Barry Obama is just trying to keep stuff from going sideways, these guys promise to do nothing but attack? Forget TV, if you knew what was happening behind the scenes, you’d be even angrier.

      It is time to grow up.

      God bless the Green Mountain State!

      • Jessica Green

        Why did you refer to President Obama as “Barry”?

        • Chovie.

          barry soetoro – google.

          • abc

            His name is not Barry “Soetoro.” “Soetoro” is the last name of his stepfather and half sister. He has always been “Obama.” And yes, as a child, he went by “Barry,” but grew out of it, just like many “Jennys” become “Jennifers” and “Billys” become “Williams.”

        • Sunny Day

          It was the name he went by when he was younger.

          • Sunny, he is no longer a kid, and he was not POTIS then.

        • Interesting, isn’t it? I’m sure W was called “Georgie” at some time in his life, but diminutives are used toward adults for pretty much one reason, to minimize and infantilize. Unless you are someone who knew Mr. Obama when he was called that, you should probably stick to “Mr. President” or “Barack Obama”, when speaking about him, even when you think you’re being complimentary. I wouldn’t call Barbara Boxer “Barbie”, or Marco Rubio “Marky”.

          • gimme a break

            Hey, I’ve got an idea– let’s pull some detail totally non-germaine to the point of the paragraph and harp on it to avoid any real productive conversation about the ideas and issues. Are there any punctuation or spelling errors we can point out to further ruin the conversation?

          • Firstname Only

            I’m copying this and saving it for future use. Excellent for Facebook arguments, Internet forum disagreements, and the Special Olympics…

          • *germane

          • 😉

          • BreakingDeadMen

            Are you familiar with the concept of irony?

          • Chris

            Come on. Bill Maher, Maureen Dowd are just two liberals who call him Barry on national media fronts. “Barry O” sounds awesome.

          • JT

            Maureen Dowd calls him Barry because she doesn’t respect him.

          • David Cavanaugh

            call him Barry, call him Barack….also call him our President and someone who should be treated with respect.

          • I prefer to call the clown the Kenyan Pole Smoker….

          • homegrownsmoker

            Yeh. Bigotry is never pretty.

          • CptnRn

            I can’t imagine how your comments could be more irrelevant to the topic being discussed. Typical republican ignorance.

          • Katherine Walton

            That says more about you than it does about him. And what it says about you isn’t pretty.

          • Thank you Katherine.

          • Typical classy GOP comment. Thank you for illustrating the article perfectly, you sad little half-wit.

          • Hep C

            Look up Pat’s profile on FB and tell me if you are at all surprised that he is an angry white male in his 60s. Luckily that is pretty much all the party of hate and ignorance has left these days.

          • I suppose he carries a loaded gun in the rear window of his truck too. Please God save us from our protectors of the constitution.

          • justamom003

            Sad isnt’ it.
            I was once told the President was a Nazi Communist and a Muslim. All in the same breath. Then they told me I was drinking the kool aid because I didn’t believe this BS. When I told my son what they called the President a Nazi. He asked me if these people were aware he was not white and you could not be both a nazi and communist at the same time. He is 15 with LIberal values and I am so thankful the education system has not faild him yet or he is paying attention in class.

          • BigWhiteGrannyPanties

            and of course, let’s not forget to notice all of his loving Jesus “likes” on his page. Well My Jesus forgives Pat’s angry, hateful, warmongering, Republican Jesus then.

          • We understand that your maturation process was stunted sometime in your sophomore year of high school.

          • I know a few Kenyans and more than a few pole smokers- believe me, they all have more class than you do.

          • Really? Did your mama teach you your prejudices?

          • justamom003

            Wow. You are a piece of work.

          • and the asshole deserves no respect…ask the families of those he let die in Libya.

          • JoshME

            What about all of the people Bush let die on 9/11 and every day since the war in Iraq started? Nobody is criticizing Bush for this.

          • CptnRn

            Typical republican, spewing hate and insults.

          • Robert Hume

            If you are so concerned about our foriegn policy, sign up. I did. I spend 14 years fighting for our country so people say stupid shit on the internet. Your welcome.

          • Katherine Walton

            Thank you for your service, Robert.

          • Thank you for your service and for your accumen. Signing up is what Pat Tillman did despite disagreeing with the overall plan and then his family found the cover up identifyingly extended right up through Gen Stanley McChrystal. Tillman died because the higher ups didn’t want to helivac out or blowup a malfunctioning Hum-V. The best analysis of the failings of our military policies is by Col. Andrew J. Bacevich , Ph. D. in History, who lost a son in Iraq 2004. His thesis in “The Limits of Power” is basically we are not getting our money’s worth and we cannot police and organize the whole world to the unrealistic likings of those in power. Another aspect of failed Republican policy to add to the well constructed list of Mr. Garland. Many prominent Republicans, such as Colin Powell and former Senators, had signed up with Republicans for Obama for just the reasons mentioned by Eric Garland and and many conservative ordinary people in Red States are sick of these endless non-productive wars! We probably shouldn’t have messed around in Libya with personnel on the ground!

          • Thanks, Claude, for a clear, concise and effective addition to the commentary. Eric Garland probably could have gone on to much greater length and might have included this. He didn’t and I’m glad you did. 🙂

          • not just that, but we should not even have been in that part of the world, will we never learn, one would think, that all the other countries who tried to tame the middle east, we would not have gotten involved, but no Mr. Bush needed to get even for the assassination plot on his father.

          • I second that emotion, Robert. With a full career between the Navy and Army, I’m retiring this year with 26 and I am amazed at the number of people who spout illegitimate bullshit on the Internet without having ever been “boots-on-dirt, in-country” ANYWHERE besides their hometown.

          • Thank and God bless all you veterans.

          • Yes, thank you! 🙂

          • BigWhiteGrannyPanties

            Thank you Robert. THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU.

          • Katherine Walton

            Go ahead, ask them. You’ll find that they actually *do* respect him. But don’t let the facts get in the way of a good hate rant.

          • Yes, why don’t you ask the Stevens family?

          • Jessie

            Oh grow up! I wonder where you heard that bullcrap from. What did some misinformed person tell you that?

          • FOX

          • hmmm??? those few who died in Libya by NOT being ensconced in a fortress, which would have nullified any “good” they could do and rendered them a hostile occupying presence – those “losses” in a battle/intervention intermittently (read Republican flip-fopping) urged on by angry Republicans – these losses pale against the 3,000+ 9/11 victims who were not defended properly because Condo Leaser paid no heed to intel that “Al Qaeda was determined to attack the U.S. using planes”, which was followed up with 5,000 deaths and 40,000 terribly wounded of our soldiers in the unnecessary invasion of Iraq , followed by ongoing futile deaths in Petraeus’ surge in Afghanistan which goes on and on today. Petraeus DID betray us , just not in the way we imagined – what a surprise. And you RepubliClowns are carrying on about some insignificant Benghazi incident??

          • oh no, not that mistake again Pat. I will be glad when Petraeus testifies, maybe then you guys will shut up.

          • I take it you aren’t aware that there were no less than 5 attacks on US embassies during W’s regime. US citizens were killed then too. So I’ll buy into your BS about Obama once the Shrub and Cheney are in prison.

          • Asshole? Bwahahaha….that’s rich coming from someone reduced to calling names and ignoring all facts. Sub-par, ridiculous and pitiful–how are those for names?

          • I’m a friend of one of the four people who died in Libya. The president deserves our respect. That’s what Sean used to say. I agree with Sean. (By the way, Pat, Sean called people like you morons.)

          • BigWhiteGrannyPanties

            I am sorry for your loss. Thank you for putting this all in very clear perspective. Your friend would be proud of you, I think, for trying to remind people about what is important and what is not.

          • Allykat

            You can always tell the fox news watchers because they all spout the same line of BS.

          • Eric Broz

            Pat … how about we ask the families of the 4,488 men and women who died in the Iraq War? Oh, that’s right … perspective. Imagine that.

          • GG

            I can see we will continue down the same road of obstructionist points of view to avoid real problems and real solutions. This is not to make light of what happened but I find it interesting that this now has become the topic du jour, while tragic it certainly does not come close to the four thousand soldiers and over 600,000 civilians who have died in Iraq because of a Republicans need to defend against possible WMD’s. I bet you weren’t and probably still aren’t calling Bush an a-hole. The current President did not order or condone the attack in Libya. So where does that leave you? Listening to talk radio where people spew lies and hate instead of thinking of ways to not be divisive.

          • BigWhiteGrannyPanties

            Yes, and this, from the guy who has Jesus all over his facebook page. Bet Jesus would be so proud of you now, with your hate speech and lack of caring for other people.

          • Edenorf

            Why are you responding to this guy, don’t you see that he is just throwing out all this BS to watch what happens? Ignore him …

          • Stentor7

            As opposed to the asshole who let all those servicemen die in a false war of aggression so that he could avenge his father’s assassination attempt. You’re a partisan with no sense of perspective. So tell you what, why don’t you go pound sand up your ass?

          • Mega Butt Michelle

            How about ‘Marxist asshole’ that just about covers it.

          • Katherine Walton

            How about you educate yourself on what “Marxist” actually means? Oh, wait. You want to abolish the Dept. of Education.

          • These people have never read a book on Marxism or any other book, they get it all from FOX.

          • BigWhiteGrannyPanties

            HA! Well, she is a Mega Butt… 🙂

          • Jessie

            That is so disrespectful not to mention so anti-American. The man is not a socialist.Try moving to a truly socialist country before you compare the two. More than half of this country does not get government assistance thank you!

          • factchecker101

            Call him what you want, he is still your President 🙂

          • Plese explain YOUR definition of Marxism. I already know asshole Mega Butt.

          • ;-0… My last name is Butt, I married it, so I can cope, but Mega Michelle…… PLEASE STOP USING IT.

          • Bookout

            respect is earned not bought!

          • PBrenda

            A person EARNS respect…..Barry has not earned mine

          • Jennifer Einolf

            Um, isn’t “W” a diminutive nickname?

          • j

            it’s the long form of ‘duh’

          • Down heah’ in Texas we jes’ call him “Shrub” Y’all.

          • It’s one he and his family used themselves, just as it wasn’t disrespectful to call James Carter “Jimmy” nor Ronald Reagan “Ronnie.” Please find a single instance in the last twenty years where anyone close to Pres. Obama referred to him as “Barry” and get back to us.

          • Newspeaktogo

            Seriously, you people have respect for politicians? You investors who subscribe to this website should understand that before voting for any political party is that they are both lawless and corrupt. To worry about if Obama is called “president Obama” or any other name is being ludicrous ! Understand that this country is changing and it is changing for the worst because it has become a total welfare state. Don’t you study the Euro crisis? Are you watching the developments in France, the UK and the middle east? Get off the subject of political parties because you’ll just turn this website into just another political forum!

          • Uh, no, we are not a “total welfare state”. We have less of a social safety net than any other developed nation, by a wide margin.

          • Jessie

            Again I repeat less than half of this country receives any government assistance! If you don’t like it go sign the stupid petition to be excused from the country. Oh and apparently you did not read the article because that was the point of the whole article was to let the political party know what ludicris they promoted this election!

          • Seriously……….I have respect for people who act respectful, I have friends who are republican jerks, but I don’t and never will call them JERKS………. except here and NO ONE knows who they are.

          • mb

            My guess was that he called him Barry it because of the hilarious Chris Rock video

        • Name dropping.

        • Many people refer to Barack Obama as Barry to make him sound a) like a normal guy b) more white.

          • David Cavanaugh

            neocons refer to him as Barry….as in http://www.humanevents.com check out hate!

          • Katherine Walton

            Really? Like who?

          • factchecker101

            or c) neither of the above. He is pretty normal and pretty sure he’s proud to be black.

          • well he AIN’T EITHER. He is POTIS, and partially black..

          • POTIS? President of the I___ States? It’s POTUS, President of the United States.

        • Because, as Lee Atwater pointed out back in the ’80s, “nigger” is out of fashion.

          • Jessie

            Don’t you dare speak about my president in that language. That is the most racist thing you could say!

        • Barry is the nicikname his grandparents called him growing up, is that a problem?

          • Katherine Walton

            It is when it’s used as a sign of disrespect. Which it is here.

          • B.T. Anthony

            Read it again. It wasn’t used that way. Eric was the original user who was using it in a context sympathetic to a President who was embattled for no reason by people he had just managed to save.

          • it is when you are using it, are you related to him? Did you know him at that time, or are you just being a ASS?

        • Angel

          Because that the name he went by in college!!!

        • US Citizen

          Because in college BO went by Barry Soetoro. If you had read anything in the news you would have known this.

          • We do read the news, just not Fox news. And he certainly did not go by Soetoro in college.

          • justamom003

            Do your research. That is false.

      • Not sure what happened, but I can’t find my reply (nothing bad was in
        it), so here is a retry (where I explain why I mostly agree with you)

        I’m the dude who almost won in court for the (pro-life)
        Terri Schiavo case –all while DISAGREEING with Jeb Bush on the feeding
        tube issue –so, on that last point, liberals should be glad I opposed
        Jeb’s meddling, and on the 1st point, since I addressed lack of FOOD and
        WATER -not feeding tubes, and JESUS, HIMSELF agrees with my assessment
        of the food denial issue in Matthew 25:31-46, “Conservatives” (read:
        REPUBLICANS) should also not complain to me at all.

        But, guess
        what? While Mitt Romney was not actually a gay-hater (see cite below),
        you are correct, Eric: The GOP spends more than it makes — it is
        liberal — but so are Democrats –actually, no matter WHO gets in power
        (Democrats OR Republicans) we almost ALWAYS end up going DOWN in our
        economy, and UP in our deficit, so both sides are losers to me.

        PS: I wasn’t blowing smoke in re Schiavo: Google me to verify. – In the mean time, I think most of your points are valid.

        Romney doesn’t Flip-Flop on Gay Marriage: (Even the liberal PolitiFact by the liberal St Pete Times agrees)

        in an interview with KDVR-TV in Denver, Romney said, “I don’t favor
        civil unions if they are identical to marriage other than by name. My
        view is that domestic partnership benefits, hospital visitation rights
        and the like are appropriate, but the others are not.”…But despite
        making policy overtures to gay voters, Romney consistently drew the line
        at gay marriage, even as far back as 1994.”

        * http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/may/15/mitt-romney/mitt-romney-has-maintained-consistent-stance-same/

        (“Mitt Romney has maintained consistent stance on same-sex marriage,” PolitiFact)

        • ccrider27

          Good post, but I especially like the bible quote. I wonder if Paul Ryan has ever looked at the middle verse (40) in that quote.

          And speaking to the same quote…

          You’re right about Repub vs Dem, there’s no difference. Both parties have thrown millions of hard working Americans out of their homes while coddling the Wall Street uber-fraud mob with additional $Billions in welfare so they can keep their bonuses, salaries, homes in the Hamptons, helicopters and the rest of their blood money. Both parties have permanent war as one of the planks in their platform – gotta keep those Pentagon contractors on their welfare rolls as well.

          It’s time for a third party to at least be heard.

          Green Party Platform:

          1st Plank: Get the money out of politics. Comprehensive Campaign Finance Reform

          2nd Plank: Direct Democracy as a response to Local needs and issues

          3rd Plank: Community Activism – build communities that nurture families, generate local food, good jobs and housing, health care for all and provide public services.

          4th Plank: Media Reform and Free Speech For All – not just the corporate plutocrats.

          • CSheets

            When the Green Party shows they can win at the local level I will vote for them for Federal office. Run for school board, city council, township board, county commission. You are not vialble at the national level and are wasting your money. Be as smart as you think you are.

          • homegrownsmoker

            As i knew Obama would win by a landslide, despite the media’s efforts to convince us all of otherwise, I was happy to give my vote to the Green Party. I do think they need better front runners though.

          • Angel


          • Cat Gee

            the ratio of electoral votes were 3:2 in favor of obama. he won by a 20% margin.

          • Popular vote which counts every American vote has an Obama win with 50.6% of the vote. In a free country where all votes should count, why would anyone agree with an electoral college? That should be abolished. So, no he didnt win by a 20% margin. Only if you are trying to rationalize with the fact that half the country didnt vote for him. They didnt because there are those that can see through a politician.

          • 50.5% to 48.3% a Landslide? You have been smoking, way too much. {Plus how many dead, illegals, and double voting, and more did the Kenyan Pole Smoker get?}

          • AnonymousDem

            You are precisely the “Republicans are just straight mean” paragraph that he was talking about above. People like you, who are incapable of having any kind of relevant argument with calling someone a name is precisely what is wrong with the Republican party. I would refer to them as high-schoolers, but even as a high schooler I regarded facts (like where someone was born legally, or how the voting process really works) in my arguments in debate.

          • Thn I must presume you were not old enough to vote when George Romney (born in Chihuahua, MX) was running and that was pretty well ignored by the Republican Party and the Republican owned media hid it on page 38 just uder the ads for the strip clubs.

          • Bill744

            Per Wikipedia, George Romney’s grandparents fled to Mexico to escape persecution for their polygamy. His parents were monogamous, held US citizenship, and chose US citizenship for their children, including George Romney. I believe that would have qualified George as a natural born US citizen. If the party wanted to hide his birthplace, it might have been an issue, but it was indeed raised as a potential issue. Most thought he would be qualified due to his parents’ citizenship.

          • Ben

            Sorry, not born here, don’t qualify. George wouldn’t have been eligible. The reason the provision is in the Constitution was to keep Alexander Hamilton, born in the West Indies, out of the presidency.

          • I don’t think this is true. I sure never heard of it, and the law has most certainly changed since the time of Alexander Hamilton anyway. Besides, the West Indies was British at that time and so were all the original thirteen colonies and all the founding fathers. They only became citizens AFTER the Constitution was formed in 1781, so he would have been naturalized. If that law was actually passed, I feel sure it must have been challenged by someone.

          • D.E.

            John McCain was born in the Panama Canal Zone and ran, so I think that probably settles that question.

          • DE

            Tell that to John McCain who was born in the Panama Canal zone.

          • If your parents are citizens of the U.S. then your children are also, no matter where they are born. This is the main reason why they are lying about Obama. Even if he had of been born in Kenya (which was a lie) he still would have been a citizen because his mother was! These guys are so ignorant it is unbelievable. Evidently they never teach civics in Texas! or Brooklyn!
            One example, Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt – first child born in Africa, but sill a U.S. citizen.

          • His mother wasn’t old enough to confer citizenship onto Obama. Jolie and Pitt are BOTH U.S. citizens. It really does make a difference. You really need to stop calling names, especially when it is more reflective of you.

          • free1thinker

            The ignorance of Americans about basic workings of our union is not only embarrassing, but it will be the downfall of us all! If you knew how people become US citizens, no talking head would be able to convince you that Obama was not one, which is why the rest of us watch you and people like you from afar with mouths open in wonder. Did you have mononucleosis and miss out on your high school civics class?

            There is no age restriction or limit on a US citizen conferring citizenship onto their child. One of the three ways to become an American citizen is “Jus Sanguinis (Right of Blood)” wherein a child is given American citizenship AUTOMATICALLY IF AT LEAST ONE OF THEIR PARENTS IS A LEGAL US CITIZEN AT THE TIME OF THEIR BIRTH. This is true even if the child is born outside of the U.S. or its territories. The second way is “Jus Soli (place of Birth)” which is based on where the child is born. IF A CHILD IS BORN IN THE US they are automatically granted American citizenship regardless of the citizenship of his or her parents. Obama is both a citizen through Jus Sanguinis and Jus Soli as his mother was a citizen and he was born in Hawaii which is part of the U.S. Case closed!

          • justamom003

            His parents left because they were breaking the law. When came back to the US he was on welfare. Question is why is that George Romenys citizenship is not questioned but the President born to an American mother in Hawaii is? I’d llike someone to explain that one to me. Was it because he was black?

          • Jbird

            Dems do the same thing. If you are not on board with their views you are a bigot, or a racist, or at the very least, and asshole, as the write of the article put it.

          • you are also on the wrong page, beside being on the wrong side of life.

          • @Rosemary….who are you to judge how someone lives their life? Is your name Jesus Christ?

          • Hollie

            No I’m not Jesus Christ, but I can promise you Jesus lived his earthly life as a socialist, so what I really hate are convenient Christians like you who never miss church on Sunday, or the opportunity to be hateful to your fellowman.

          • Caring American

            Jesus was not a socialist. He did not advocate that the state take over institutions. He did not want the governing persons to be charitable, he wanted you to be charitable. he wanted the state to do the state’s business.

          • BigWhiteGrannyPanties


          • Sooooooooooooo true. I used to go on Religious sites and ask how they explain the whole incest thing with Adam and Eve’s kids. They call you names and then throw you off the site. I suspect Jesus was either an alien or an hybred, but that theory doesn’t go far on religious sites either. No, I’m not athiest and feel no one has the right to strip someone of their beliefs – including mine.

          • Jesus COULD be a socialist. He could do magic! *That* is socialism’s missing ingredient, the thing you nuts have been missing all this time.

            Now get to work on it!

          • If people didn’t have the right to judge, there would be no courts. Bet you judge who your kids hang out with or is the local drug dealer not to be judged either. A pedaphile would have a good time living next door to your non-judgemental self.

          • retjoun

            I’m pretty sure a Dem who calls someone a racist says why (“Put the white back in the White House” is racist, as is hanging a chair on a tree, following Mr Eastwood’s speech). Saying evolution is straight from the pit of hell is stupid. Saying Obama is a Kenyan and yelling for his birth certificate is bigotry.

          • A candidate for the Presidency should provide proof of citizenship. Obama should have already been vetted. Why was he not ? That is not a partisan question. It is a simple matter of Constitutional law.

          • retjoun

            ‘On October 31, 2008, Hawaii Health Director Dr. Chiyome Fukino issued a statement saying, “I have personally seen and verified that the Hawai’i State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures.” On July 27, 2009, Dr. Fukino issued an additional statement saying, “I have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawaii State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawaii and is a natural-born American citizen.”‘

            Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawaii. His mother is American, his father was a British citizen born in Kenya. If one is born in the USA of foreign parents (even BOTH parents), the person is a natural-born citizen of the USA. Claims that Barack Obama wasn’t American were just another attempt to keep him from the office. They were not based on any tangible or believable complaint. When he released his birth certificate, following Dr Fukino’s statement, the hullabaloo continued, till he released the full length birth certificate. The furore continued. And now it has spilled into asking for his grades and admission/application records. Why? This is what I call bigotry.

          • PBrenda

            Every president shows his grades and app records…..shows us a bit more who he is…..why is it that he has spent millions to keep them under lock and key? hmmmmm……

          • retjoun

            You are demostrating the very thing I’m talking about. You are so sure Barack Obama is Kenyan that no amount of evidence to the contrary will suffice. So, why do you think he spent millions “to keep them under lock and key?” Wait a minute, did he?

          • retjoun

            You are demostrating the very thing I’m talking about. You are so sure
            Barack Obama is Kenyan that no amount of evidence to the contrary will
            suffice. So, why do you think he spent millions “to keep them under lock
            and key?” Wait a minute, did he?

          • Actually, he didn’t. Schools and colleges are not allowed to release that type of information on students that were enrolled in their schools. You can get that info on YOUR OWN KID, in other words, but NOT ON MINE. That would be an invasion of my child’s privacy. And a good law, too.

          • not sure that you could acquire your own child’s records if he or she were over 18 years of age.

          • Ticked off

            No you cannot. FERPA is the law. Unless your over 18 year old child signs paperwork releasing this information to, yes, you his/her parents who are usually footing the bill, tough noogies. You don’t get to see the records

          • That’s right, Barbara. You cannot do that.

          • The president’s grades are freely available on the web.

          • Birth records are open to the public. School records do not prove citizenship.

          • Josh Brueggen

            Nah, if anything he gained indonesian citizenship as a child when living there. If so he would have either had to renounce his US citizenship, or be a dual citizen. Either one technically makes him ineligible to be president. Of course you could argue all day about whether he had his fingers crossed behind his back when he took the loyalty oath in Indonesia (or whether an oath administered to someone under 18 even matters) but if you want to be hard nosed there are plenty of places where BO may not fit the bill. I do think the Education records are suspect though, after all we only knew how dumb GWB was because like everyone before him those records were released. Not releasing them makes one wonder what is so embarrasing that they cannot be released. Either that, or as previously stated it is all a goose chase for the right.

          • ?They’re under lock and key arent they? Are yours under lock and key? Takes money and lawyers to keep that under lock and key. And when you’re running for president, lobbyists. So yeah he spent some money.

          • KBOM

            No, it takes FERPA to keep grades under lock and key- so pretty much everyone who has ever gone to college or high school, their grades are private, and require release by the student or his/her parents if under 18 years old. It doesn’t take money and lawyers (and lobbyists?!?! do you even know what lobbyists do?) it takes a federal law that applies to everyone. You sound ridiculous. He didn’t spend money, he simply didn’t sign a piece of paper releasing his grades, nor should he have to. “Transcripterism” is just “birtherism” warmed over, but it sounds just as dumb.

          • paus.think.type.

            I think tax returns are far more standard than applications and grades.

          • The truth is, Obama’s grades are freely available on the web, and the Conservatives won’t like the Harvard law school 4.0!

          • ~*ObAma OnlLi Got IntO HrAvird bcuz he’s Blaq*~
            ***southern pryde***

          • U R an Idgit X

          • just for the lulz!

          • Hollie

            Obama doesn’t have millions, that was Romney who used his millions to try to buy a presidency!

          • Caring American

            Hollie, if you believe that Obama has not spent millions as a public figure. you are not thinking at all. He spends other people’s money and you should bleiev it is millions. He has also benefitted from some very sweet deals , like his home purchase in Chicago. He has been so well connected it is creepy. SO, while he has not EARNED millions, please know he has indeed spent them, and he will continue to do so.

          • MsC

            I agree with you in that yes he has spent millions but that is with every & all presidents…they work for a salary & have a right to spend it as they wish! He chose to buy a house soo??? that automatically makes him spending millions of other ppls money that is so unfair of you or anyone to say. OF COURSE THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA IS VERY WELL CONNECTED AND BEING PRESIDENT HAS UNIMAGINABLE TYPES OF PERKS WHY NOT YOUR ARE ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT PUBLIC FIGURES OF THE WORLD. oh and he has earned millions the president of the US make a half of million dollars a year multiply that by 4!!

          • You can’t spell, you have no verifyable facts. You apparently can’t think straight either!

          • Aries

            Ray, you misspelled “verifiable.”

          • Aries

            Although you are right about everything else. 🙂

          • Erica

            Ray…you can’t spell! LOL “verifyable.” This article is lame but most of the comments are 10x worse.

          • you’re right and wrong at the same time.

          • OK so I read all these and made some comments and all I can say is “Boy is this country a mess and boy are people for real?” Maybe some day people will realize who they are voting for. Nobody is running for president to help you. They run for president to help themselves. Nobody is going to help you, not even your man, Obama. You’re on your own. Obama will do nothing for you. Watch when 2016 is here. And neither will a republican. Got it, no democrat and no republican is going to do anything for you. All this talk about who showed what and who has how much money, good luck ever seeing that much money with the way the dems and the repubs are spending YOURS.

          • grownupgirl

            that is simply idiotic. Turn off fox news channel now please.

          • PBrenda, nobody shows their school grades. Better question is why didn’t Romney reveal what he is hidding in his tax returns?

          • MsC


          • High and MIghty

            They also show PAST taxes,,, usually.

          • He has not kept anything under lock and key. His college records are irrelevant and his passport records are protected by the State Department and he is under no obligation to provide them. Mittens hid his tax returns from the American people. I find that more ominous.

          • IndependentWhiteGRRL

            I keep seeing this, but I saw Romney’s released tax returns over two months ago. Are you saying that was a sham or something?

          • free1thinker

            Mitt only released his 2011 tax return. Most presidential candidates release many years of tax returns which undoubtedly date back to before they knew they’d be running for president. Ironically, a huge believer of this level of financial transparency was Mitt’s own father who started the tradition of releasing multiple years of returns that has been followed since 1967. Obama released 8 years of returns when he first ran…McCain released 2. Mitt is the only one in recent history to only release one.

          • And everybody knows WHY he didn’t release them!

          • conservative forever

            who gives a chit about tax returns get a life

          • free1thinker

            People care about tax returns because they demonstrate how a candidate has created his wealth and provide further indications as to character, transparency, and ethics (or lack thereof).

            In Romney’s case it is clear that he benefited financially from stashing his wealth overseas – which is both unbecoming of and unprecedented for a president – making his refusal to submit multiple years of complete tax returns (or even a single complete year) problematic, even for his supporters. There were also questions about his conflicts of interest…one example: publicly opposing the rescue of the auto sector while investing in the group that controlled and threatened to cut off GM’s supply of car parts unless GM and the gov’t agreed to huge payments funded by taxpayer subsidies.

            So literally while Romney was complaining about the 47% milking the gov’t, he concealed his profit (tens of millions) thus reducing his taxes on said profits from extorting the gov’t and American taxpayers. Presidential? More like a snake oil salesman. I don’t know a single thinking person who doesn’t care about this sort of thing. Perhaps you should reflect on why you don’t “give a chit”, especially since real conservatives tend to care about fiscal responsibility.

          • Wow you free thinkers really get alot of information. Where did you get it. Oh yeah thats right, from the liberal media. THEY ALL LIE. All politicians do.

          • brooklyn girl

            He only released part of his 2011 tax returns AND did not take a deduction for his contributions to the Mormon Church. So his taxes were at 11% not the 9% is he had. Boy would I like to pay only 9%.

          • free1thinker

            Wouldn’t paying 9% be nice? And he had the nerve to say that others were milking the gov’t…

          • Cat Gee

            you CAN only pay 9%! you just have to make a few hundred million to deserve your cut of the welfare first. if you actually need the welfare, like as an actual poor person, not only are you a bum (you bum!) but you have to fight tooth and nail for it. things will be much easier when you can afford an awesome accountant. hope that helps 🙂

          • Muzzi

            Yes. A CPA said there were missing forms.

          • MsC

            I’m sure you have seen the lochness monster too because not even CNN or FOX (or any other news station) has ever showed them so must be awesome to be you ( the one & only person in the US that ever saw them)!! I guarantee you had Gov. Romney showed his tax papers FOX would be airing them all day every day to defend him!

          • Well, Romney won’t even show his income tax record, and that is public information. If Obama failed a class or even got funding that was inappropriate, it does not compare with making a fortune and removing it from the U.S. to some foreign island!

          • You mean like Obama is doing? Getting funding you don’t deserve is FRAUD not inappropriate.

          • Muzzi

            Did you see George Bush’s? His father paid other students to take his tests because George was too busy partying in his room.

          • So Obama is as bad as Bush. Your point? Wasn’t Obama suppose to clean up Bush’s mess rather than make it worse? Can’t wait till 2016, maybe we can elect a multiple felon or how about an illegal alien. Putin might not be busy by then.

          • Muzzi

            It took FDR 10 years plus the second World War to clean up the mess the Republicans of the 1920’s left that created the Great Depression. It took George Bush 8 years to create the mess
            that he left for President Obama to clean up. FDR had a united Congress all of those years.
            President Obama had a united Congress for 2 years, a divided Congress for 2 years whose only objective was to try and make him a one term President. He sent Congress a FULLY FUNDED JOBS BILL last year that would have created a lot of new jobs. It is sitting on some Republican’s desk in the House of Representatives because they don’t want his program to succeed.

            FDR put the strongest regulations in effect in 1933 so that it wouldn’t happen again. These regulations protected us for over 60 years until they started being abolished so that Wall Street
            would no longer be encumbered by them. The Banking Act provided the rule that banks had to be a “stand alone” bank, they could not have “holding companies” in which to hide their “bad loans”.

            In 2008, AIG and the big banks were bailed out because of the “bad loans” they had in their
            “holding companies”. The Glass-Steagall Banking Act of 1933 was abolished by the Republicans’ Gramm, Leach, Bliley Act in November of 1999.

            Those who do not remember history are doomed to repeat it.

          • LogicalChemist

            The mess in the 1920’s was a bipartisan mess. FDR did pass the Glass-Stegal act, which was eliminated during Clinton’s term in a bipartisan effort(Gramm-Rudmann I believe). We do need it back. In 1935 FDR raised taxes and sent the country into an extended recession that lasted until we entered WW-II. After the war Eisenhower and Kennedy instituted programs like the Interstate Highway system(Ike) and large tax cuts(JFK) that started the economy moving lead.

          • Alright, Mr. Logical Chemist. If you observe a chemical reaction in one flask containing two substances, and observe no reaction in a second flask that contains only one of the substances, do you then conclude that removing one of the substances caused the reaction?

            Or do you really think that removing a couple of provisions of Glass Steagall really caused this, when Canada had no such prohibitions contained in Glass Steagall, yet had no bank failures?

            Or do you really think the fact that the banks that did NOT take advantage of the changes in the law were the ones hardest hit was because the law was changed? How is that logical?

          • You have been TERRIBLY served by your miseducation.

            It is one thing to have an opinion, but to hold an opinion on something that runs contrary to so many facts, and to do so as vociferously as you…

            I can’t find a single sentence here that isn’t a product of ideological indoctrination, and factually false.

            Regulation after regulation you claim “protected” us actually were the seeds of future crises. The New Deal banking regulations resulted in distortions in lending markets, which ended up precipitating the Savings and Loan crisis.

            Jobs programs. No credible economists holds the vulgar Keynesian view that such things stimulate the economy or actually create jobs. None. Even ones with Nobel Prizes who hang up their economist hat to write as political pundits.

            And it is a pretty mainstream view among *economists* (not historians, who more often appear to be court hagiographers) that FDR’s programs actually prolonged the Depression and made it deeper. And WWII didn’t get us out either. That theory has been largely abandoned as the misty-eyed sentimentalism of the era has shuffled off its mortal coil.

            No, the only people left saying such things are the ones who are educated by the very institution that benefits from that ideology – the state. It’s a nice racket, that. The state determines what is truth, and that truth just happens to be what best serves the state.

          • Stentor7

            Your arguments are weak, your logic is faulty, & your facts are just flat out wrong. Yup, you’re a moron alright.

          • mmarks

            Get over yourself.

          • And most presidential candidates are ready to show their tax records without a major begging and pleading going on.

          • You are delusional.

          • That is b.s at it’s best. BTW how come Romney released 2 years worth of tax returns? Much bigger issue if you ask me.

          • Muzzi

            They were not complete tax returns. A CPA said there were several forms missing.

          • PKelly

            He Didn’t! It’s been proven. He was vetted, and proven to be a citizen, it’s just that some don’t wish to believe it. and before you send some link to some right-wing blog out there, look at the real news sources, and consider just how much access the Secret Service has to real records. And hmmm what ever happened to all that $$ Trump spent to investigate his birth certificate….NOTHING please just stop….

          • That’s patently and demonstrably false. Reagan’s college records weren’t released until after his death, Bush II refused repeatedly to release his college records until they were leaked to a magazine. The statement that “(Obama) has spent millions to keep them under lock and key” is further, demonstrably false. I’m no big fan of Obama, but I do have this terrible obsession with facts.

          • They show tax returns as well. Why did Romney keep them under lock and key? Hmmmmm
            I really don’t recall any other president showing college grades. Maybe they do. I know they show tax returns. An honest question; why doesn’t that bother you?

          • because he didn’t. That story is completely made up. hmmmm….

          • Thats actually a good question.

          • The copy he got did not show the actual stamp that appears on the original. This is what good documentation does so that copies can’t be forged. But the Republicans picked on this as a fake which it was not, and that is why the Hawaiian health director spoke up. Most of this was a pursuit of untruths by Donald Trump. Mr. Trump is a real estate speculator from New York City who has made a fortune in rebuilding old facilities in New York. But he is from Brooklyn and who knows what kind of education he ever had – but probably never as good as the one Obama had.

            The huge negative responses were from a bunch of Texans who probably never had a civics class in their life. judging from the blogs they put out on the internet. These are also the ones who began the latest “petition” movement to secede from the U.S.

          • rataezo

            McCain was born in Panama and he gets a free ride. How do we know he wasn’t born off base and snuck into the base? Double standard.

          • Because, dopy, they vetted McCain to the nth degree while they gave Obozo a free ride.

          • rataezo

            Right, McCain was grilled about his place of birth. You sound like Trump supporter. Obama won, get over it and accept it.

          • And you know this how?

          • Josh Brueggen

            Both of McCains parents were US citizens, so it does not matter where he was born, he could have been born on the moon and he’d still be a natural born citizen through his parents (note the plural) has dad was an admiral in the navy for crying out loud. The US is the only country where you get citizenship just by being born here, and even that is tenuous. Consider that a child born of parents who are not citizens (say the French ambassador and his wife) who is born on US soil is not considered a citizen of the US even though that child is born on US soil. The child when born must be subject to the laws of the US per the 14th amendment which has been argued for immigrant children even though technically their illegal immigrant parent(s) are not really subject to the laws, or they wouldn’t be here as they would have been deported.

          • UncleNat

            Your example of the French ambassador makes all the difference. Children of foreigners who are in the US as military or diplomatic officials – that is, who are sent to the US on official government business – do not benefit from the 14th amendment granting citizenship by place of birth (jus soli or law of the soil). ALL OTHER children of foreigners, however, obtain the right to US citizenship through birth on US soil. This includes children of undocumented (say French) immigrants who are born after immigration to the US (it’s settled legal precedent). As for Obama, he could have been born on the moon too, because his mother was a US citizen at the time of his birth (your attention to the plural is completely irrelevant – you only need one citizen parent to inherit US citizenship). He was born on US soil in Hawaii, but since his mother was a US citizen he gets citizenship both ways – by birth to a US citizen and on US soil. And the US is not the only country to grant citizenship based on birth on its soil – most countries, and basically all Western democratic states, have some version of jus soli as the primary means of ascribing birthright citizenship, although the US is among the more liberal in its interpretation.

          • SD

            Barack Obama senior was born in 1936, there was no such thing as British citizenship until 1948. I doubt he ever acquired full citizenship – most likely he was a british subject, then a Kenyan citizen. Though many Kenyans of Asian descent later went onto become British citizens, due in no small part to his government’s policies.

          • RichardPTOts

            A 2011 Congressional Research Service report stated: “The weight of legal and historical authority indicates that the term “natural born” citizen would mean a person who is entitled to U.S. citizenship “by birth” or “at birth”, either by being born “in” the United States and under its jurisdiction, even those born to alien parents; by being born abroad to U.S. citizen-parents; or by being born in other situations meeting legal requirements for U.S. citizenship “at birth”(…)”.

            E.g. it would suffice for someone to be born of a parent who is a US citizen, or to be born on US soil. Will people now start questioning the citizenship of Obama’s mother as well?

          • Johnny Smith

            “the person is a natural-born citizen of the USA.”

            That’s the current interpretation of it, it’s clearly fucking madness and not at all what the founders intended.

          • Josh Brueggen

            Your definition of natural born citizen is incorrect. There is no actual definition, but various explanations from natural law during the time of the writing of the constitution require either one parent, or both to be citizens of the country of birth. This does not mean BO is not natural born, most agree with one parent being enough as long as you are born in the country, but AT LEAST one parent must be a citizen by any account. I believe most arguments center around whether he was in fact born in Hawaii as the documentation is rather suspect, and the state of Hawaii is known to be a haven for false documentation. That all requests for further documentation have been stonewalled, or the documentation is mysteriously missing only fuels speculation. Personally I figure he is a NBC, I doubt the types of figures who groomed BO would make such a rookie mistake as risking having all their goals overturned on a case of constitutional inelligibility, but anyone viewing the evidence impartially can surely see there are reasons to question the legitimacy other than being a racist. If I had to guess I’d say it is a wild goose chase meant to keep the squirrel chasers on the right too occupied to seriously fight his agenda which he has done a very good job of pushing no matter what you think of the merits……

          • Yeah but his mother was in Seattle Wahington at the time of his birth. Baaahaaahaaaa.

          • CB

            I think he was vetted like around a hundred times including tax returns. Mint Robme however refused to release his tax returns. So who didn’t get vetted?….you moron!

          • Thorsman

            Wow…there are STILL birthers flopping about on deck? Really???

          • Yea. No one should have to prove citizenship to run for President.

          • Only if you are black.

          • Or if you are a guy named Barry Goldwater. But that doesn’t fit with the whole “because he’s black” narrative.

          • Stentor7

            Fads may come & go, fashion is cyclic, but stupidity is forever.

          • David, in all due respect, Obama was vetted 4 times: when he ran for the House of Representatives, when he ran for the Illinois Senate, when he ran for the U.S. Senate, and when he ran for the White House. He may have even been vetted when he ran for President of the Harvard Law Review.

            But …. from the obsurdity of your comment mimicing Donald Trump and the Birthers, I take it that you believe that Hatred is a Family Value and that all things Obama make you puke. That’s OK. Welcome to the land of diversity.

            I’m a white guy with a business, too, who could not purchase healthcare until Obama changed the law. Thousands of small business owners think ObamaCare is great.

            But … Isn’t this a strange concept the Eric is espousing: white guys actually trying to talk to white guys.

            Love ya, bro. I don’t care what you believe. You’re still an all-American to me. Just don’t use the N word and I’ll listen to you.

          • Please go look up old videos of Obama where he is refered to as the first Kenyan Rep. His wife referred to him as a Kenyen. His book published referred to him as a Kenyen. Is he? Who the hell knows. I suspect he is not, but used it to make himself more appealing to the idiots who think only an immigrant deserves anything in this country. I think he used it to get money for school. It’s only when he wanted the top prize, the Presidency, that he suddenly decided to be American.
            The guy’s a fraud. Out of 320 million people, this is the best we can do?

          • oh, grow up.

          • Obama was vetted as a Senator! The birther issue is smoke and mirrors thrown up by morons like the idiot sheriff and the hairball Trump.

          • Sorry , it was Hiliary Clinton and her people who brought this forward. You are aware the Clintons hate your exhaulted leader, right?

          • Olivier Francis

            Besides, Sean, one well meaning and thoughtful Republican, wrote something thought provoking and soul searching. Can we restrict oursleves to Eric’s comment.
            I am a liberal from blue state NJ. I vote for Americas future and whichever platform is for America’s future. Issue based voting. I have no TV and I follow CSPAN to understand what the elected government is doing.
            Liberal to Eric Garfield, Thank you for writing so very well. You have done more service to
            Lincoln’s party than all the Senators and Congressmen since 1982. And to America.
            I will vote for Constitutional Amendment for
            Balanced Budget without exclusions. Make necessary modifications to entitlement programs. Defund Wars but continue to fund defense research.
            Equal writes to all people living in the US
            Restore Education to its rightful rank #1 in the world.
            Close the borders and make all legal and illegal workers to become green cardholders overnight. Lawyers walk away with 5K every year per legal worker in this country.
            Make direct+indirect tax fair.
            Make elected politicians more accountable — sequestration should have included congressional paycut. Then there will not even be a fiscal cliff.
            Repeal Citizens United and impeach those judges who do not have the mental capacity to discriminate between right and wrong.
            This liberal from a blue state would vote YES for all your principles. Until then I see liberal candidates more palatable.
            We need more Erics to preserve Americanism. It is that Americanism for which I became a citizen.

          • jazzermom

            Uh…..he already proved that he was born in Hawaii. Do you not read the paper? Turn off Faux News and think for yourself, david Whitson.

          • He probably was! Nobody ever in all that discussion ever asked the FBI about their files on him.

          • charter teacher

            What more exactly does he have to do to prove to you that he is an American citizen? Create and build a time machine so that you can witness his birth?

          • rataezo

            I had to get a security clearance to reset password for Sailors and Marines. Im pretty sure he was screened. To many moving parts would have to be involved for a cover up. Instead, all we got are the trumps and nugents of the world telling us what really happaned, yeah right.

          • So how did they cover up the Bay of Tonkin for 50 years? No moving parts?

            That was a reported North Vietnamese attack on American destroyers that helped lead to president Lyndon Johnson’s sharp escalation of American forces in Vietnam.

            The author of the report “demonstrates that not only is it not true, as (then US) secretary of defense Robert McNamara told Congress, that the evidence of an attack was ‘unimpeachable,’ but that to the contrary, a review of the classified signals intelligence proves that ‘no attack happened that night,'” FAS said in a statement.

            “What this study demonstrated is that the available intelligence shows that there was no attack. It’s a dramatic reversal of the historical record,” Aftergood said.

          • I believe he DID show his bc and I believe he WAS vetted and I BELIEVE you need to find some other big question to be involved with—such as—why did the republicans choose such a goober to run for president.

          • LogicalChemist

            The birth certificate problem arises because at the time in Hawaii anyone could go in and ask for a birth certificate for a child. Many native Hawaiians and immigrants weren’t born in a hospital or issued a birth certificate at birth. The parents or someone else went and got it later.

          • free1thinker

            Ok…so your argument is that not only was Obama not born in Hawaii but that he is not the son of his mother who was a US citizen which would thereby make him one? Are you going to suggest that she be dug up next? Sheesh! Do you have no decency?

          • False, like the rest of the birther BS. All debunked in full repeatedly at http://www.thefogbow.com/ and elsewhere. People who believe this crap demonstrate their gullibility and often their racism which motivates same gullibility when it comes to their believing garbage about this POTUS.

          • Really? You can do that now. In some states all you have to do is present someone who witnessed the birth. Some states require more. But others are more relaxed.

          • MsC

            Exactly how many times must the President show his birth certificate??? I think this is one of the dumbest things President Obama haters ask for because not only did he already show his birth certificate but it is very insulting to think that the CIA & FBI did NOT do their jobs efficiently because I am sure they have looked into these claims by now!! Vote against him because you do not agree with his policies but stop asking for things that have already been provided bc it only makes you look like an IDIOT! (not an insult to you just in general)

          • David, in my unschooled opinion, you are showing symptoms of a psychiatric disorder, perhaps paranoid delusions or a variant of OCD. Just like there is no truth to the OCD sufferer’s belief that hands must be washed x times, there is no truth to your beliefs. I hope you will get the help you need. Best. Wishes.

          • Cat Gee

            i love how the birther thing is still even an issue when it’s been over for years. if you close your eyes and cover your ears and refuse to acknowledge the proof, that makes YOU the person who doesn’t know what he’s talking about. who PURPOSELY does not know what they are talking about.


          • So, why was this NEVER an issue before Obama? YOU just automatically assumed that every other candidate in the history of the country was “vetted” and that the first ->black<- candidate somehow *wasn't*. No one implied your question was "partisan." It IS, however, flat-out racist as hell.

          • Joe, have you actually RESEARCHED whether it was an issue before? I have. A lot was made of McCain being born in Panama. And a huge deal was made over Barry Goldwater’s eligibility because he was born in Arizona before it was a state.

            See, but you need to use the “because he’s black” narrative. That’s why you never bothered to research this.

          • Adrienne Amar

            Obama DID provide proof of citizenship. I’m sure he was thoroughly vetted by the Democratic party before his name appeared on any ballot for President.

          • Kcass

            Are you kidding me? Seriously? If I want to register my kids in after school sports I need to present a birth certificate. How the hell do you suppose one becomes president of the United States without presentation of the proper legal documents? We do have the CIA and the FBI to look stuff up, I mean I think that’s their job. Did anyone ask Romney about his birth certificate? Paul Ryan? Or do they look “American” enough for you to ask.

          • KBOM

            Boom! Couldn’t have said it better myself, Kcass! Well done.

          • Did you know the dems questioned Romney’s birth because his father was born in Mexico. Is that bigotry?

          • Especially when the State of Hawaii has provided certified copies of his birth certificate time and time again is like accusing the whole State of Hawaii of lying.
            I don’t know about other people born when they had the old type of birth certificates, but like Obama’s, my original birth certificate had a lot of spaces left blank too. Therefore, according to Sheriff Arpaio, this would make my birth certificate fraudulent too.
            The thing is, I kept asking to see Sheriff Joe’s because I figured his was no different from mine and Obama’s. That for the same reason he called Obama’s fraudulent — sections left unfilled out like mine, odds are Arpaio’s has a number of spaces that were left blank too just like many of ours back then.
            My time of birth wasn’t even entered. Does that tell people anything? So because there are blanks left unfilled in my birth certificate, even though I know exactly what hospital I was born in and that my parents were as true blue blooded Americans as they could be who hailed from the State of Maine, does the fact I have blanks on my birth certificate as Obama does, mean I’m not a citizen either?
            Well according to Sheriff Joe it means my birth certificate isn’t legit. Therefore, accroding to Sheriff Joe Arpaio, I’m not a citizen.
            If you’re over 40, have you checked your long form birth certificate lately?

          • Oh God – here we go with the racist stuff. O please, be black and proud of it. I am not a victim, try that.

          • retjoun

            Jane Gallagher, I wish I could understand your comment. You say “Be black”… why? You say “I am not a victim”… who said you were?

          • Mary

            you said the truth, I am a black senior citizen who is a democrat thru and thru. I’m not a bigot I just based and voted for the person that had the best record. Nothing against Mitty at all, he’s taken care of that all by himself…God bless you and peace out…from the hills of WV, who that is the most racist state in the lower 48.

          • Only when my right wing friends continue to send me bigoted racist crap via email do I realize that I am not, and don’t want to be, connected to them in any way. They pretend NOT to be racist but it oozes out of them in many conversations.

          • common sense

            yep, just remembered why i did not vote republican… thanks for the reminder….

          • I think it’s reasonable that I am disgusted by the fact that the Republican party in general doesn’t seem to take seriously a woman’s right to her own body. I am personally offended and will judge Mitt Romney, who chose someone to be one heartbeat away from the presidency who believes that there is a difference between “rape” and “forcible rape,” and that being roofied and raped doesn’t count as “forcible rape.” It pisses me off that tens of millions of people seriously voted for a man who “would be delighted” to sign a bill outlawing all abortion, thereby forcing rape victims to go through 9 months of pregnancy AND give partial parental rights to the rapist. And it makes me both confused and angry when people somehow believe that if they don’t want it to, the separation of church and state doesn’t have to apply, and that other people’s personal life decisions are their business and up to them. Yeah. That pisses me off and it’s fair for me to say that believing and going along with those things makes you a bigot. It’s called being a decent human being with a goddamn brain.

          • I have been saying that for 8 years, republicans are the most hateful politicals I have ever met. I have friends???? that are republican, some are mentally ill, but they have no clue.

          • What republican acused Obama of murder or said he never paid taxes? You ever listen to Chris Matthews or Ed Shultz?!? No political ads are ever as hateful and untrue as those produced by liberals. Why do you suppose your Dear Leader let those men in Bengazie die? I suppose it could be from love of the terrorists storming the embassie. How do you sleep nights. Imagine any one of those men killed was your son or brother or father. Imagine them frantically calling for help and being denied. 7 hours of fear, just waiting for the bullet that would take them out. No sympathy yet? Close your eyes and imagine it’s YOU crying for help as the embasey begins to burn and bullets skim by your head.

          • free1thinker

            You seem so steamed about Benghazi where all the facts have yet to come out, but you have conveniently forgotten about:

            1) Bush sitting on intel that 9/11 was about to happen and letting 3,000 Americans die in the worst attack on American soil,

            2) Bush falsely painting Iraq as responsible for 9/11 and as an imminent
            danger with weapons of mass destruction that still haven’t been found
            nearly a decade later though 4,000+ US Troops have been killed and nearly 33,000 wounded, and

            3) Bush’s failure to oversee planning and adequate responses to Hurricane Katrina where nearly 2,000 more Americans died, many due to waiting unprecedented times for relief or rescue.

            Your selective memory is so amazing it should be bottled and sold.

          • justamom003

            We talk we show the facts and they don’t hear us. These republicans don’t even look things up or research the information that comes out of their mouth. They take word of mouth form Donald Trump and Limbaugh. It is disturbing and makes me feel very sad for them that they are so gullible. We can only be thankful that the majority of America was much smarter than them and could see beyone the lies and racisim, bigotry that was out there. Thank you to all Americans that voted for Obama. I am so happy there are loving caring people out there with thier heads screwed on straight.

          • Oh, holy shit. So ACTUALLY LEARNING of an ACTUAL SPECIFIC ATTACK AS IT IS HAPPENING that was going on for over 8 hours and NOT ACTING, is the same as getting a vague, non-specific warning that “bin Laden plans to strike on US soil,” at an unspecified place and unspecified time, and not acting? I suppose Bush was supposed to put on national lockdown for an indefinite duration until this vague threat passed?

            What kind of evil shitty sewer hole did you crawl out of?

          • justamom003

            Janice you are a nutcase.

          • PBrenda

            PLEEEEEEZ……we have never had a president before who divided and made fun of a certain part of the citizenry……..he constantly makes derogatory comments regarding those who oppose him…..that has NEVER happened before…..he is sooooo un presidential and it was nice to have a candidate (Romney) who actually talked about this great country unlike Barry….you don’t even see what is happening under your nose….are you not looking or just can’t see it due to your worshipping of barry? Many have woken up…..Obama got 11% less vote this time…..but there are still those like you who refuse to do their own homework and research……it’s there….you just have to search for it

          • pause.think.type.

            Citations please.

          • Brenda, what are you talking about? Are you really so daft as to lie straight just like that, and expect everyone to believe your lies are true “just because you say so”. Your deformed emotions and twisted mind are the only things revealed by your asinine comments.

            Obama is extremely polite and deferential – inside your FOX – Limbaugh universe everything is different but, from time to time you really must stick your head out of the “loopy bubble” to get some fresh air. Gad!

          • Pardon me? Romney is a lying, pandering tool. He would and did say anything to anyone if he thought it would garner support. He told over 900 verified and documented lies in his campaign and even began repeating things that his own party said were lies. The people poke loud and clear on election day. The GOP had better figure out how to remake themselves or they are done as a party.

          • So true. I left the Republican Party after thirty years as a devout voter, because of Reagan and his raising of interest rates and the so-called “line of credit” that was offered to farmers in the early 80s. We had tractor loans that had progressive interest rates up to 21 1/2%!!!!
            This devastated many farmers so that Big Business (Republican party in other words) could take over the farming and agricultural industries. Now we have those huge corporations like General Foods, Kraft, Armour, on and on and on and now look at the price of groceries today!

          • Let’s not leave out Monsanto

          • justamom003

            Those big corporations will soon be gone. I am constantly told by Republicans I know that there will be no jobs because no one wants to hire more than 50 people or they will have to provide health insurance. So goodbye to big businesses.

          • if Romney thinks this country is so great, why is his money in foreign banks, why does he take his business to foreign countries, and why did he close so many of his businesses in the US

          • Muzzi

            Romney was the biggest liar, and you admire him?

          • justamom003

            I would like some proof of that ! However I can bet that you won’t but the facts on the table becasue you only know this information because someone sent it to you in a chain email and you didn’t even bother to research if it was true. You really should do your research these things before you appear ridiculous.

          • So democraps dont name call?

          • Your ignorance is showing…

          • Do your homework first

            Name calling occurs on both sides, not just Republicans. In fact, Liberals are usually worse when it comes to name calling.

          • All Republicons arent racest… but over 98 percent of all racests are republicans!

          • There was name calling on all sides. If you are going to have an honest debate, you should be objective and see what ALL sides were doing and saying.

          • xmichaelx

            It was an Electoral landslide — this election wasn’t close. At all. No swing state was up for grabs except Florida, which didn’t matter.

            Unfortunately, popular vote is meaningless in the U.S.

          • Taylor

            Obama won by a greater margin of popular vote then W Bush won in 2004.

          • Taylor, there were only 4 presidents who won over 50% of the vote twice in a row: FDR, Eisenhower, Reagan, and Obama. The 2012 election, in effect, made history.

          • Obama won the popular vote by nearly 3 million. That’s not close, even in a country of 300 million because only a fraction of that total bothers to vote.

          • Phranq69

            As of this past Monday the total 2012 vote count was 122,579,476; not quite 41% of the ~300M population. Anybody know the overall % of registered/eligible voters nationwide? Obama got 61.7% of the electoral vote (332/538). The Faux Noyze punditry were calling for a “Romney Landslide” of up to 312. WTF? C’mon! W got 304/538 in 2004 and tried to claim he had a mandate. Credit where due.

          • DC mongrel

            207, 634, 594 eligible voters. Not even 60% of eligible voters bothered to exercise their rights. Lazy, ignorant, spoiled, dumb.

          • MadMess

            … Or maybe they just felt their vote would be wasted since both major parties answer to the same corporate masters, so why bother?

          • VoR

            Unfortunately the electoral college is not a reliable way of determining whether a mandate exists. Since all of a states electoral votes go to the winner even if the popular vote was relatively close (Florida, Ohio, etc.) the numbers become skewed. In order to determine a mandate, there must be a large percentage gap in the popular vote. Regardless of the numerical value of the vote (whether it be 2 million or 20 million) there only existed a 2-3% difference between Obama and Romney. Hardly enough to claim a mandate. Looking back to 2008, Obama won with about 7% more of the popular vote. Yet, political analysts have stated he overstepped an assumed mandate. Best not to get overzealous again.

          • AHW

            Yes but George W stated when he was elected the second time that head a mandate and thus could do what ever he wanted. Now it is Obama’s, meaning Dems, turn to have their mandate and I can only hope the congress will not be the obstruction it was the last four years.

          • PBrenda

            actually, it was 2.2 million…….a far cry from 3 million…..something libs don’t like are the FACTS!!

          • GG

            that is the pot calling the kettle black, where are you getting your figures? When are they from? All tallies a week after election day had him over 3 million, please tell me you don’t think of talk radio/tv as a reliable fact producer? I can’t even locate where a 2.2 could come from….please post your facts and try to not be so sure of yourself if you don’t have the facts correct…

          • SelfRocks

            Actually it is greater than 3.5M. Do you know how to use Google?

          • @PBrenda: I just saw a report last night that had the total above 3 million.

          • @PBrenda: Here’s a fact you can sink your teeth into: Romney lost. Get over it.

          • Dave

            Actually, counting is still happening. https://docs.google.com/a/google.com/spreadsheet/lv?key=0AjYj9mXElO_QdHpla01oWE1jOFZRbnhJZkZpVFNKeVE&f=true&noheader=true&gid=19

            Neither 2.2 nor 3 million are the up-to-date numbers. As of this comment, he’s up by 4 million.

          • goodness didn’t POTIS win the popular vote too.

          • Actually, that is a good thing. It prevents the emotional popular votes from taking control over the country and keeps the two party system going. Countries that have nothing but popular vote have huge riots and criminal behavior that control the voting. The Electoral College helps to prevent all that stuff.

          • Aida Moncivais Cavazos

            Which is sad…

          • justamom003

            Well Obama won by popular vote and electoral vote so that should mean something. Like Barbara Bush said Democrats won get over it.

          • You epitomize everything that is wrong with the GOP and its base today. By all means, continue down the same path. I assure you that it leads to the same outcome.

          • I would love you to actually do some math and come up with a possible way that Obama’s margin could have come from the factors you mentioned. YOU are why your party is fading into irrelevence.

          • Pat, your on the wrong page.

          • Wow! Just…wow!

          • retjoun

            Here is why you lost the election. Kenyan? He’s your president. His father was Kenyan. I wonder where ancestors are from and why you don’t refer to yourself as whatever that place is.

          • BigWhiteGrannyPanties

            Also, here’s my favorite about this Pat Houseworth – check out his facebook page – covered with “likes” about Jesus. That just kills me.

          • Kathy from Indiana

            It’s people like you Pat, who made another 4 years of President Obama possible. Your blatant stupidly will have far reaching results and perhaps we on the left will continue to see years and years of complete control. Keep talking Pat, you’re doing the Democrats a huge favor!

          • Amen Kathy from Indiana!!!

          • Thorsman

            Take it up with the right wingers…they called the results a landslide…

          • SelfRocks

            Haha. Loser !!!!

          • You sir, are rude beyond reason.

          • ItinerantRick

            @Pat – it seems the main news headlines for voter fraud this cycle centered on the Republicans. Seems they were trying to do what you imply the Dems did. See http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444752504578024903833678698.html.

          • Sage

            There’s no precise definition of a landslide (see the Wikipedia) but for some people a double-digit margin is a landslide. Obama took CA 59%/38%, MA 61/38, CT 58/40, NY 67/31, and the list goes on. In any of those states, it was a landslide, and it wouldn’t have changed if some voters chose the Green Party candidate (as I did, living in CA).

          • common_senz

            well, Pat H, since you brought it up, how many more did he get? and I want numbers and reliable sources quoted in your reply.

          • jazzermom

            Pat Houseworth, You are part of the problem with the GOP. Stop listening to Limbo and Faux News and READ different newspapers and news magazines. Turn off the the TV and think for yourself!

          • BigWhiteGrannyPanties

            What a disgusting thing to say. “Kenyan Pole Smoker?” Jesus, what are you doing, just looking for ways to be an example of a bigoted, name calling, mean person? Really? I think our entire country deserves better than having people say something like that. Wow.

          • steve nolan

            The vote was 332-206, which is a landslide by modern standards. Add to that a net loss of seats in both houses of Congress, Senate losses in Mass/Missouri/Florida/Montana/Indiana/Maine (all States that the GOP was confident it would win), gay marriage approved by 3 states, pot legalized in 2. How you possibly could view this election as anything other than a complete rejection of the Republican platform is astounding.

          • Jami.

            Do you know how many people per year Social Security reports as dead, that actually aren’t? Maybe not all those dead “voters” are still alive, but it does happen.

          • Well, Pat, before the election many Fox News pundits were predicting a Romney landslide of over 300 electoral votes. That, of course, is what Obama received. So we are just using the “landslide” numbers that the Republican stalwarts were using. And as for your “how many” question, easy answer: pretty much none.

          • K.R. Cooper

            @facebook-1477517977:disqus are you fucking kidding me? For one, lets try an electoral college of 332 to 206… YES LANDSLIDE! Second, there has been NO EVIDENCE of “dead, illegals, and double voting”… and lastly, “Kenyan Pole Smoker” — I don’t even know how to respond to such an ignorant line. But, since you think 3rd grade behavior is appropriate, you need to take your nonsensical bullshit and shove it up your fat fucking ass — which is the hole in back where shit falls out and not the one on your face where more shit falls out. What a fucking moron, non-patriotic, disgusting excuse for human excrement you are you fucking stupid piece of white trash…. you make me ashamed to have pale skin… but thank God that he (God) instilled me with an IQ that is sure double if not triple that which you hold claim to!

          • Looking at the popular vote in an election is like looking at a 35-7 football game and saying it was close because the winner only had 50 more yards of offense.
            Both campaigns were trying to win electoral college votes, and Obama won that battle by a massive margin. If both campaigns had been focused on winning the popular vote, that tally might have been 60-40 in Obama’s favor. Who knows? In the end it doesn’t matter – the result of the election was a resounding 332 – 206 landslide.
            Get over it, and stop watching FOX if you don’t want to be so surprised by reality next time.

          • And I quote, “electoral landslide.” 332 Obama to 206 Romney. Landslide. The popular vote is irrelevant, and besides, Obama did win that by way further of a margin than did Bush in ’04 and certainly ’00 (lol, get it? He didn’t).
            The Kenyan Pole Smoker won fair and square! Voter fraud is real; according to the closely-analyzed, scrutinized Ohio election in ’04, it happened .00004% of the time. It’s probably so rare because it’s, um, COMPLETELY irrational — for the thousands of dollars in fines and up to 5 years in prison that voter fraud carries as a penalty, it’s no wonder not too many people are willing to take that risk to make their candidate’s standing go up a millionth of a percent. Read this, dear: http://www.brennancenter.org/content/resource/policy_brief_on_the_truth_about_voter_fraud/
            Mittens lost. America liked Obama better. People felt he was the better man for the job. That’s why he won, and there is absolutely no rational way around it.

          • anachronist

            It was a landslide of electoral votes, obviously.

          • Tchaka

            Pat, I like your electoral picture on FB showing Romney/Ryan getting 360 electoral votes…the same one where you wrote: ” Kind
            of like the Nate Silver bullshit Hal, of course Mitt won’t take
            Callifornia, but the Kenyan isn’t taking Florida or Vriginia either,
            like Silver projects”

            That Silver guy is a real rascal, isn’t he? He has no idea what he’s talking about. You on the other hand knew the deal. You were so close….just a mere 157 electoral votes off. Nail-biter.

          • last I checked the electoral votes were 330 to 240 (or something similar). out of a possible 570, 330 divided by 570= 58 %, 240 divided by 570= 42%, give or take 2% (my numbers aren’t exact) that is about a 20% margin(although probably 18%, but rounds to an even 20%). Math is FUN! But then by the logic of most right wingers these days math is a tool of the devil. I should probably just listen to what ever subjective point you have as fact right?

          • gerald knight

            @facebook-1477517977:disqus LMAO YES your “GREAT WHITE DOPE” lost by over 4 MILLION votes what part of LANDSLIDE don’t you get??? individuals like you are exactly why republicans have lost the whitehouse TWICE in a row! and lost the senate! and losing seats in the house!!

          • That was no landslide.

          • Miriam Hamsa

            Yes, I told all my friends if you are in a swing state, vote Obama. Otherwise, vote Green.

          • But you DIDN’T know Obama would win by a landslide.

          • ccrider27

            All I said was give them a listen. They got none this cycle primarily because of the takeover of the debates by Rep/Dem lobbyists. Remember when the League of Women Voters was in charge?

            I vote my convictions and for the party that best reflects them, not according to who is going to win – which is a self-defeating approach. Using the lesser of two evils approach we will always get more evil and have now gotten the evil which we most feared.

            If more people simply followed their own values, we would have a much different world.

          • Do you not really mean to say that if “more people simply followed” YOUR values ? I think that most people voted their values on Election Day. In 2008, I voted for Dennis Kucinich, as he was the only candidate with the wisdom and integrity to vote against both the Iraq and Afghanistan invasions and occupations. His call for the impeachment of George W. Bush was another example of his genuine leadership and statesmanship. His district has now been gerrymandered out of existence. In the real world (of realpolitik), a vote for a third party candidate without any chance of winning could easily have led to a Romney/Ryan triumph. I can set aside a misplaced and ineffective idealism in order to work to see that that did not happen. And I did, by registering dozens of voters. May the Green party grow in influence and power. While that happens, I’ll vote for someone who can win an election.

          • Thomas Broido

            Don’t forget term limits. The most powerful legislators are the ones with the most seniority but their effectiveness is largely negative or obstructing progress.

          • Miriam Hamsa


          • LogicalChemist

            1) you can’t get money out of politics. It can either be hidden, or it can be out in the open. One suggestion- every ad advocating a political position must have the names of the individuals paying for it either printed in 12 pt type attached and visible with the ad, or , for TV, listed 6 names at a time for 5 seconds, at the bottom of the screen during the ad.
            2) Direct democracy is a fast lane to tyranny. We are already to close since the states have jiggered the electoral college that it no longer does what it was intended.
            3) We have a community activist as President. His top priority is to extend the federal government down directly to the lowest possible levels.
            4) You have free speech. Not the least, you are free to post on this blog with no government subsidy required. If you want more, buy a newspaper, start a blog, pay for an ad on radio or TV.

          • ccrider27

            And your point is?

        • arguethefacts

          No this is one of Mitt Romney’s flip-flop-flip-flops. As Governor of Massachusetts Mitt Romney opposed hospital visitation rights for same sex partners, he opposed domestic partnerships, he opposed adoption by same sex partners. He even went so far as to deny birth certificates to children legally born to married same sex partners. He also denied any birth certificate changes to children adopted by same sex partners. He also invoked a very obscure 19th century law (that didn’t really apply) to deny any same sex marriages for non-Massachusetts couples hoping to come to the state to be married. Of course, out of state heterosexual couples were allowed to marry in Massachusetts and have their marriages recognized elsewhere.

          When Mitt Romney was running for the Senate against Ted Kennedy (who trounced him by 17 points), he said he would be to the left of Ted Kennedy on gay rights and a woman’s right to abortion. What he meant was that he would be so far to the left he would travel round the world and end up standing to Ted Kennedy’s right on those issues.

          • Darkrose

            A Massachusetts law that was specifically intended to keep interracial couples from other states from coming to Boston to get married. There’s a disgusting synchronicity there: the guy from the church that didn’t admit black people were human until the 1970’s used that law to keep the people he “didn’t realize had families” from getting married.

          • You may be right, but I doubt that the liberal St. Pete Times is likely to miss much when they do their PolitiFact “fact checking,” but if you have specific links to prove, you are welcome to post them.

        • ManDingo

          Once again, the false equivalence between the parties. I wonder how often its been said that Bill Clinton presided over a budget SURPLUS? If you want to be taken seriously, stop trying to mislead and ignore the facts.

          • Bill Clinton (Democrat) and Newt Gingrich (who was the Republican
            speaker of the house under Clinton) used teamwork to balance the budget,
            that is true — BUT: #1 — A balanced budget was the EXCEPTION, not the
            rule, and #2: Both parties were equally “right” in this teamwork here
            –and equally “to blame” in practically ALL other instances both before
            and after –in recent memory anyway, but as to your statement — no, I
            was right: Notice I did put in the word “almost” in my quote, where I
            said: ((“” –actually, no matter WHO gets in power (Democrats OR
            Republicans) we almost ALWAYS end up going DOWN in our economy, and UP
            in our deficit, so both sides are losers to me.””))

            I did not mislead — you simply did not read. 😀

        • High and Mighty

          You had no standing in your case and if you had appealed to the US Supreme Court you would have lost unanimously. That said, you are good at seeking publicity… But you LOST! Don’t even pretend you almost won.

        • HAHAHA you think any Bush is a real republican never mind conservative. Wanna buy a bridge?

        • LogicalChemist

          The bible verse is pointed- Christ says “for I was hungry and you gave me food…..”. In another verse he says to the rich young man “Go, sell what you have and give it to the poor..” He never said “take what others have and give it to the poor…”. Christ preached the personal responsibility as the epitome of goodness, and the individual dignity and sanctity of the individual person as “made in the image and likeness of God”.

          Unfortunately there is no political party, Red, Blue, Green, fascist, communist, except maybe Libertarians that come anywhere close to Christian belief- one of the most revolutionary ideas every preached.

        • Excellent reply. But lets add that this guy is making alot of money with his books to possess a one-sided view. Pick a side, write a book, and you can make some money. I believe that is the real rationale for this man’s statements, besides that he loves to hear his own opinions. Ego will be the downfall of most. It is right to ALWAYS refer to scripture and not your own opinion on anything.

      • factchecker101

        Eric, I consider myself an Independent and I had the same exact sentiments. With the platforms for the rebuplicans for the last 8 years, I have kind of felt like they wanted President Obama to win. As a physician/scientist/small business owner/tax payer, I support effots to make changes being made to our healthcare system, ecosystem, and reform to the economy. The only change that occured with the republican party was in it’s stand on the issues. I watched the debates in disbelief. Thank you for sharing this, this is probably one of the most nonbiased blogs I have read during this election!

      • Um Barry Obama bailed out the banks and car companies – another politician taking our money for his image before a potential voter, just for their vote. When Barry Obama leaves office, we wont be any better off than when GW left office, which was not good. It is dangerous for any American to believe in any political party or political figure. To have such a strong conviction as you do that you spend large amounts of your life supporting a political party is tragic. both parties, my son, both parties. Dont be blind to the democrat party. Dems and Repubs – its the same thing.

    • The problem is they already think it’s just an “image” change. They have to change their fundamental stance or everyone will see through it. They thought they could fool folks this year and got slapped for it at the polls. Judging by what their “leaders” are saying they didn’t learn anything.

      • I would doubt GOP sincerity for many years after they start to claim a liking for Hispanics and homosexuals. Many years.

        • Jack

          I don’t think the GOP hates either group. Just because you are not willing to overturn 5,000 years of cultural tradition over a 10-year timeframe to elevate SSM to regular marriage, does not a hater make. This also does not “tell anyone who they can love.” Neither is there hate for Hispanics. What is your opposition to protecting the borders of a nation & restricting immigration (like Mexico does – I guess THEY hate Hispanics) to a legal flow, as has been the historic pattern until recently?

          • Jeremiah

            I would like to respectfully point out that immigration issues entirely aside, the intrinsic hostility the GOP has towards naturalized, legally immigrated, and American-born Hispanics is not much diminished. When you add the bullheadedness regarding immigration issues to the mix, and therefore start dragging in relatives, loved ones, or even simply the nationality of one’s direct ancestors, the GOP has a poor pitch indeed for the Hispanic vote. There are many countries who handle their immigration laws reasonably and with much less hullaballoo. Most of the ugliest of the policies enacted regarding illegal immigrants come from GOP legislation, like the ongoing proof of citizenship nastiness.

          • girlpolice51

            No Jack, what makes them haters is the laws they want to pass that benefit only them. Or others they refuse to pass that benefit anyone else. From what they say out loud we know just what they think of any minority. Be it women, blacks, latinos, gays.etc. But, oh wait, now THEY are becoming the minority! But, they shouldn’t have a problem with that since they treat minorities oh so well!

          • Shawn

            Same sex marriage is not overturning 5000 years of marital tradition. There were rites in the Christian tradition in the 10th and 12th centuries for gays and lesbians to marry.

            But more than that, a country that touts equality and then gives over 1000 benefits based on something that only applys to a potrion of the population is wrong. That country is NOT equal. And saying that it is doesn’t make it so. Gay marriage is about equality, not some backward agenda to destroy the sham that is heterosexual marriage.

          • Matt Hooper

            Two lesbians purposely bringing a child into this world – knowing the child will never have a father- is outrageous in my little world. Extreme cruelty. Kids are not accessories so you can play house.

          • Sam

            and how many children that have been raised by two mothers do you know that feel this great sense of deprivation? because most people I know raised by lesbians are thankful to have two people who wanted to be parents so badly to be brave enough to raise a child in a world that doesnt accept their family type. most people I know who have actually had the experience of being raised by gay parents are pro gay marriage…but I’m sure you know better than them.

          • Jack

            Your world IS little, as is your understanding of human emotion. Your penchant for hyperbole is not.

          • Your argument is so without merit that it’s only too easy to counter. You, sir, should direct that response to people who do not take care of their children and expect society to take care of them, like this fine example of an exceptional woman right here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bavou_SEj1E. Tell me again about “extreme cruelty.”

          • Oh I bet you have this gem bookmarked and eagerly look for opportunities to insert it into any thread to make a point that is such a gross generalization and irresponsible stereotype on all fronts. Perhaps I should take 2 minutes on YouTube and find a video of the worst possible example of a southern conservative, one that fits every stereotype and ugly personification one can make about white, southern conservatives. That there exists at least one such video absolutely must prove a point about all white, southern conservatives…yes?

          • Katherine Walton

            You said it: “…my little world.” Fine. Live in your little world. Study after study after study proves that children brought up in same-sex households do just as well, *or better*, that those brought up in opposite-sex households. But don’t let facts get in the way of your “little world”.

          • As someone who does have a father…it’s pretty overrated, to be honest 🙂

          • Erica Robinson

            See, the problem is that by denying same sex marriage full civil equality you ARE causing severe human suffering, regardless of your intentions. It’s not an issue of tradition, history, or personal preference – it’s about allowing consenting adults to make their own decisions about the one other person that they will give those rights and responsibilities to, and make a likewise commitment to, and respecting that decision. It’s about protecting the children in these families – families that already exist regardless of their legal standing. It’s about reducing the ability of people to discriminate against and harass people they don’t personally know, out of spite and self-righteousness and ignorance and a desire to assert that somehow it is *your* problem that some stranger disagrees with how you live your private life. And do not turn to this “everything but marriage” idea – the only reason to make a “separate but equal” distinction is so that people can discriminate. I should know – I live in a state that granted domestic partnerships to same-sex couples (now upgrading to marriage, finally) – and have heard several stories about how this distinction was used to DENY partners the *very* rights that the partnership was supposed to grant. Imagine having to keep your marriage license on you at all times or risk being barred from your spouse’s bedside – that is what it was like for same-sex couples in our state – carry your DP certificate or hospitals won’t honor it. This would never happen to a married couple, because if a hospital tells one kind of married couple to “prove it first,” they’d have to tell *all* married couples to “prove it,” or run afoul of anti-discrimination laws.

            This should never be about whether or not people *approve* of these relationships – it’s about it being nobody else’s business, and guaranteeing loving, consenting partners the same rights that society has already determined that loving, consenting partners should have. These rights are there to minimize suffering and promote stability, and I believe that anyone who would deny these rights to adults they have never met, or would like it to have a different name so they can differentiate things that are supposed to be equal, is sticking their nose someplace it doesn’t belong, and is certainly no true Christian. If a person would deny these people something this basic, they are not being charitable of spirit, and are sitting in judgement of their fellow humans, a place the Christian God reserved for Himself only. They are flaunting their religion like a pharisee in direct opposition to the teaching Christ, who said God preferred prostitutes and tax collectors to self-righteous, self-proclaiming “godly” people. They are not treating the “least” among you with kindness, and so they are not treating Christ with kindness, and they are instead contributing to the unnecessary suffering and indignity experienced by their homosexual neighbors, who they were instructed to love.

            Our homosexual neighbors are not asking for our *blessing*. It is already a moral travesty that they are compelled to ask our *permission.* If you vote in opposition to same sex marriage or discriminate against same-sex couples, I am 99% certain I will see you in Hell (if such a place exists), because you are running counter to practically every direct instruction from Christ regarding correct treatment of others (especially the judgment part). Seriously Christians, read your bible and get your priorities in order. Gays mentioned: like twice. Kindness mentioned: like entire new testament. Hispanics: not even invented yet. Ergo: if you err, err on the side of kindness and generosity of spirit. Err on the side of personal liberty and personal responsibility. Err on the side of equality. Because, really, if homosexuals really are the demons “Christians” (of the judging kind) say they are, then treating them the way they *ask* you to treat them (which is respectfully and equally) can only count as extra credit.

          • FaintCryofFreedom

            @3cb752c88d88624d7f96b1975dd0bcd0:disqus: You’re my heroine. Very well said. Thank you.

          • FaintCryofFreedom

            Also, I’d like to point out a term which the Europeans (especially those in UK) have adopted over the years since they approved same-sex marriage: Whether hetero or gay, many people now refer to their respective spouses as “partners”. I believe it illustrates a significant shift in their societies’ views of marriage -whether between a man & woman, or two people of the same sex- away from the notion of ownership & into the realm where it should be -partners in love.

          • freeopinions

            I am seventy years old. I have heard spouses referred to as “partners” or “marriage partners” all my life.

          • Why not just refer to them as “my spouse”. It’s a gender neutral term and is perfectly descriptive.

          • jr

            You make some reasonable points, but I suppose it all comes down to the definition of marriage.

          • Well done, Erica. Wish I’d written that.

          • whatever…

            SEVERE HUMAN SUFFERING – you need to get out more! Suffering is abused spouses and children, human trafficking, starvation, natural disaster victims and listening to your bullshit. I’m fine with gay marriage but your argument is utterly ridiculous. And if you’ll see them in hell? Then you are admitting you’ll be there too. It may have something to do practicing what you preach… You say err on the side of kindness – okay kettle…

          • Chris

            Marriage, as an institution, has ALWAYS changed to suit geographic and societal norms. It’s akin to polygamy no longer existing. Same sex marriage is not an affront to the institution, it’s ALREADY a part of it’s rich and diverse history, having existed in past cultures.

          • Jack

            Curious to hear thoughts, since you mentioned polygamy. IS polygamy wrong? Should it be legalized? A British drama my wife was watching recently on public broadcasting (PUBLIC BROADCASTING?! Run Big Bird, run!) recently portrayed an elderly brother & sister having lived many years as husband & wife. Okay, not okay? If marriage is not one man and one woman, what IS the definition of marriage, and what is the point? Actually not making a point by this, but will be curious at responses, though I likely will not comment further (unless I JUST can’t help it…)

          • FaintCryofFreedom

            @Jack: Actually, yeah, it DOES make them haters. I watched Reagan during the burdgeoning AIDS as he ignored it & did basically nothing for the gay community. Saying the GOP hates homosexuals is too soft. They despise us & would rather see us dead. That’s what happened back in the 1980s->They consigned thousands of gay men to premature deaths.
            Your assertion that gay people have only been seeking the right to marry like heterosexuals tells me how ignorant you truly are -that you would speak about that which you have limited knowledge of. We’ve been seeking the right to marry for decades. You’re probably completely unaware of this because…..gee, you’re straight. What would you really know about what gay people want & for how long we’ve wanted it?
            And your other assertions are simply disingenuous -when we consider the things we’ve heard from the mouths of the ignorant GOPers.

          • Muzzi

            I lost my son to that horrible disease because Reagan refused to put any more money in research.
            A small country like France was ahead of us in research. They came out with the AZT drug cocktail a month after he passed away. He actually died of sepsis from the hospital because of his lowered immune system. Reagan and others judged the sick people as being unworthy to spend any research dollars on for a cure. When I told people what my son died of, they stepped
            back as if they would catch it from me.

          • Whedon Activist

            My thoughts are with you and your family

          • Muzzi

            Thank you.

          • Fred

            You didn’t lose your son because Reagan didn’t fund research – you lost him because he knowingly engaged in behavior that caused him to catch the disease. Make you choices and live with consequences. I don’t worry about AIDS because I don’t stick needles in my arm or another man’s dick up my ass.

          • Stunned

            Dear Ignorant F**k: Wow are you stupid. Are you really one of those morons that still thinks that only drug users or gay men can get AIDS? How’s that hole you’ve been sticking your head in since the 1980s? Yeesh.

          • Fred

            No, I’m one of those educated people who understand that MOSTLY (not exclusively) gays and junkies get it, as opposed to morons like you, who push politically correct but factually idiotic propaganda.

          • David Cavanaugh

            neocon much?

          • caroqp

            Fred, I would advise you read a bit, for your health’s sake. HIV and AIDS are now equally prevalent in both straight and gay communities

          • Fred

            Not even close to true. Yes, straight non-addicts can get it, thank you gays and junkies for bringing it into the general population. Were it not for their insanely promiscuous and wilfully reckless lifestyle, the general population would not now be at such risk. For most people, it’s still just as true as it ever was – don’t stick needles in your arm and don’t stick dicks up your ass, or have sex with people who do either of those things, and your chances of getting AIDS drop to almost zero.

          • dbolander

            And Fred, you are precisely why the GOP will die with you. I would never vote for a candidate whose supporters may hold your general level of ignorance as truth.

          • Fred

            It won’t die. It may have to adapt some, as politically correct idiocy ascends, or maybe less, if common sense and education replace politically correct but ignorant propaganda. Yes, there are many moralistic and superstitious idiots who support the Republican party, just like the Democratic party, but there are somewhat fewer Republicans who subscribe to the PC wishful thinking of “AIDS is everyone’s problem” and similar rubbish. If you studied any real history, instead of listening to the politically correct garbage the libs and dems spout back and forth to each other, you’d learn where AIDS came from, how it spreads (and how it DOESN’T spread), and maybe you’d have a clue about reality. But I doubt if you will, and that’s understandable. It’s certainly much easier to repeat slogans, and call straight people homophobic and ignorant, than make the effort to really learn something.

          • lickystick111

            Hey Fred? It appears that you’re talking to a real person, who had an actual kid who died (as far as I can discern, this seems true; at least, I don’t have any reason to disbelieve it and neither do you), and being a complete asshole in order to make an (also loathsome in itself) philosophical point. So I hope you don’t mind me saying: I hope you get raped at knifepoint by an HIV+ person of whatever race scares you the most, and then die in a gutter. Kind of like what just happened to your shitsmear of a political party. You are morally subhuman.

          • pause.think.type.

            Dude, you have to be one of the dumbest people I’ve every seen on the Internet. AIDS spreads by having unsafe sex or sharing needles/blood transfusions/intravenous acts with people who are already infected. It does not matter what color, religion, or sexual orientation you are. That’s a fact and it’s science. Do you really think that when HIV comes into contact with someone it says “Oh wait, this person isn’t gay, we can’t infect them.”

          • You couldn’t be more spot on. Despite what the GOP may do moving forward as a political party, it can only be as successful as it’s base allows it to be and given the behavior of the conservative base over the last 12 years, there won’t be a resurgence of their party at any time in the near or moderately distant future.

          • Absolutely true and if you had bothered to research the matter you’d have come across the data released by year that shows that it is heterosexual women who constitute the fastest growing demographic for people with HIV/AIDS. You’re not even lukewarm.

            And since you are fixated on “dicks up asses”, perhaps you should consider acknowledging that it isn’t just homosexuals that are sticking “dicks up asses” or having “dicks stuck up asses.” You want to play stupid, do it on Redstate’s website.

          • pause.think.type.

            Fred, a single search for the CDC’s statistics would have saved you a lot of trouble man. I believe what you MEANT to say is that gays and drug users are the highest populations (according to the CDC, this is true); HOWEVER, that is not to say that you can’t get it if you aren’t in those groups – just look at all the other populations. http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources/factsheets/us.htm

          • JR

            Ignorance must be bliss, because MANY people have contracted that disease in a variety of other ways. Hope you remain happy in your small small brain.

          • Katherine Walton

            Fuck you, Fred.

          • You, sir, are one horribly ignorant, ill-informed and uneducated troll for having made such a comment. You are, sadly, a part of the lesser thinking minority that believes that AIDS is contracted only by “heathen homosexuals” who are engaging in sex minus morals and I, for one, am so glad that yours is a dying breed. A female friend and colleague of mine contracted AIDS from her heterosexual fiance, a conservative, mind you…who had engaged in some of those family values lifestyle choices that conservatives are known to tout and equally known to ignore in their personal lives. My friend lost her battle with AIDS in 1989 because our President at that time had the same mental defect as you.

          • As facts actually do matter, take note that it is heterosexual women who comprise the fastest growing demographic with HIV/AIDS.

          • Guest

            Funny Fred that my 19 month old adopted daughter has HIV, do you paint her with the same hateful brush. I should be angry, but I can only pity your life that is so black and white and lacks compassion or understanding.

            Muzzi, I am so sorry for your devastating loss and the stigma and rejection you have lived with.. 2012 – I face the same stigma with my baby girl, it is heartbreaking.

          • David Cavanaugh

            I’m so sorry….

          • Katherine Walton

            I’d say ignore Fred and those like him, but I know that it’s hard and that it hurts. So I’ll just say that I was a college student in the late 70s and lost way too many friends my age in the early 80s and that I hold you close in my heart; as closely as I held dying friends. Much love to you, from a stranger who cares.

          • Jack

            Muzzi, The pain is still fresh in your post these many years since. Whether I agree with your characterizations & judgements or not, I’m sorry for the loss of your son.

          • Jack

            Ok, I’ll grant you that I may not have the full history of the gay struggle at top of my knowledge list, but if you’re seeing all this hate, you’re hanging out with the wrong crowd of, er, Republicans? You’ll see it as patronizing if I note the dramatic change in tolerance and acceptance of homosexuality just in my 40-something years. As Eric notes above, the (other) f-word (for gays), WAS a common slur in my high school days. It’s utterance now in my “Republican” circles, at least is so unheard of as to invite scorn and disdain. This does not mean your life as a gay person is perfect, but I dare say your “progress” has come faster than that for many African Americans. As for blaming Reagan for AIDS deaths in those early years, it’s unfair. It has taken years and hundreds of billions of dollars to reach some survivability level against a truly dreaded disease. There’s a lot more to be said here, but my energy wanes. Fightin’ liberals is fearful tirin’ work.

          • The dramatic change in tolerance has been no thanks to you or your party, who have fought against treating us like people relentlessly, every step of the way. And no, there is nothing “unfair” about blaming Reagan for the deaths, which he obviously desired; of course it was going to take years of work and a lot of money to fight the disease, which is why the work should have been started early.

          • girlpolice51

            Jack you need to read a little more. It is a know fact that Reagan absolutely chose to ignore this disease solely because it only affected gays.

          • freeopinions

            I dunno, Jack. We had a 300 year “cultural tradition” in this country of buying and selling people like livestock. Once purchased, a human being became the “property” of a “master” who could order the person to work until he dropped, be sold, chained, lynched, or whatever else he desired, and no one could interfere, because the (black) person was the master’s “property.” Eventually a war was fought which resulted in the slaves being freed; freed only to be hated, discriminated against and shut out of society for another 100 years. Not really a tradition worth emulating, in my opinion. If you think that there is no one in the GOP who hates blacks, or you think that the GOP does not cater to and solicit the votes of the hatemongers, just read some of the more vitriolic posts on right wing web sites.

          • Jack

            Oh brother. No one suggested emulating a tradition of slavery, did they? It was an evil that needed to go and did, despite the fact that it still exists in some nations. And the discrimination that continued in various forms & places, very often perpetrated by Democrats, I might add, was also evil. Still, while forced segregation was also wrong, there were thriving black families, economies and people in — of all places — the deep South through much of the 20th Century. The Civil Rights struggle — often aided by Republicans — was a crucial advance, however, the resulting “War on Poverty” Great Society Initiatives (notice where the enlightened politicians wanted to get in on the act), led to a new enslavement. Now those same misguided programs have brought generations of poverty and dependency; many of the thriving black families, businesses and societies have been hollowed out or destroyed. And, by the way, I never said no one in the GOP hates blacks; in a different post, I allowed that there were haters (as in every human community), but that this is a tiny subset that is not rewarded or welcomed by leadership or the majority. Yes, there are some vitriolic right wing websites, but hate & vitriol is by NO MEANS limited to the right fringe. Take a walk on the left side (see the post above just for starters) to see the ugliness of liberalism.

          • The “ugliness of liberalism”??? Let’s recap: you started off saying you should continue to discriminate because, after all, it’s been that way a long time. It is pointed out that other terrible things have been continued, simply because they had been going on a long time, and that this is not a good thing to do. You are, in fact, suggesting emulating the tradition of slavery, because you are suggesting that evil things ought to be continued whenever they are long-standing traditions; that was the whole point, which your whole post here is simply evading. SubRock tried to evade it by claiming, falsely, that slavery did not have a long history, and while it may have been rude of Katherine to point out that he was being stupid, in fact he was.

          • freeopinions

            Implied in your post was that somehow a traditional practice is something to be maintained and emulated. I merely tried to make the point that not all traditions are worthy of continuation, and others are subject to change and evolve, as marriage has done throughout time.

            Yes, I know that at one time in this country the roles of Democrats and Republicans were pretty much reversed. Lincoln was a Republican, of course, and is generally credited with freeing the slaves. Much has been written about that, and it has been noted that Lincoln was more concerned with preserving the union than freeing the slaves. The time for ending slavery in the U.S. had come, and it was certainly inevitable. After that, it was mainly southern Democrats who instituted and prolonged racial segregation and discrimination. People like George Wallace vowed to keep the races separated as late as the 1960s.

            But all of that changed with LBJ and Hubert Humphrey in 1963, and was cemented in place with Reagan and the “Southern Strategy.” Race baiting and instilling fear of the “others” was now official Republican policy, and has remained so to this day, brought to new heights by the attacks of 9-11-2001. Republicans today base their campaigns on dividing the country along racial and economic lines, constantly pointing out that the poor, the minorities and most foreigners are to be feared, denigrated and demonized as threats to our safety, our financial security and our cherished traditions. Only by disenfranchising them and turning the country over to a handful of oligarchs will we “get our country back.”

            You’re wasting your time pointing out that there were “thriving” black families and businesses during the time of forced segregation in the south. A handful of moderately successful people in a society of sub-classes does not mean prosperity is inevitable for all. Even after segregation became illegal, attitudes did not change for a long time, and discrimination (in hiring especially) was commonplace, including in the north.

            This statement “Now those same misguided programs have brought generations of poverty
            and dependency; many of the thriving black families, businesses and
            societies have been hollowed out or destroyed,” is standard conservative boilerplate, but is also a lot of wishful thinking. You would love to find proof that helping the downtrodden out of poverty created a dependent class, but the facts don’t bear you out. Helping the poor does not bankrupt the rich nor destroy their businesses, regardless of their race. Social Security, the biggest bugaboo of conservatives since its inception, has allowed millions to live independent lives rather than existing in county poor farms or starving to death on the streets.

            Not everyone can be a CEO. Not everyone can just open a business and become a billionaire. To have businesses, you need workers. If everyone was an executive, there would be no production. Yet workers are demonized as leeches, taking advantage of the “job creators,” and are the first to be discarded when the economy goes sour, or management makes bad decisions adversely affecting the business. Today we are seeing people losing their jobs because some employers don’t want to take a few dollars out of their profits and their own compensation to provide basic health insurance, something else that was a tradition for decades, even while businesses, the economy and the middle class were thriving.

            I know how much money I made over the years that I worked for a living, and while I never got rich, I always did better working than I would have taking welfare. I cannot believe that there is an entire class of people who choose to live beneath poverty level when they all they have to do is get a job, almost any job, and they can live better. I think that whole concept is a myth, perpetuated by the selfish and the greedy to justify their hatred of having to contribute to the public good. I am absolutely positive that if the “job creators” were actually creating jobs, that millions now on public assistance would quickly and gladly go to work.

          • Jack

            It’s not just a conservative talking point; there’s lots of research about the ills that the war on poverty has brought to those it meant to help, and to society in general. Society ended up a lot less “great,” but it really did wonders for Democratic politicians. Just for starters, here’s a short essay by Thomas Sowell: http://townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/2012/03/20/race_and_rhetoric/page/full/ Also, for an example of the once-thriving black community (not to discount the perniciousness of Jim Crow), this gives a brief review of the Sweet Auburn area of Atlanta, once the largest concentration of black millionaires in America. http://sweetauburn.us/intro.htm

            No, I’m not saying all was well and prosperous with all African Americans – far from it, but there can be no doubt that many tenets of liberal faith actually harm those they purport to help. But, if it assuages white guilt or sounds good, let’s not worry about real-world results. For those of us (liberal or conservative or whatever) who do work our lives through (paying SS taxes and other), it IS hard to believe that an uncomfortable underclass would resign themselves to a life on the margin rather than work, but I think they’re out there, white, black and other. It may not even be what they WANT, but some of these forces at work, just make it so.

          • freeopinions

            I couldn’t access your first link. The screen was taken over by popups.

            If you are really interested in knowing the real story and not in simply perpetuating the myth that people who need help are just lazy and would rather live in poverty than work, start here http://mediamatters.org/print/research/2012/10/04/fox-ignores-food-stamp-facts-to-push-dependency/190375 and then keep looking.

            Edit: I was able to access the article you referenced on my second try. Not surprisingly I was unconvinced by his claims which contained lots of “facts” with no references to back them up. Lots of innuendo, and implications that everything bad that has happened to black and Hispanic people since 1950, including the numbers of single parent homes, black males in prison, and rising unemployment, are all due to the social welfare programs of the 60s. I know that there are lots of other reasons for the societal ills we face today as a country, and this article addresses none of them.

          • SubRock

            300 years, huh? That’s interesting since we celebrated our bicentennial in 1976. The Civil War ended slavery no later than 1865, which is roughly 150 years ago. If the rest of your post is as weak as your math ……………………

          • Katherine Walton

            Hey, stupid. Just because we didn’t become an independent nation before 1776 doesn’t mean that there weren’t settlers or slavery before then. Are you really that dumb? “In 1492, Columbus sailed the ocean blue…” Remember that?

          • SubRock

            Well, we started the name-calling immediately, and I had so hoped it wouldn’t come to that. So here goes…..

            Kathy, I’m glad to see you got your face out of your partner’s pimpled-ass long enough to read something enlightening. Columbus had what to do with this discussion? He landed in the West Indies, which is not part of America, dumbass.

            The poster I was responding to specifically mentioned slavery and “our country”. That is the United States of America which wasn’t a country before 1776. So go back to slurping ass and leave the thinking to those of us who have the equipment for the job. You stupid, slack-jawed waste of sperm.

          • free1thinker

            I’m not sure how this conversation devolved into name-calling and vulgarities and I have no wish to be involved in that aspect, but I would like to point out that our country’s history begins long before the Declaration of Independence. Surely you have noticed that multiple people on this blog have said their ancestors arrived at this country on the Mayflower. The Mayflower landed in 1620. You didn’t nitpick and say that their ancestors didn’t actually arrive in this country because it hadn’t been established yet…so why would you question that slavery existed in this country before the country was officially established? What is the point?

          • SubRock

            Our conversation has not devolved at all. I don’t recall either of us doing any name-calling.

            Okay, so you mentioned the Mayflower. That at least gives me a timeframe for your 300 years of slavery. So, with that in mind, slavery actually began in 1620 and lasted until 1920? I think you see what I’m driving at. 300 years is overkill, hyperbole. It’s not realistic.

            Was slavery repugnant? Absolutely. But we don’t have to embellish history in order to present it for effect. It stands on its own merit, or lack thereof.

          • free1thinker

            Funny that you don’t recall name-calling when your last post referred to name-calling in the first sentence and then you proceeded to refer to someone’s partner’s body parts in a vulgar way. But you’re right, not being able to recall it must mean it never happened. *sarcasm*

            At any rate, you questioned the 300 years as if it was very far off. It was clearly an estimate and it was close enough. Your argument wanted to count from 1776 to 1865 which would have been less than 100 years. So hyperbole or not, the 300 year estimate was a lot closer than yours, and your estimate was supposed to be a nitpicky correction. Whoops!

          • SubRock

            Please tell me what I called you that offended you? You seem to love to speak in generalities because the hard truth is elusive to you. Do you want someone to tell you that you’ve won your 300 year pity party? Well, okay then. You can be the winner. At least my bad memory doesn’t try to rewrite history. Now go have yourself a swell day.

          • free1thinker

            Are you literate? First you say you don’t recall name-calling when *you* previously mentioned it and now you ask how you offended me when I clearly stated that both of you calling names and using unnecessary vulgarities toward someone you disagreed with was offensive and with which I had no interest in engaging.

            That being said you have now swung from claiming someone’s math was wrong on the duration of slavery to providing your own far less correct estimate to saying those of us who are clearly looking at the numbers history has shown us want a pity party. Clearly you have a need to be right even when you are wrong. Ok. You’re right. Do you feel better now?

          • freeopinions

            …and my math isn’t nearly as bad as your grasp of American history.

          • SubRock

            I would have to argue that point. You specifically mentioned slavery in the context of U.S. history, then you can’t recall how long our country has actually existed. Nor the fact that slavery was abolished 150 years ago.

            My grasp of history is actually pretty acute. I just don’t sling spurious historical quotes and expect people to believe them.

          • freeopinions

            You’re absolutely right. The first Africans were traded to colonists in Jamestown to be kept as “indentured servants” in 1619. So from 1619 to abolition in 1865 was only 246 years, not 300. I will try to be more accurate in the future, since facts are so important to conservatives.

          • SubRock

            I’m glad you did your homework…. finally. I love how you people get so passive-aggressive when challenged to be accurate… lol.

          • free1thinker

            And how do you explain correcting freeopinion’s inaccuracy with a far greater inaccuracy? To which “you people” does that make you a party? When will you acknowledge your inaccuracies?

          • SubRock

            Oh, and by the way, who do you think “traded” the Africans in the first place? Yeah. Other Africans. Black on black slavery was going on for thousands of years before America was even thought of. Maybe that’s where you were coming up with all those bonus years?

          • freeopinions

            You had no idea that slavery had been going on that long, had you? There is such a vast difference between 246 and 300 after all. I have to agree with the others who believe you were counting only from 1776, because after all, those people who founded Jamestown weren’t U.S. citizens…

            It was a white Dutch trader who brought the first Africans to the colonies, and traded them for food. I have never read of any white man who was forced by a black African to buy another African and enslave him or her. With your acute grasp of history, perhaps you will enlighten me with a reference?

            For the life of me, I have never been able to understand the right wing morality that justifies slavery in the U.S. and the English colonies because of the claim that tribes in Africa traded guns for members of other tribes. There would be no drug trade today if there were no buyers; there would be no illegal black market in anything if there were no customers. Do you knowingly buy illegal goods and services?

          • SubRock

            Oh, slavery was going on long before that. The Egyptians (Africans) enslaved the Israelites in antiquity. Landowners in Europe enslaved poverty-stricken vassals. It hardly began with the U.S. did it?

            I never heard of a black African who was forced by a white European to sell his brothers into slavery, either. But it happened.

            I like your assumption that I’m right wing. It’s more of your passive-aggressive mindset. It’s the fallback position for people who can’t count and can’t admit they’re wrong. You should probably get used to that.

            You seem stuck on being called out on your poor math skills. Assuming your 246 year reference is correct, you managed to account for 82% of the number you first threw out so casually. What if your boss decided to only pay you 82% of what you were actually owed for your services (assuming you’re not a bum)? Would that difference still be acceptable to you? I imagine not.

            By your reckoning, World War II is still being fought. But what does the truth matter when you can pull bogus statistics out of thin air, right?

            You’ve been fun to humiliate with nothing other than the unvarnished truth, but I’ve become tired of schooling you. Be a good little weak-minded lib and run along now. I have much more important matters to attend to.

          • freeopinions

            That’s what I thought. You had no idea. And I thought we were talking about the black slaves in America, not the white Egyptians. (You knew Egyptians were Caucasian, didn’t you?) But black or white, slavery in antiquity in Africa is totally irrelevant to slavery in the United States, no matter the race of the slave.

            “I never heard of a black African who was forced by a white European to
            sell his brothers into slavery, either. But it happened.”

            Right. Black slavery in America; it’s all their own fault.
            “I like your assumption that I’m right wing.”

            I assumed nothing, I mentioned right wing morality, but said nothing about you. But I’m glad you assumed that’s what I meant and liked it.

            “Be a good little weak-minded lib and run along now.”

            I like the way you assumed I’m a “lib.” More of the type of argument that you expect from the right.

            “It’s more of your
            passive-aggressive mindset. It’s the fallback position for people who
            can’t count and can’t admit they’re wrong. You should probably get used
            to that.”

            You’re a psychologist! How nice. Go back and study passive-aggressive. I don’t think it means what you think it means.

            I can count just fine, and I admitted I was wrong, I guessed you missed that part. Pity that you can’t do the same. Still, 246 is a lot closer to 300 than 89, the number of years that you thought slavery existed in the U.S.

            I’ll leave it up to others to decide just how much I’ve been humiliated by your unvarnished truth consisting mostly of insults, name calling, and hair-splitting.

          • free1thinker

            And assuming the 246 year reference is correct, your correction (that you had a chance to research before throwing out) only accounted for 36% of it. To quote you, what if your boss decided to only pay you 36% of what you were actually paid for your services (assuming you’re not a bum)? If you couldn’t get paid 100% would you rather get paid 36% or 82%?

          • free1thinker

            As there had been white on white slavery for thousands of years, but no slavery had ever been as vicious or permeated generations. Previously one could be born a slave and work one’s way out or marry out. In America rules were created to ensure for the most part this did not happen and children born to slaves would be slaves themselves.

          • factchecker101

            Before you speak on anything you should know your African American History. I’m pretty sure this is something you googled. Freeopinions is very correct in his statement of 300 yrs of slavery because even after the abolition of slavery was pass after the war, it was not enforce. Africans were still forced into slavery. The emancipation proclamation DID NOT free the slaves, truly know your history. You are right that slavery did exist in Africa before the North American slave trade. It also existed in other countries around the world as slavery and/or peasantry. In all countries it was usually people who were of the lower socio-economical class. The mis-education is in differentiating the two. Slaves in Africa were free people who were able to live according to there own will. Their services were traded for other services and goods but they were not considered property. The North American slave trade was developed by the Europeans. Slaves were at first traded for the same purpose but eventually the African kingdoms were forced by the Europeans and more Africans entered into slavery without will. This is where slaves became property and no longer had human rights. That’s called chattel slavery. The middle passage is the route that was used from Africa to America in transport of slaves. In this passage many Africans died because they were tortured and not fed or given water. Their bodies were dumped over into the Atlantic ocean. If they made it to America, families were separated and if they did not willingly do it, they were beaten and tortured. Eventually there was a document put in place on how to “season” a slave in the same manner that you would a horse. Many women were raped and beaten if they did not want to leave there children. A man’s limbs would be tied to 4 different horses and if he did not agree or even if he did not agree fast enough, they would summon the horses and rip his body into pieces. Pregnant women were hung and burned or they sliced women’s stomachs to let the fetus hang from the mother’s stomach. All of this was done in effort to scare the slaves and to keep them as property. I don’t think any person would offer his own an opportunity to endure this. Africans brought/forced to this country during the middle passage were the blood sweat and tears in building this great country and you should never speak of such a horrible event as if they simply agreed to be beat and mistreated.

          • SubRock

            Thank you for a well-written statement. I never implied that anyone simply agreed to be beaten or mistreated. Slavery was wrong and I’m not trying to defend it.

          • free1thinker

            Thank you for saying this. It did seem to me that you were trying to minimize/defend slavery, both the horrors and the duration, and I appreciate you taking the time to acknowledge this.

          • SubRock

            You’re welcome. And I appreciate your ending our dialogue on a positive note.

          • factchecker101

            No, you implied that it was the Africans fault that they sold Africans into this hardship, which is not true. And you also stated that slavery didn’t last 300 years in America, which is also not true. Slavery lasted decades past the Emancipation Proclamation. The extra information was just for your education so that the next time you speak of slavery you show more compassion. God Bless

          • freeopinions

            I won’t get into de-facto slavery, which it could be argued lasted longer than 300 years, but slavery officially ended with the ratifcation of the 13th Amendment in 1865.

            [Congress passes the amendment -January 31, 1865

            [Lincoln signs it, although this is not required with Constitutional amendments]

            Amendment receives the required approval of legislatures of 3/4 of the states -December 6, 1865

            Secretary of State officially certifies the amendment’s ratification: December 18, 1865.]

            Notice that SubRock’s arguments were not backed up with any sort of reference, he was just stating a viewpoint. Typical of this type of argument, he refrained from given any definable date or reference, relying instead on vagueness, so he could not be pinned down. (reminiscent of the Romney campaign?) His purpose here was to take my exaggeration of the length of legal slavery and make the point of the argument invalid because of an inaccuracy in pinpointing dates. I don’t usually make broad assumptions, generalizations and guesstimates for precisely that reason, but this time I left the door open and he came through. Far from “schooling” me however, he simply reinforced the general belief on the left that when if comes to arguing from a factual standpoint, conservatives are usually left red-faced, and have to resort to vituperation and name calling.

          • factchecker101

            It is very unfortunate at how little the education system (HS, colleges) educate students on AA history. It really disturbs me when the only fact people can stand on to justify slavery is that “Africans sold Africans.” Most people see the movie “Roots” and think that that was all slavery was. Your infomation is correct with the Emacipation Proclamation in 1865 but debt peonage lasted up until the late 1930’s. Those still “enslaved” through this system were still treated as property and mistreated hince the use of the underground railroad up until the 1890’s

          • free1thinker

            I still say 246 is a lot closer to your estimate of 300 than it is to his estimate of 89 years (from1776-1865). Pot. Kettle.

          • Wow is that ever some selective historical recollection!

          • SubRock

            You’re a day late and a dollar short. Better luck next time.

          • I am also a day late and a dollar short with this last bit of arguing. Whatever, slavery is/was and will always be against God. If you have listened to Mr. Romney, for him it still exists, not just with black but hispanic, he is soooo behind the christian belief of TRULY caring christians’s. that is just in this country, and it doesn’t matter if they were called serfs, slaves or what ever, it is just wrong. and here we are the home of the free and the brave. and we are still working on hate of people of different colors. GET OVER IT.

          • Whatever. The original claim was that discriminating against gay people should be continued because it has been a long-standing tradition. The rebuttal was that slavery was also a long-standing tradition. You were wanting to say that it really didn’t last so long, which was rather silly and beside the point. Do you believe in continuing to do people harm because it has gone on a long time?

          • The first african slaves were brought to the Americas either in the late 1500s or the early 1600s. Can’t remember exactly when, but I believe it was around that time. I know 19 blacks were brought as slaves to the Jamestown area in 1619, so that’s at least 250 years before the Civil War.

            Slavery was an old, well established trend in the old world too. While they may have been called Serfs in Europe they were still, in fact, owned by the feudal overlords. Romans took slaves from all the lands they conquered. The Greeks kept slaves before the Romans as well. It’s also all over the Bible too, so it dates back long before it came to the Americas.

          • rumplestilskin

            overturn 5000 years of cultural tradition…thats funny… no one wants to overturn anything they just wanna participate.. like black people who want to vote etc etc…

          • The GOP can’t even manage to stop glorifying rape as being “a gift from God”. While I can agree that YOU don’t think racism and bigotry are caused by hate, most who have experienced them felt a lot of hate pouring through. There are people who honestly believe racism/bigotry are an act of love. The same folks who think rape is an act of love. The rest of us just don’t sweet that way.

          • jameshorn

            Didn’t this country overturn a longer-than-written-history cultural tradition in less than 5 years when the civil war was fought? The length of an inequity is not an argument for its continuation.

          • mb

            Interesting Jack. Legal flow in the past meant anyone could get in. That’s what happened for my ancestors – my grandmother coming from Italy, for example. The restrictions are relatively new, and, if you look at them closely, seem to be unevenly applied. I notice brown people from various places have a little more trouble becoming citizens.

          • it isn’t the illegals or the borders, it is time we changed our immigration laws, This country was made great from all the immigrants coming to this country, we have the MOST creative country in the world, because we have people from a zillion countries melding together, We have gotten lazy in this country, no white man nor woman want to do what we call menial labor, we all want jobs that keep us clean. We want to be special, because we are white. and deserve to be in good jobs……….. Well that is not happening right now is it. OPEN OUR DOORS TO THE TIRED THE POOR THE HUDDLED MASSES YEARNING TO BREATH FREE. They will be the salvation of this country.

      • The only way they will change is if they are voted out and people with brains take their place.

        • cindy

          The republican party needs to get a backbone and tell the tea party members to find a different venue for their minority extremist views!

          • FaintCryofFreedom

            I’d be inclined to blame what happened last week on TeaPartiers, except I’ve watched the GOP for 33 years (since the first time I voted in 1980) and they are hateful bullies, intent on shoving their agenda down our throats, rewarding their cronies along the way at the expense generally of the American People/taxpayer. At NO other time in history has their hateful, bullying methods been more blatant than during Clinton’s 8 years in office, and then Obama’s. They lack leadership, but they’re really big on bullying. I, for one, am glad they were shellacqued. They needed some come-uppance to remind them that their policies are as outdated as some of their hairstyles.

          • Josh F

            Who sounds hateful here? The OP as well as the majority of comments here

          • Katherine Walton

            Yeah. Except? No.

          • Lincoln was a Republican; Teddy Roosevelt was Republican; Calvin Coolidge was a Republican; Dwight Eisenhower was a Republican. We need THOSE sorts of Republicans.

          • David Cavanaugh


          • Curiously, would you also criticize Obamacare as being shoved down our throats?

          • Obama ran on a platform of health care reform in 2008. There was nothing shoved down the throats of the nation. That many on the right weren’t happy does not make it so.

          • Jack

            lolol, oh, you were serious? Yes, of course Obamacare was shoved down our throats. You could even get some blue dog Dems to admit that – privately.

          • Jeff

            Do you imply that there’s no hateful bullies intent on shoving their agenda down our throats that identify with the Burros? The Pachyderms are not the only ones with people who harbor that kind of disdain for opposing opinions!

          • David Cavanaugh

            the republicans were too extreme….there was no middle ground…

          • Jack

            Repubs were “too extreme,” but not the Democrats. They are a glorious picture of moderation, these days, eh? From abortion to taxes to spending. Yeah, right. How’s that nearly extinct pro-life wing of the donkey party doing? Since we want to go back to the taxation levels of the Clinton admin, would the Dems support going back to those spending levels? Well, that’s not fair, so how about even as percentage of GDP? Still no? Didn’t think so. If you feel like you’re falling, that may be that “middle ground” just disappeared.

          • john

            Yeah! After all, it totally worked to get Mitt Romney in the White House when they told the Ron Paul voters the same thing!

        • Their hearts have to change as well or their attempts to appeal to those they have repeatedly marginalized and dehumanized will be viewed as disingenuous at best. I’m not sure the hearts of most of their base can be changed.

    • cjacja

      The target audience was NOT you. Nor was it the educated white couple who wrote that letter. The two core groups were (1) uneducated white southern males. these peole don’t follow issues but HATE the idea of a black president. So words like “greatest goal is to make Obama a one-term president” were effective with that audience. (2) the second group is easy to understand they are people who care only about one issue: How much they personally pay in taxes.

      One odd thing is these two groups mostly do NOT overlap

      • Jack

        You liberals have the same blinders you accuse GOPers of wearing if you think Obama’s only opposition or Romneys only support came from those two groups. Just because many millions think Obama is leading the nation to ruin, or at best mediocrity, where millions of citizens continue to suffer, doesn’t put them into the two tiny groups you mention.

        • J

          You sound like a moron. Grow up. Nobody buys into your angry whining anymore. Bullshit Mountain is coming down and you can either get used to it or leave.

          • Bill Nigh the Science Fly

            I find it amusing that you and so many others on this page insult, berrate, and accuse a wide range of republicans, and then go on to say that Republicans are the “mean party”.

            I do believe someone has been taking a couple healthy doses of “hypocrisy” with their breakfast each morning.

            This letter loses credibility and I lose interest in caring what he has to say because he can’t, apparently, get his words out without trying to shout profanity at me through the computer screen, even though I and many other republicans I know and converse with don’t use such foul, low class language. It really shows just how mature you guys are when the majority of you have to resort to childish insults to make your points – which aren’t usually that great.

            Last thing, you (by “you” I mean “most of the liberals on this page”) think Obama really destroyed Romney in the election, hmm? He won by a small, narrow margin. Don’t try to blow up the truth to make it seem like everyone hated Romney, when a significant number of people obviously voted for and supported him. Obama won the electoral vote pretty soundly, but had a very narrow victory with popular votes.

            I’m not going to be replying to anything else on this page because I was given this link by a friend, I don’t actually have any interest in this site; I do however hope you actually think about what I said, rather than come back and use more childish insults because you simply don’t want to be wrong. Again, in this sentence, I say “you” to mean “most of the liberals on this page, who are likely reading this comment with outrage”.

          • Shawn

            Actually, in order to incite outrage your comment would have to carry weight with me. However, given that it’s just the same ole… not so much.

          • Jennifer

            I had to scroll back up to find the “profanity” and found that it was once in the beginning (which I thought him to be making an exaggerated point, nothing more) and once in the end; to get to the end, you have to actually read through all his points, and anything thereafter are no longer points of real concern. That you have to try and take a stab at the credibility on two profane words that are inconsequential to the entire article is a stretch. I fail to see where there are ‘childish insults’ in any of his actual points. You say ‘aren’t USUALLY that great’, but don’t debunk any of his actual points (which I think are spot on).

            There is also a significant number of people who did NOT vote; Obama won the popular vote by over 3 million actual voters, but for those who chose not to vote or could not vote, I would be willing to bet that the margin would have been a lot greater had they done so. Each of my fellow working class, family-oriented, tax-paying, law abiding citizen friends and coworkers who legitimately could not actually make it to the polls cited they would (have) like(d) to vote for Obama.

            I am registered unaffiliated; I do not choose Republican or Democrat or even Independent. I choose based on the issues and what the candidates have to offer. Being from a traditionally Red State as well (Texas), I was one of those ‘traditional’ voters who voted Republican strictly on the basis that that’s what my family and tradition dictated; that changed when I saw the consequences of my blind actions.

            I am willing to bet that you won’t be replying because you know what you have commented is just as inconsequential as the ‘profanity’ you detest; it does not make the actual issues (that real voters care about) go away–actual points that the Republican party does need to address to regain votes like mine or the ‘average white American’ that they propose to be targeting.

          • Jack

            Wasn’t my post, but actually, I count the clearly implied-with-asterisks item at the start, a somewhat milder “BS” spelled out, he calls those disagreeing with him “a-holes” and then uses his big-boy F-word again (modified by the cluster compounding). Just sayin.

          • Jennifer

            And yet I had to do a search to find ‘shit’ and ‘fuck’; one still not directed at anyone, and the other a common descriptive of a ‘mess of things’, but neither at all consequential. Just shows that you actually have to be looking for them (and hard even) to find them, and that the overall post itself is not ‘shouting’ profanity.

          • FaintCryofFreedom

            Here’s a “just sayin'” point for you: So what. The blogger used profanity. Just like you rightwingers to dismiss those of us on the other side of the aisle because we got good & irritated with you & let profanity fly. Way to go. Loose the message in the way it’s presented to you. Typical & that’s PRECISELY why the rightwing lost last week. You just don’t get it. Then you criticize the message for the way in which it’s presented.

          • It is the “Faux News” “way” to take the gist of an argument and ignore it and instead look for one or two small flaws in the way it was presented and then change the whole course of the discussion. As this was not a letter written about language and or our use of it in getting a point across…..the person who chose to use it (language) as an excuse to dismiss the letter writer’s argument was just being petty. I thought it was a great letter and its salient points were well made.
            However it is very difficult to take a long look in a mirror if you are not ready. The Republican Party as a whole is not quite ready for soul searching. Looking inward is difficult in the best of times and right now it is easier to remonstrate the President for calling Mitt Romney a Poopyhead then it is to take a look at where changes need to be made. Great Letter….Thank You

          • Sara in Brooklyn

            This makes sense – and it’s why so many in the GOP are now obsessing over presenting the message better, or differently, or with a special sauce for other demographics. Aside from the moral failings of the current conservative crowd – for which I do not blame Romney, though he’s to be faulted for not calling out a lot of nonsense – this isn’t a ‘branding’ issue. And we’re not so stupid that we didn’t “get the message” (heaven knows, enough money was spent on delivering it). We heard it. We didn’t like it, in droves.

          • Katherine Walton


          • LarryP

            I am not outraged at all. You call 332 to 206 a small, narrow margin? Am I being insulting by implying that you are missing the point?

          • BradG

            I believe he’s referring to the 50.5% to 48% of the popular vote as a narrow margin; which I’m pretty sure was clear to even you. It is certainly not a ‘mandate’ from the people. Nor is it a resounding approval of the President’s achievements in his first term. But nice job being condescending.

          • FaintCryofFreedom

            Just the mere fact that the GOP lost & by quite a quantifiable margin IS a mandate from the people to cease & desist with the ignorance that marks the current incarnation of the GOP. Judging by some responses here, you STILL don’t get it. People are sick of the GOP & their underhanded tactics, not the least of which were their push to deny millions of Americans the right to vote. Kinda bit you all in the arse, didn’t it? When will you cheaters learn.

          • Goosey

            A quantifiable margin in the electoral college, but the election really came down to about 400,000 votes in a few key states. The nation is obviously quite divided, not happy with Obama, but also not happy with what the Republicans put forth and articulated.

          • Katherine Walton

            3.5 million in the popular vote, at last count.

          • CindyQHP

            How did the GOP push to deny millions of Americans the right to vote?

          • This cannot be a serious question.

          • The fact that many of the Tea Party/GOP darlings from the 2010 midterm election were defeated in this most recent election furthers the notion that Obama’s win is a clear mandate.

          • Pi


            Obama’s win not only is comparable to Bush’s 2004 popular vote margin (for which he claimed he had earned “political capital” that he intended to spend), but the two elections place him historically in select company:

            “Obama is the first President since Ronald Reagan in 1984 to win a majority of the popular vote in consecutive elections and only the third Presidential candidate to do so since Franklin Roosevelt. Since 1824, the year when official popular vote totals were tabulated for the first time, only seven Presidents have won a majority in consecutive elections; Obama, Reagan, Eisenhower, FDR, McKinley, Grant, and Jackson.”

          • Since the GOP has only won one popular vote in the last six elections, I’d say that Obama’s win was quite impressive comparatively.

          • Sara in Brooklyn

            Wikipedia says: “Bush won the popular vote with 50.73% to Kerry’s 48.27%.” He thought that was a mandate. What didn’t happen (either time) was a landslide. Which is a different thing.

          • Katherine Walton

            Yeah, except? This is one of the few Presidents in the last 50 years to actually gain a clear majority in the popular vote (twice!) as well as the Electoral. So, hey. Nice job being condescending.

          • Obama lost a few million votes in New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Connecticut because storm victims couldn’t make it to the polls, and in Ohio, Florida, and other places to suppression efforts. Nonetheless, it is clear now that the Republicans have permanently alienated the majority of the population; moreover, the Republican vote that is left is concentrated among the old, who will die out, while the young are breaking 60/40 against them.

          • It was just shy of 3 million votes. There is nothing narrow about that. I happen to believe that it is a mandate from the people and am hopeful that Obama will treat it as such as he moves into his second term.

          • caroqp

            I agree. Especially when you look at the margins in the previous elections…

          • Well put Jack

          • tory

            the most telling part of this commentary is “I’m not going to be replying to anything else on this page” – because as is typical, republicans can rarely argue against any facts presented to them – about the economy, the debt, our healthcare system, science (rape, climate change) – and i find it absolutely hysterical that republicans try to imply that democrats are the party of hate.

          • FaintCryofFreedom

            This seems to be a big issue with rightwingers: That you DISMISS out of hand any dissenting opinion because “they used profanity” in trying to get their myriad points across. What you fail miserably to comprehend is just how long it took this man to degenerate to calling you all well-deserved (and profane) nicknames. YOU HAVE EFFECTIVELY PISSED-OFF millions of Americans. Not just a little bit, but A LOT. If we use profanity to express our collective irritation with what the GOP have done to our country, then so be it. Cuss away. BUT -it does not render our irritations moot. They are a healthy sign that WE are paying attention & your bullshit isn’t passing for truth anymore.

          • Oogie Wa Wa

            I know I was and still am very pissed-off and it had me swearing a lot of times, too.

          • It’s been 4 to 5 years of some of the most horrible behavior ever witnessed in the United States of America and it hasn’t been limited to just the base; rather, much of the worst of it has come from Republicans holding elected office. To say we are fed up is an understatement. I spent the better part of 4 years trying to reason with the most rabid abusers of the First Amendment to no avail. My patience is used up for now. While I won’t get into name-calling exchanges with people like that, I also will no longer invest my time in efforts that are futile and have proven to be entirely pointless for 4 years. When reason and courtesy return to the GOP and it’s base, then I will be open to dialogue again. Until then, I’m concerned only with policies and people that are committed to moving the nation forward.

          • LOL

            I cant remember the last time 3 million people was a “narrow margin”.

          • stop drinking the fox kool aid. Your ignorance is showing.

          • Sam

            I’m a liberal democrat and I would agree that the meanness comes from both sides, and both sides are equally guilty of trying to make it seem as though only the other party is mean…That being said, I don’t find this article to be mean or profane at all. There’s an issue with people getting so sensitive and easily offended by what the other side has to say that they don’t end up listening at all…

          • Katherine Walton

            Interesting how, if the margin by which Obama won re-election had actually applied to Romney, it would have been A LANDSLIDE OMG!!!! Also? Love the first sentence of the last para. Classic flounce! 🙂 Don’t let the door hit you in the ass on your way out, dearie.

          • You render yourself entirely irrelevant to any rational, mature and intellectually honest discussion when you can’t even be honest about the election outcome.

          • Jack

            What is moronic (or angry) about the post to which you responded? I grant you I’ve probably written angry, moronic stuff, but I’ve reread this one a couple times. Don’t see it. Must be the blinders. Or, maybe you’re projecting, as they say. Actually it’s kinda quaint to see liberals adopt the “love it or leave it” mantra. Toot-toot, the train to hypocrisy-land has left the station…

          • FaintCryofFreedom

            We’ve lived thru 8 yrs of GWB killing…..KILLING our country. I remember him, The Decider. Yeah, he & his party cronies decided to wage two wars without much thought to how they’d pay for them. They shipped BILLIONS in cash on Air Force planes that have disappeared. They allowed our banking execs to pilfer billions/trillions more. We don’t really care what you think about our “love it or leave it” mantra because we’ve LIVED thru decades of GOP “love it or leave it” rhetoric, all to the ruination of our country. If you don’t like what happened in this last election, or the mandate spelled out by the trouncing of your idiotic party, then by all means, do something about it. WE DID. Live with it. Or leave. Your choice.

          • thinker

            Can you point to a single thing that the Obama administration has done differently?

          • Katherine Walton


          • Jack

            Last post of the night… Dems have been incredibly successful at painting GWBush as bringing on the banking/housing crisis, conveniently overlooking the Dems role in Congress in the years prior. You won’t really watch this, but you should. You won’t change your mind either, because “GW failed” is liberal dogma propping up the lies & purported reasons for Obama’s massive government expansion. GW was FAR from perfect with the economy or prosecution of necessary wars, but careful where you point that ruination blame gun: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMnSp4qEXNM

          • DrunkenOrangetree

            Reply to one of Eric’s points.

        • Shawn

          Yeah, OBAMA is the one leading us to mediocrity. Dubbyah had nothing at all to do with that.

        • David Cavanaugh

          we will have 4 more years of growth with our newly reelected President. Don’t like it? LEAVE.

        • Katherine Walton

          See, Jack? the thing is, you lose me at “You liberals..” What the hell is your point?

          • Jack

            My point in that post, as I recall, was that I replied to a post that had said the GOP comprises uneducated Southern racists and single-issue voters who only care what their personal taxes are and then accuse GOP of not seeing the big picture. Broadbrush much? I think I was putting the iie to this liberal talking point I hear all the time that these are the only GOP constituency. Sure, there are some who fit that category, just like Dems have some embarrassments in their coalition.

    • Jack

      How come I saw this post last night, it has 284 “up” arrows, and yet it just appeared as “new” posted 6 minutes ago. I call foul — maybe some Democratic voting officials are in charge. 😉

      • Jennifer

        The post itself is showing from the 9th for me; and her comment shows 4 days ago.

    • Bigg

      what is a ‘generally liberal’ female? what constitutes the ‘general’ part? I’m curious, to me its like saying ‘generally pregnant’ or ‘generally drunk’

      • Melissa

        That’s actually not the same at all, but if it makes you feel better, okay. In my opinion, by saying “generally liberal” she means that on most issues she tends to side with a liberal agenda. Maybe on social issues she identifies with the Democratic party but on fiscal issues (which is a joke to call the Republican party “conservative) she identifies with Republicans. That’s being generally liberal.

        • Bigg

          in your opinion, which i didn’t ask for, you projected your interpretation onto Elizabeth and my guess is she is not a ‘moderate’ liberal but a granola eating, tree hugging, birkenstock wearing liberal

          • My guess is you didn’t get terribly good grades in remedial reading in elementary school.

          • Melissa

            What an ignorant, bigoted person you are.

      • You can’t seriously tell me you’ve never even heard of moderates or left-leaning/right-leaning people. Has political discourse actually become THAT poisoned that you can’t even imagine what a left-leaning person would be?

        • Bigg

          i’m simply asking the question. ONe person’s moderate is another’s fascist/socialist.
          just a question about what ‘generally’ she is not a liberal about.

          • No, one person’s moderate is an IDIOT’S fascist/socialist. There’s a big difference. Fascism and socialism are, like “pregnant” or “drunk,” words with well defined specific meanings. “Liberal” and “conservative,” on the other hand, are like “west” or “east” – broad directions which give no sense of degree or distance. Which is why we use adverbs like “generally.” Both Iowa and California are west of the Mississippi despite Des Moines being 1,700 miles east of Sacramento. I know there are people who believe Iowa borders the Pacific. Those people are insane morons.

          • Ross Bagley

            While right-wingers tend to fantasize that the left is nearly fascist, the closest thing to a fascist state today is the “everything is private” corporatist fantasy-land currently proposed by the right.

          • Katherine Walton

            Except no, it’s not. Fascism and Socialism are two entirely different things. But heaven forfend you should actually have to make an educated comment.

    • I believe what McConnell said is that his biggest “political goal” was to stop Obama from succeeding in instituting his platform. In other words, he doesn’t think Obama’s vision is right for America and he’s going to oppose it. Not well said, by any means, but not the unyeilding, scorched earth kind of statement that it gets reported to be.

      • It was absolutely the unyielding, scorched Earth kind of statement that it has been reported to be.

    • bass_voice_of_reason

      Mitch McConnell is only nominally a senator from Kentucky. For years he has actually been a representative of K Street.

    • Right – which was SOOOO unlike the Democrat position regarding Bush during his first term. You people are such unbelievable hypocrites. Don’t tell me, you’re also against Bush’s “warmongering.” But you say nothing regarding Obama’s killing of civilians, or his illegal use of the military in Lybia. You probably also have no idea what the 2012 NDAA is or who signed it into law and what it entails. I am certain that if George Bush had signed it you would be up in arms. But you’re not. You’re nothing but an unthinking liberal whose joined in with the rest of the unthinking liberals, goose-stepping your way through your own hypocracy and your own delusions in support of a man, policies, and a party that does nothing more than strip the freedoms from people. You and your ilk think taking money from people and giving it to others is what freedom is about. You believe that it is the government that has made this country great. No doubt you also think your own farts smell great. You’re wrong on all accounts.

    • Jacquie in Vermiont

      As a Vermont resident who was born in Maine and lived in Europe for 25 years, with ancestors in New England from before the Revolution, I can only applaud your essay! I am so grateful for Vermont’s sensible representatives to Congress and appalled at some of the choices made in other states. Keep calling things as you see them — I am definitely with you!

    • They don’t need an “image change”; they need to be eliminated. The 2014 midterm election can’t get here soon enough ! In fact, impeachment NOW, and prosecution for treason, would be even better !

    • Obama is a SOCIALLIST at best! Of course the Republicans wanted him out of office. Please remember your Dear Leader chucked our Constitution on a number of occassions and even stated he would find ways to go around the Congress. You’re not suppose to go around Congress – they are the branch the closest to the people. You people deserve whatever you get.
      Why the author of the original letter thinks any conservative misses his vote is beyond me. He’s a progressive – you know the people who want to progress from abortion to after-birth abortion. You know how much a pain a two year old can be. Why not just off them.

    • There are those of us in Kentucky who also wonder why it is we keep sending Mitch McConnell back to Washington.

    • Are you kidding? They lost me with the Spring Training line up.

    • Guest

      What does your reply have to do with this article?

  • Jenny

    How refreshing. You’re a good man, Eric.

  • Gigi

    Brilliant! I’m sure you and your wife want to make your own family planning decisions too! I hope like-minded Republicans will come out of the closet and make their voices heard. Thanks.

    • Come out of the closet is an interesting choice of words for some of the above.

  • Well put and well-said. As a teacher It sums up my thoughts from the past few months until now perfectly. This is a perfect piece of writing and the republicans would do well to read it, digest it, and mull over it instead of dismissing it out of hand because it does not agree with their iron-clad, preconceived notions.

    • It’s the tragedy of iron-clad notions – they depend on people not challenging them.

      • MaryLF

        The day of the ironclads is well past.

      • Funny thing about Ironclads, they sink!

  • Loved this! Well written, although I did find a typo. Anyway, big mahalo from The Aloha State. This is now on my FB wall.

    • km2012

      It’s a blog post.

    • I’m a professional writer – WHAT’S THE TYPO?

      • Snapdragon7

        I didn’t see any typos that you didn’t intend to be typos (e.g. “librul”). Also, *applause*.

      • Eric,
        Although I read your essay for content and not for form, you may wish to move the end paren in the first sentence of the “Gay Marriage” section so that it reads:
        “…divorced (as was the fashion in the 80s and 90s!) and…”
        instead of
        “…divorced (as was the fashion!) in the 80s and 90s, and…”

    • I would also like to see said typo

  • km2012

    I love this. Thank you. It’s not enough to say that the Republicans lost because the demographics are changing – there are plenty of white people who don’t align with their nonsense these days as well.

    • I am a big fan of nonsense, but not this particular brand of it.

  • kyle

    Awesome post sir.

  • hyperlocavore

    Might be worth calling them on their willingness to work with people whose one aim is to obliterate the line between Church and State, and the abject racism and sexism they have held onto and used in the service of their party for about forty years now. Cosy-ing up to fundamentalism has made the GOP a joke.

    • drsharna


  • Michele

    Standing ovation sir!!

  • drsharna

    Kudos! I’m also a very Caucasian Mayflower descendant with a neuropsychology PhD and politically an independent moderate (although the GOP has swung so far to the rabid-ass right that moderates appear as flaming liberals in comparison, but that’s another story). I’m also a woman with daughters, granddaughters, sisters, and many female friends, all of whom I love deeply. The ridiculous stance the GOP took on women’s issues was such a deal breaker for me that I could barely drudge through their other platform positions (also largely delusional) and absolutely could not bring myself to check any of their boxes when the time came to vote.

    • We’re big fans of smart women in this house, and women in general. Thanks for sharing.

    • I’m with you. I did, however, drudge through the Republican platform and engaged in dialoge with Republican friends trying to understand where they were coming from. That said, I could never get beyond their stance on women’s rights – or stripping us of our rights – while speaking of smaller government while planning to build more government to punish women for the same rights that others have. I am not a decedent of the Mayflower, I come from a line of immigrants that came to this Country for a better life and have thrown themselves into the tax producing economy of business. I love the fact that we have two parties and that we have choice and hope that people like Eric will lead the Republican party back to the center where conversations, and compromise produce quality answers, policies, and platforms that will have us standing tall again as a Country.

      • A Little Voice From The Middle

        Can you please be more specific about your comments regarding stripping us of our rights? Punishing women? I really do not get all this.

        • On the chance that you’re serious, how about (1) birth control, yeah, that’s part of it. Since it increases how much we have to pay for health insurance. But there’s also (2) women don’t need equal pay, they just need to get home early to cook dinner for their husbands, and (3) rich women are doing the greatest job ever by staying home with their kids while poor women are takers and moochers and need the dignity of work, so day care for them! and (4) a woman is of less importance than a zygote, and (5) single mothers are somehow to blame for gun violence (I have to say “somehow” because Mr Romney wasn’t really clear about the causation, but it was definitely there. Are those enough for you? ‘Cause there is more.

          • Me

            Just to play devils advocate – 1) there are some folks who are against BC for religious reasons. You wouldn’t tell your Jewish friends they have to serve ham, would you? Then why force Catholic institutions to supply BC? 2) women deserve equal pay for equal work and this applies to the current administration as well (I am agreeing with you but pointing out that the current administration is not living up to this either) 3) I got nothin. 4) same 5) it’s not the mothers that are to blame, it is the missing fathers. It’s a fact that there are many more kids in single parent homes in the higher crime areas.

          • Not all employees of Catholic institutions are Catholic, so why should a Lutheran or Baptist or agnostic have to follow the tenets of the Roman Catholic Church by being denied birth control? As you say, you wouldn’t tell your Jewish friends they have to serve ham – and you wouldn’t expect them to say you can’t eat it either.

          • Me

            No one is saying that non catholics can’t have BC. They just won’t pay for it. Ham is NOT served at the synagogue. If you want ham you have to get it somewhere else.

          • Paula

            Ham is not a prescription medication. Birth control is.

            If you are a Catholic CHURCH, no one is saying you have to provide insurance that pays for birth control. (i.e. Ham’s NOT being served at the synagogue, after all.) If you are a Catholic HOSPITAL or UNIVERSITY that employs lots of people who are not Catholic, your insurance does have to cover birth control, just like any other prescription. Church =/= any business ever. Just as your employer does not get to make medical decisions for you, no matter how strongly they feel antibiotics are the work of the devil, neither does a university or any other employer get to make those choices for their employees, affiliated with Catholicism though they may be.

            Let’s also make it clear that the Catholic Church was never being asked to pay for birth control. They were being asked to provide policies for employees that included birth control coverage, which would be paid for by the insurance company. Premiums for employers do not go up because you got a prescription, so this would not be a (directly) out of pocket expense for the Catholic employer.

          • Afliesaway

            If Catholic organizations are able to avoid paying for birth control, there will be a rash of companies claiming to be Christian Scientists and thus not required to pay for surgery, medicine and vaccinations!

          • I think when a religious organization sees fit to start preaching politics, then they lay themselves open for taxation. There is supposed to be separation of church and state, on BOTH ends.

          • so seperate it already, the government is trying to force us to pay for peoples sexapades. I’m curious what they cant afford to buy condoms or BC. It exists and its availible to everyone and its fairly cheap?

            So WTF?

          • free1thinker

            @facebook-100000712519322:disqus – Please take the time to educate yourself on this issue. Birth control pills for women are not just about sex, as you wrote above. Birth control pills regulate hormones and can relieve symptoms of medical conditions such as dysmenorrhea, endometriosis, and migraines. Further they serve as preventative measures against endometrial and ovarian cancer. They can cost anywhere from $30-$50/month which is not cheap for someone making minimum wage, someone having trouble putting food on the table etc. Insurance companies cover prescriptions used for medical purposes and birth control should be no different.

          • Will Dissolver

            Errr, or $5 a month at Walmart. Not sure where you get the $30-50 figure, but you can get birth control pills, in all varieties, at Walmart for $5 a month, or $10 for 90 days. So I’m not actually sure this holds water.

            Also, I have to point out that despite the fact that I agree with most of this article, I also think that a religion-based business has a right to choose what health insurance they will offer, and what it will cover.

            Because no-one is forced to work there.

            That’s the crucial difference, you see? No-one forces anyone to work for a business that doesn’t provide benefits that are acceptable to them. If a religion-based business decides not to offer coverage for birth control, then any woman, or man with a covered female spouse or relative, has an absolute right to tell them to go piss up a rope and go work somewhere else.

            But that’s not the same thing as requiring them, by law, to violate their religious beliefs.

            And to the individuals using the slippery-slope argument about other religions and procedures, the same answer applies. So what if they do? Quit, and go work somewhere else. Why would you want to work for a company that refuses to cover any medical procedures whatsoever anyway?

            Your argument is analogous to telling the cable company that they are required to provide DirecTV service to their customers, rather than simply switching to DirecTV yourself.

          • free1thinker

            All the varieties are not $5 at Walmart and different types are prescribed based on particular ailments. Further, not everyone has access to a Wal-mart. Nice try with the analogy, except cable isn’t a drug prescribed by a doctor for medical purposes.

          • That’s $5 or $10 a month as a COPAY with your own prescription insurance. $30-$50 per month is pretty accurate.

            Perhaps those employers who want to claim a religious exemption should be exempt from any form of gov’t input; including medicare payments to hospitals or student aid to universities.

          • That is ridiculous to suggest that in this job market anyone could just tell their employer to piss up a rope. Some of us feel very, very lucky to have a job, any job, but especially one that has some sort of health coverage

          • Vondeuce

            And that’s the problem. The only reason anyone gets anything is because the employer is legally obliged to pay SOMETHING… It’s a buyers market in terms of workforce at the moment and since the population is still going up, in general terms it’s not going away. Expect the continuing erosion of your personal rights by your corporate masters, unless you do something about it.

          • Katherine Walton

            Okay, go ahead and cave through fear. I won’t join you.

          • I feel very unlucky to be in a country where it is up to your boss whether your health is taken care of. That isn’t how it works in any other developed country, you know.

          • OffThePig

            So, when you say Walmart, you mean the taxpayer, right? Walmart employees are many states’ top recipients of Medicaid. 80% of Walmart employees are on food stamps. Walmart employees receive $2.66 BILLION per year, averaging $420,000 per store. As a non-Walmart shopper, I am FORCED to subsidize it, because my husband and I pay over $35,000 in taxes every year. We are not wealthy, we live in New York City, and are barely getting by. I am FORCED to subsidize a business I do not patronize.
            In other words, you are under-educated, ‘Will Desolver’, and sadly representative of the majority of religio-fascists who would control others, at others’ expense.

          • Much in the same way that conservative red states, whilst beating the drums about the bloated federal government, are, by far, the largest beneficiaries of government largesse via subsidies coming from liberal blue states. It’s helpful to have many military bases in your state and defense contractors in your state so that you can demand that the part of the federal budget that covers both is never cut and your state continues to receive far more from the federal government than it ever pays in taxes.

          • Lark

            That would be because your insurance pays the bulk of the cost. Which is exactly what employees of Catholic institutions want their insurance to do.

          • first it depends on your insurance… my insurance has a “tier” program. there are 3 levels and depending on the level depends on how expensive each script is. if there isn’t a generic of the form of BC your totally fucked… see above ^

          • martina

            “Errr, or $5 a month at Walmart […] you can get birth control pills, in all varieties, at
            Walmart for $5 a month, or $10 for 90 days. So I’m not actually sure
            this holds water.”

            WITH INSURANCE. without insurance it’s $30-50/mo

          • A Little Voice From The Middle

            My friend told me he is able to get a 90- day supply of his medication without using his insurance for 10 dollars. I am assuming this is true to almost all generic meds. Oh this was before Obamacare.

          • free1thinker

            Oh? And your friend takes BC meds does he? Someone already pointed out that BC meds (pills or patch) can cost as much as $100 a month w/out insurance and that all BC meds are not created equal – there are different doses, different formulations, different delivery methods. and different costs. Hearing about what your male friend pays for meds that obviously aren’t BC meds is irrelevant.

          • Katherine Walton

            You know what they say about “assume”, right? It makes an “ass” of you and “me”. Every insurance provider has their own definition of “generic”. And I’m here to tell you that most birth control medication is not “generic”.

          • factchecker101

            Insurance plans (including prescription plans) change and increase every year. No matter “whoscare.” Ins. policy is handle at the state level hince they want more money they raise premiums and decrease coverage. True story, I’m a physician!

          • Absolutely ridiculous and untrue comment.

          • 1. Define religious backed companies. Are you talking about Christian Bookstores or Joe Schmoe’s Small Local Business and I’m a Catholic? There’s a substantial difference.

            2. You’re speaking about (1) common form of generic birth control pills. Birth control itself comes in many forms and the type that works best with you is a very individual process. There are multiple pills that range in hormone levels, as well as other non oral forms. Personally, I am sensitive to oral medication and therefore have to take an alternative form of BC. The form which most effectively minimizes my PMS symptoms, normalizes my cycle, and quite frankly reduces my flow costs $30.00/month after insurance. If you don’t believe me when I say that different forms affect women differently, I invite you to meet me pre-pill and about 60 days during pill. I’ll make you a believer!

            Perhaps, before you pass judgement on womens health, you learn empathy and communicate with many types of women who all have individual needs medically. Or grow a uterus, either way.

          • It won’t matter what kind of business it is if this kind of discrimination based on religious beliefs is allowed to take hold. That power will be available to any employer should they choose to impose their religious beliefs on their employees.

          • Kimc

            I take it you haven’t noticed that there is a depression going on out there. You take what job you can when very little is available. That’s very much like being forced to take a job you don’t like. I realize that there are people who set us up to be in this depression on purpose because they wanted this, but you don’t have to help them. It’s mean.

          • carrie

            It is one thing to say quit….it is another to find a job elsewhere and be able to feed your family. Furthermore, if large numbers of employers did this…where would you work? In the 60’s employers could treat African Americans poorly for religious and personal reasons. It was accepted and wouldn’t have changed unless the government stepped in. Same here.

          • gimme a break

            this sounds like the same style of argument that business owners used to support jim crow laws. Go have dinner somewhere else! no one’s forcing you to eat here!

          • Gina

            Of course – there’s no “separation of church and business” as there is separation of church and state but I’d say its inappropriate for businesses to be forcing religious values on their employees. Church should stay at church.

            Zero sympathy for the Catholic-based hospitals on this one. Speaking as an ex-Catholic. The law SHOULD force them to provide the same level of insurance coverage as any other hospital would. Otherwise they are discriminating against women.

            P.S. – Married women use bc too. And so what if it’s for birth control or other health issues? Birth control is a legitimate concern of married and single women.

          • actually i was put on BC because of 2 reasons First, very sever migraines. Second I have very bad PAINFUL ovarian cysts. BC helps keep both of these in check. and even with my insurance at work it was still 100$ out of pocket due to my need to be on the lowest dose there is out there as many BCs will actually make headaches worse. 100$ for one script! luckly my OBGYN supplies me with samples so i don’t have to worry too much. but it is not cheap in any sense of the word!

          • janie

            BC pills prescribed to regulate hormones ARE covered by Catholic insurance policies. You all talk too much without knowing anything. gets old.

          • free1thinker

            If that was true there would be no need for Sandra Fluke to testify to Congress as the contraceptives she needed to control her ovarian cyst would have been covered by the insurance policy of the Catholic institution she attended.

          • It wasn’t. She testified to that. I’m starting to get the impression most of the people talking about Sandra Fluke actually never watched or read her testimony. Can this be true?

          • Absolutely. Getting the play-by-play from Rush Limbaugh takes one as far away from the truth as one can possibly get.

          • Katherine Walton

            Which she *paid* for.

          • PAS

            That actually depends on the program. I have personally worked with the programs of several Catholic Archdiocese which will cover BC for noncontraceptive use if the plan is clearly informed of this use. I have also worked with several prescription programs, ironically more often run by small employers, unions and religious orgs which flat out refuse to cover them ever. No exceptions.

            It depends on the program, whether it is fully insured (run by the insurance company), or self insured (run by the employer). As things currently stand, self-insured plans basically get to make up whatever rules they want.

          • Beth

            Actually that’s not always the case – I work for a pharmacy and handle claims and sadly I get to explain to people why the medication they’re suppose to take for their menopause symptoms aren’t covered. And regardless, if a medication is covered – it should be covered, the employer shouldn’t have a say in WHY you need medication. That’s between you, the pharmacist and your doctor.

          • Katherine Walton

            Are they? Really? Perhaps you should educate *your*self.

          • Millertime1

            This shows that the “war on women” garbage actually works for people who are ignorant. NO ONE has said that birth control to cover medical conditions aren’t covered, THEY ALREADY ARE!!!!. Please educate yourself. We shouldn’t have to pay for birth control that isn’t tied a medical condition, which is what the Sandra Fluke crowd wants. Perfect example of ignorance.

          • Actually, Sandra Fluke said IN HER TESTIMONY birth control to cover medical conditions isn’t covered. That was actually her testimony. That’s what she said. That. “Perfect example of ignorance,” indeed.

          • Millertime1

            Don’t know what insurance she has, but they are covered and no one is suggesting that meds needed for medical reasons shouldn’t be covered. No one wants to pay for my condoms and I don’t want to pay for someone else’s birth control.

          • Georgetown University student insurance. Sandra Fluke is a student of Catholic Church-run Georgetown University, as is her friend who has polycystic ovarian syndrome and needs birth control pills to treat the symptoms, but who was denied because the university’s insurance plan believed she was requesting the medication for contraception and not to treat her potentially deadly PCOS. My God. It’s almost as if… almost as if you’re telling us what the “Sandra Fluke crowd” wants without ever once having actually read or listened to her actual testimony. How can this be?

          • Millertime1

            She chose to go there, there are plenty of other options for health insurance instead of making Catholics go against their beliefs (whether you believe as they do or not). She can afford to go to Wal Mart and get her own or get other insurance. its called PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY!

          • She’s. A. Student. You. Nitwit.

          • You do understand students at universities are, by definition, not earning wages as students? They’re actually PAYING -in many cases, quite a lot – to be where they are. Again, the university’s insurance SAYS it will pay for birth control if it’s for medical reasons – AS! SHE! TESTIFIED! – but it turns out saying you’ll do it and actually doing it are two different things. Choosing your law school based on whether you might or might not develop a health problem is genuinely one of the most insane things I’ve ever heard someone say – and I’ve talked to meth heads in Los Angeles. By the way, I’m a Catholic. It’s called (please read this in the “retard voice” we used when we were kids and had to repeat the same thing over and over to someone who couldn’t grasp the obvious):


          • Katherine Walton


          • Katherine, you sound like someone who has… read and understood her testimony. Can I please shake your hand?

          • It’s just time to end the tax-exempt status of churches that have gone far beyond the scope of the protections afforded them. Want to delve into private sector business and politics? Pay your taxes like everyone else. This will be an issue going forward that receives a lot of support.

          • Millertime1

            If for a true medical necessity, it should be covered as I stated before. I don’t know any conservatives that feel otherwise and to characterize it as a war on women is just completely dishonest. I am not here to argue what the university’s plan believed or didn’t believe as that is a key piece to your argument. However, the government telling institutions, particularly religious institutions what to do is just wrong, nuff said. The “Sandra Fluke crowd” completely misrepresents the issue and spins it into conservatives hate women,which is a complete lie that most ignorant liberals believe.

          • Would you for the love of God please read Sandra Fluke’s actual testimony and quit blathering about what you think most conservatives would say? And “Sandra Fluke crowd” was in quotes because it’s what YOU! SAID! You said what the “Sandra Fluke crowd” said. Your exact quote was:

            “We shouldn’t have to pay for birth control that isn’t tied a medical condition, which is what the Sandra Fluke crowd wants.”


          • Millertime1

            Her testimony and desires about covering medically necessary birth control and the liberal talking points painting conservatives as women haters are two different things, which is my point (perhaps made poorly). Regardless of her testimony, the libs goal (Sandra Fluke crowd included) DO want all insurance to cover all birth control regardless of medical necessity and they want to control religious organizations, and I am sure that is where we are heading full steam ahead. My points have been made. Covered if medical necessity, however government shouldn’t tell religious institutions what to cover, not sure how else to explain it to you. I think we agree on the first part, but not on the second. It would help if you weren’t such a prick! So Fa Q!

          • It would also help if at any point ever you had read or listened to her actual testimony and not made shit up (or parroted the shit someone else like Bill O’Reilly made up). Neither Fluke nor “the libs” want to cover “all birth control.” They don’t want to cover IUDs. They don’t want to cover condoms. They don’t want to cover diaphragms. Nor do they want to “control religious organizations.” Nobody is telling the Catholic Church it has to start being like, “Yay, abortion and The Gays and death penalty! Rah rah!” And Fluke’s testimony (which those of us who read it know) is if you cover birth control for one thing, you’re pretty much a priori covering it for everything, so just go ahead and cover it for everything. Also, religious institutions AREN’T told what to cover. Institutions OWNED BY religious institutions are told what to cover. In any event, I’m only a prick about the third or fourth time somebody has made very clear what an idiot he or she is. You insist on being an idiot. So there you go.

          • Millertime1

            lol, you really are a sucker. You don’t know who I am or who I listen to. You actually believe that this current liberal movement won’t turn into paying for birth control for everyone? They got you right where they want you. You will buy that slow government creep every time, hook, line and sinker, perfect for them. If they are “going to cover it for everything” as you say, why wouldn’t they cover other types of BC? They won’t end up covering abortions eventually either, right? They won’t cover condoms because they already give them away! Please tell me more, oh brilliant one…

          • Madonn’, would you please read Sandra Fluke’s testimony just please read it seriously read it you don’t know what you’re talking about just read it read it it’s online read it for the love of everything ever held holy by anyone just read it please no kidding just read it just one time just read it its not even that long our conversation is much longer no kidding read it.

            Incidentally, what Sandra Fluke DOESN’T say is what I would. What I would say is math. If the Jesuits who run Georgetown University paid for her health insurance (which, by the way, they don’t no kidding stop babbling and read her testimony I’m not kidding please read it), that would be one thing. They don’t. She testified to that. Her fellow students pay for her health insurance, and NINETY-FOUR PERCENT want to pay for a woman’s birth control. Why? Same reason I – a Catholic and a health insurance customer – would rather pay for birth control than not.

            Tell you what. Why don’t you whip out your calculator and run some numbers on the cost of birth control vs. the cost of a pregnant woman PLUS the cost of insuring a child through the age of 26 and get back to me?

          • Millertime1

            Dude, I have read the script and seen the video coverage multiple times, chill please. Nothing in it changes how I feel about it. So what you are saying is if we all don’t pay for their birth control through increased premiums or taxes(when not medically necessary), all the women will just act irresponsibly (along with the men that participate) get pregnant with no consequences for their actions and then we have to pay for their babies? Well ain’t life grand? Maybe I have more faith in people that they will make better decisions and be responsible for their actions and requiring them to be is a good start. If you don’t expect people to be responsible for their actions, they won’t be, that is the whole problem now. Lets just feed everyone too, because it is expensive to buy food, especially in college. You know what, they shouldn’t pay rent either, can’t afford it. Oh and the tuition? don’t worry about it. It’s coming!! The issue I have is the government creep telling any private entity what they should cover, it is their choice! They will face the consequences for the quality of student or employee they are able to attract. As a business owner, I know that I want to attract and retain the best talent and have to be competitive with my benefits package, but it is our choice (at least until 2014). Slippery slope. Don’t even get me started on the real issue, the cost of healthcare and how the ACA does nothing but make it worse. Agree to disagree.

          • Ah, I see. You’ve read the script and seen the video coverage “multiple times.” And yet, you didn’t know what health insurance she had? It’s the basis of her testimony.

            “Dude, I’ve read the 9/11 Commission Report multiple times. Not sure which buildings these supposed terrorists attacked was, but I do know this…”

            But she wants to “act irresponsibly,” and have babies that you’ll have to pay for. Are you really so incredibly stupid as to not grasp the very, very basic fact that by having birth control, they DON’T have babies? Like, that’s the idea of birth control. That’s why it’s called… BIRTH control. Not SEX control. And while we’re on the subject, she gave two real-life examples IN HER TESTIMONY. One is a married woman. So tell me, how is a wife having sex with her husband “irresponsible behavior?” The other example is a lesbian, who’s not likely to have kids and may, by the way, have some other reason for needing birth control. Like a medical one. Which is what it was.

            And again, you are not paying for it. The Catholic Church and Order of Jesuits are not paying for it. Her fellow Georgetown students are, and 94% of them agree birth control should be covered without restriction. Which you of course know, because you’ve read the transcript multiple times. Except you haven’t, or if you have, you’d fail a basic pop quiz on it.

            Either you’re a complete moron, or you’re a liar. So which would you prefer to admit to being publicly? I’m not going to agree to disagree. I’m going to agree to your choice of being a moron or a liar, whichever one you’d rather I treat you as.

          • Millertime1

            I had seen the video months ago when it came out. Read the script again and understand she has coverage. It really isn’t hard to understand my point, stay with me here and I will state it ONE MORE TIME FOR YOU. MY POINT IS THAT Government shouldn’t be telling my business or Georgetown what they have to cover. Period. It is my belief, you may disagree. When insurance company’s cover more prescriptions, all the policy holders pay for it. Insurance renewals are based upon utilization, which will also go up with people use it for coverage on issues that are not medical necessary. Cost is spread out to everyone that is participating in the plan. While I don’t know, I would think that Georgetown’s students are not paying 100% of the actual plan cost, probably is split somehow or subsidized in some way or it is a very cheap plan, hence the low coverage. If birth control is added without medical necessity, others will pay for it who do not use it. Not sure why you libs, like you, can’t understand that I have stated numerous times that it should be covered if for medical reasons, not birth control reasons. You apparently don’t read well either. Birth control, or any other elective procedure or prescription, shouldn’t be FORCED by government to be covered by a Catholic institution or private business, period. It is Georgetown’s decision, not the government. If 94% think it should be covered, sounds like they have a decision to make or they will risk losing staff and students. They SHOULD cover for medical reasons, we agree on that. BTW, I am a business owner and the plan that I offer covers BIRTH CONTROL for ANY REASON! But is my decision, not some government entity telling me what to do. I am a business owner and a father of 3, and blessed to have accomplished much in life, that usually is the definition of a liar or moron to judgmental ignorant liberals.

          • “I had seen the video months ago when it came out. Read the script again and understand she has coverage.”

            You saw the video and read the script and didn’t know what her coverage was. Or anything that was in it. OK, chief.

            “While I don’t know, I would think that Georgetown’s students are not paying 100% of the actual plan cost, probably is split somehow or subsidized in some way”

            So when you read the script and watched the video, you missed the part where she said it’s NOT subsidized. You also missed the part where she repeated that point.

            “If birth control is added without medical necessity, others will pay for it who do not use it.”

            And 94% of those “others” are OK with that. And again I’ll repeat what I’ve told you multiple times: Medical necessity is covered in theory but not in practice. Specifically, the bulk of her testimony is 20% of the women who need it out of medical necessity are denied because Georgetown doesn’t trust them to need it. The other 80% pay out of pocket for months – sometimes more than a year – even if they’re married or lesbians, while Georgetown interrogates them with personal and invasive questions. In addition, victims of rape who need emergency contraception are also interrogated in the hospital. I think we’ve pretty much covered all her testimony now. Good talk. But really, none of that matters because…

            “Birth control, or any other elective procedure or prescription, shouldn’t be FORCED by government to be covered by a Catholic institution or private business, period. It is Georgetown’s decision, not the government.”

            … that’s really what all this is about. You don’t care about medical necessity or student subsidies or rape or emergency contraception really. You don’t even care about Sandra Fluke. She’s just the name the blogs you read or pundits you watch have given to “big gubmint tellin’ me what ta do.” If you had read Fluke’s testimony – and again, I don’t for one second believe you did, given that you don’t know anything about what was in it; “I’ve read the Warren Report SEVERAL times! Anyway, I don’t know what exactly the nature of their argument was, but has it occurred to you Lee Oswald shot John Kennedy in self-defense?” – you wouldn’t have cared. You don’t want the government telling ANYBODY what to do, not even if what they’re telling them to do has drastic real-world consequences for thousands, even millions of other people. Not even if those real-world consequences are utterly insane and inexcusable. If Georgetown doesn’t want to offer birth control, eventually, students applying to the most prestigious law schools in the country will become the precogs from “Minority Report” and will know if they’re going to get raped or ill. Then they’ll go through the insurance plans with a fine-toothed comb, which isn’t a problem, because health insurance plans tell you everything you need to know in plain English. Then they’ll apply to all the other prestigious law schools – which fortunately have unlimited space – and Georgetown will be forced to change or die. Right? My God. It’s so SIMPLE!

            “that usually is the definition of a liar or moron to judgmental ignorant liberals.”

            Putting aside the irony of you calling me “judgmental” and “ignorant,” no. My definition of a liar is someone who tells a lie, like, “I’ve read it several times,” when you clearly haven’t. My definition of a moron is someone who reads something several times but can’t answer the most basic questions about it, like, “Who is that woman? Why is she talking? What is she talking about?”

          • Millertime1

            “Birth control, or any other elective procedure or prescription, shouldn’t be FORCED by government to be covered by a Catholic institution or private business, period. It is Georgetown’s decision, not the government.”
            … that’s really what all this is about

            Ding, ding, ding ,ding ding!!!!! Wow, you actually f’ing get what I am saying now! Man, you people are hard headed. You see, Sandra’s specific testimony is irrelevant to MY point about Government intrusion into the market place where it needs to stay out. Georgetown’s health plan should be their decision. I don’t need to pass your little pop quiz when you don’t even understand my point. And no, I am not saying their isn’t a role for the government. Sandra’s crowd, you and all the other liberals want government to take on anything that you see that “isn’t fair”. To say I don’t care about rape or emergency contraception just shows how pointless this all is, you’re a moron. The rest that paragraph you typed, was a complete waste of your time to type it and mine to read it, I will never get that time back, just complete nonsense. Carry on…

          • Actually, I’ve always gotten what you’re saying, Millertime. I’ve also always gotten that what you’re saying is f’ing insane. That’s where YOU maybe aren’t getting it.

          • Katherine Walton

            *sigh* Saying this again: She pays for her health insurance, *not* the Catholic church, despite the fact it’s a Catholic institution. Part of her tuition is her health insurance, moron.

          • Katherine Walton

            And why shouldn’t she want the health insurance *she pays for* to cover what she wants it to cover???

          • The conservative movement’s poster child, Rush Limbaugh, called Ms. Fluke a “slut” on a nationally broadcast radio program. There is no confusion about the hate component of the conservative agenda.

          • Millertime1

            Of course people who have never actually listened to him don’t know his tongue in cheek style. Rush, while pompous sometimes, is not hateful, but you wouldn’t know because you don’t listen to him.

          • Katherine Walton


          • And how would the employer be privy to the private medical records of an employee? Are you suggesting that the employer should have full access to every employee’s private medical records so that they can verify what is or is not within the scope of their own personal and/or religious beliefs? How else would an employer make this determination without having access to private medical records? My, my…this certainly opens a can of worms.

          • Millertime1

            Of course not nitwit. Employers now don’t and will never have access to these records. The insurance company has that information and makes that determination. Do you understand how insurance works?

          • GoSmitty

            I would gladly pay for your condoms, if only to thin the pool of ignorance-laden genetics.

          • Millertime1

            Too late jack arse. Oh yea, I pay for my wife’s birth control too.

          • Katherine Walton

            Condoms AREN’T PRESCRIPTION MEDS, moron. And, just sayin’, I am a proponent of BC pills being NON-PRESCRIPTION. But, hell, that would be against the patriarchal mindset of this god damn country, wouldn’t it? That said? I’d *gladly* pay for your condoms. Or your vasectomy. Anything to keep you from breeding.

          • Millertime1

            Boy, I bet you are a nice person. Please tell me more.

          • Funny. Condoms used to be included in pro-kits and as part of rations and survival kits in all branches of the military. Even today, condoms are given on demand to troops deployed abroad for any length of time. Guess what? You’re paying for them. I don’t ever recall any uproar about this well-known fact. Go figure.

          • Millertime1

            Yes, I am well aware of all the free condoms everywhere, including in some schools.

          • By the way, there’s a big difference between SAYING you cover something and actually covering it.

          • Millertime1
          • Does that site you linked have the definition of “irony” in it?

          • Oh wow. The intellectual heavyweights have arrived and provided us with a link to a blog!

          • free1thinker

            Actually Sandra Fluke wanted BC meds as they would help control her ovarian cyst – a medical condition – but the Catholic institution she attended had insurance that wouldn’t cover the meds for any reason due to religious opposition. (Shows how much you were paying attention). Fluke couldn’t afford the medication as a student. She ended up going without and having to have surgery to remove her entire ovary. Surely coverage of the meds would have been less expensive than surgery costs, not to mention the loss of an important part of her female anatomy at a young age, but ultimately it’s no one’s business *why* meds are prescribed by a doctor. Either the meds are covered or they aren’t. Since there are medical reasons for them to be used; they should be covered. End of story.

          • Katherine Walton

            Bullshit. Sandra Fluke *pays* for her health insurance. So do I. Thus, we should have a say in what is covered. So, just sayin’, *you* are a perfect example of ignorance.

          • Millertime1

            I just love when a militant lib chimes in with a dumb comment. Can you give me any more than the exact same irrelevant response to all my comments? Just because you pay for your health insurance doesn’t mean you get to pick what is covered. Gosh, wouldn’t that be nice? I think I might want it to cover plastic surgery for you. When coverage is given for things like birth control that isn’t medically necessary, all people who pay premiums, pay for it. It isn’t a hard concept to understand, except maybe for you. Whether she pays for coverage or not isn’t even what the debate is about. The question whether the government should be intruding and mandating what a Catholic institution or any private business should cover. They shouldn’t, but now they are, welcome to the new America! I think you will be happy.

          • IF it were up to the insurance companies, they would charge more for a policy that excludes birth control than one that does, since unplanned pregnancies are so expensive to cover. Obama’s regulations require that the price be the same, whether birth control is in or out, and that the employee can freely switch between one and the other. That way the Catholics aren’t “paying” for anything, but they do not have the right to forbid their employees from making a bargain with the insurance company which both parties are happy to make.

          • You are paying for all kinds of things you never need or will use when you have health insurance or any other kind of insurance for that matter. This attempt by some to suggest that having insurance cover what is a routine medication would somehow cost them more is not based in fact and rather childish.

          • Millertime1

            You are ignorant if you don’t think your premium cost is based on what’s covered and how much it is utilized. Not sure how to help you understand that, it is very basic principle of insurance.

          • StateofReason

            Sexcapades? Is that what you call it when my wife and I decide that we’re not ready to have a child yet so we use birth control? Why shouldn’t our insurance company pay for that Dr prescribed medication regardless of the religious affiliation of my employer?

          • Phaedre

            Many people *require* birth control for countless health reasons, and without it would be in debilitating pain &/or serious health problems. Do you think it’s wrong that the insurance you pay for paying for adulterer’s Viagra? You are not being asked to pay for anyone’s medication – people just want the right to get medication with the health insurance they pay for out of their hard-earned paychecks.

          • Whedon Activist

            they provide salary to their employees who would then go buy condoms so by that definition would be paying for their “sexcapades”

          • Eric Root

            WTF is that your religious excuses for trying to hash up other peoples’ insurance coverage is your trying to control parts of their lives that are none of your business. A boss is only a boss of how good the employee does the job.

          • Forcing us to pay for peoples sexapades? Who is “us” and who are these “people” and what do you mean by sexapades? Is this going to follow along the type of “logic” used by Rush Limbaugh, because if so, don’t bother responding. Birth control pills are taken once a day, not one for each time a woman has sex. That this needs explanation is troubling to me, especially if you are an adult.

          • Why should non-smokers be forced to pay for cancer treatment for smokers? Or healthy eaters forced to pay for insulin treatment for diabetics? Or women forced to pay for Viagra for men? We are talking about insurance…insurance that is pooled, meaning that we all pay for things we will never use. This is a fairly easy concept to understand and there is no excuse for anyone over the age of 15 to not fully understand how insurance works. There is no legitimate excuse for health insurance policies to not cover contraception, especially birth control pills and IUDs, both of which have purposes beyond just providing contraception…both of which are used for treat serious medical conditions not related to pregnancy.

          • Jack

            They didn’t start preaching politics. As usual, the politics barged in on them!

          • Wrong. Take a look at how involved organized religion has been in politics and legislation in the country in the last 10 or 20 years, especially the last 10 years.

          • No, if a church starts telling people how to vote, game over.

          • This, exactly. If Catholic hospitals get to decide what medication I get to take, there is *nothing* to stop a Jehovah’s Witness employer from not allowing blood transfusions to be covered for their employees, as it is against their religion.

          • thinker

            And what is the problem here? Let the Jehovah’s witness employer provide insurance that does not cover blood transfusions. See how many people will choose to work at that employer. You don’t believe in free choice and free association, which is a problem. If you want to advocate for something useful then advocate for the government to get out of tax code manipulations that tie health insurance to employment, say nothing about the numerous interventions that drive up the cost of healthcare in the US to spectacular levels.

          • Because in a recession, current employees want to choose between lifesaving medical procedures and employment, and future employees want to choose between a job and living. With that mindset, it’s a wonder the right lost a few weeks ago…

          • thinker

            Firstly birth control is nearly never a “life-saving” medical procedure. Do not attempt to paint it as such since that is dishonest. Secondly, why in the world do you think that you have the right to use force against an employer to satisfy your every demand? Have you paid attention to the number of places closing up shop and dropping employees since last week? What happens if we rephrase your purposefully obtuse statement to “employees can choose between being employed and having most things covered by their health insurance, or can choose to have the greatest health insurance coverage ever devise offered, but to no longer be employed”. Its not so funny then is it? Thirdly I hope that you realize that we are in a recession due to our fraudulent fiscal/monetary system, and its inevitable collision with reality. The Democrats and Republicans are equally guilty in ruining it, and the current Democratic administration is doing everything the previous Republican administration did.

            To put things succinctly the math is catching up for us, and crying to have birth control covered by “insurance”, despite the fact that it is most obviously not an item that would ever be “insurable” in the common sense, will only hasten that catching up of the math.

          • The employer does not pay for my bc. I earned it through my labor. Health insurance is part of my compensation for the work that I do. I am paying for it through my work. Look at any statement of the vlaue of your work benefits and you will see the cost of health insurance included.

          • thinker

            Nobody is arguing that health insurance is part of your compensation package. BUT if you choose to work for an employer that does not want birth control to fall under the insurance coverage offered for ANY reason, you have every right to demand that they offer it or you will leave, you have NO right to demand that the government come in and use its monopoly on force to hold a gun to your employer’s head and force them to offer birth control via healthcare. THAT is the only point I have tried to make. If your employer offers crappy compensation then you should leave. That is what a well-adjusted human being does. Only a psychopath goes to the guy with all of the guns and has him hold a gun to your employer’s head to adjust your compensation.

            As a male I would be happy to opt in to an insurance class that did not cover birth control, or pre/post natal care, because none of those issues affect me. There is literally no difference than me only purchasing car insurance, but not boat insurance, because I do not own a boat.

            You really need to sit and think about the differences between “healthcare” generally and “health insurance”. You also need to sit and think about whether or not it is appropriate to arbitrarily decide that you do not like an agreement you entered into, and instead of exiting the agreement you attempt to coerce further terms from the opposing party. That is what most people here seem to be advocating for. And it is not just.

          • whirlwind

            None of those issues affect you? They affected your mother. And if you’ve ever had sex with a woman that you didn’t intend to result in a pregnancy, then birth control affected you. Of course those issues affect you – you just want to shift the burden to someone else.

            In reality, no-copay birth control is an excellent form of efficiency for both insurers and the government, as it’s the most effective way to prevent unplanned pregnancy. It’s a spend-a-penny, save-a-dollar measure that is proven to lead to fewer abortions and fewer children ending up on welfare rolls, not to mention the savings to employers due to not having to pay for maternity coverage for people who didn’t want to have a baby in the first place. Baulking over its ‘appropriateness’ is just plain silly.

          • thinker

            No whirlwind they do not affect me. If I am caring for my mother then they may affect me, and I would choose an appropriate insurance pool to join. Do you know anyone that owns a boat? Or know anyone that knows anyone that owns a boat? Then we should all pay for boat insurance alongside our car insurance. I think that the government should go to every single car insurance provider and tell them that all premiums must be raised to cover the cost of a boat, whether the individual paying the premium owns one or not. Do you see how ridiculous that is? That is EXACTLY what you are advocating for. If someone peripheral in my life owns a boat, they can pay for it. I can pay for prostate exams. Why should a single woman pay into an insurance pool that covers those?

            In reality it is YOUR OPINION that no copay birth control is efficient. If lots of people agree with you then lots of insurance plans will adopt that as a central tenet of the policy. If not, then you and your opinion are in the minority and few plans will offer that. NOBODY is preventing you from going out and buying your own birth control. NOBODY is infringing upon your lifestyle and your own choices with your own body. Only YOU are attempting to infringe upon others by using force to limit their options for health insurance choices.

            Your pseudo-scientific attempt to justify your central planning nonsense is the same garbage that was espoused by most evil people throughout history. I can play your same ridiculous public policy game, and watch how now you don’t find it as funny. “In order to attain your goal of fewer children ending up on welfare, all individuals receiving any sort of assistance from the state or federal government; rent, energy, food, etc. must be sterilized as a matter of course before receiving said assistance. BOOM! I just fixed your “too many children on the welfare rolls” problem, I just took a central planning approach that I doubt you agree with. The difference between my solution and yours is that mine is *significantly* more efficient.

          • There is absolutely nothing wrong with wanting to change the terms of the “agreement” you enter into with your employer over your health insurance coverage. Companies routinely change the agreement themselves, without asking employees if they approve of the changes. Can’t tell you how many times over the years we’ve received notices saying they will no longer cover certain procedures, or “surprise – we won’t offer a PPO plan next year, so you have to take the HMO or opt out.” Employers already have way too much say over our insurance options and costs, but they simply cross the line when they decide to dictate our family planning decisions. And in this economic climate, most people just don’t have the option of saying “up yours” to your employer and finding comparable employment.

          • thinker

            I agree with you. I encourage everyone to routinely attempt to argue their case for increased compensation. Where I draw the line is when you are unable to argue your case, so instead of taking the more difficult but appropriate step of finding a new employer that will value your skills at a higher level, you instead go to the government and hold a big metaphorical gun to your current employers head and coerce them to cover your additional compensation. When the government is involved you no longer have two consenting parties coming to a mutually advantageous agreement. You have one party with a gun and the other party with no choice. That is not going to ever be economically efficient, and is certainly morally reprehensible. Although you will personally and selfishly be better off, at least for a time.

          • I agree with you. Unfortunately there is no longer a valuation on a long-term employee, especially as one approaches a certain age (59). The knowledge contained in that person is SO under-valued. We are at the top of our earning level for how the company values the position we hold. The rules change frequently for evaluation purposes. Most targeting the longest-term employees.
            Good luck to those corporations replacing the wealth of knowledge contained in your longest serving staff.

          • thinker

            Given enough time most of those corporations with short sighted goals will suffer. It is not good for the company, for long term shareholders, or for the employees. But some lessons are only learned the hard way.

          • Counter Thinker

            You provide a very good argument, but it excludes one key point. Let me use your analogy against you. Yes, you are correct in saying that as an owner exclusively of cars and not of boats, you would would be fine with working for an employer that provides only car insurance. However, in a country where ~51% of the population is born a car AND boat owner, i.e. they have no choice in owning said boat, this situation is intrinsically not “free” or equal.

            In an ideal world, yes, if women do not like the health policies offered by their current employers, they can quit and go find an employer who will offer their desired coverage. Unfortunately, in our money-driven business model (I am not arguing that this is wrong by any means), companies always offer the least coverage necessary in order to gain a financial edge on their competitors. Women are stuck with the choice of either keeping their jobs with inadequate coverage or competing for the very few jobs, if any at all, that exist with their desired coverage.

            In the most extreme case of your argument–where government intervention is eliminated and companies are no longer required to provide health coverage at all–companies overall would trend towards not providing coverage if they don’t have to. That leaves all employees on average with poorer health coverage. You can still argue that it is in every companies’ right to do this, but the overall prosperity of the US would suffer.

            This idea extends to all aspects of Democratic policy. Whether you believe it or not, this country is intrinsically unequal in terms of opportunities for women and urban minorities. This necessitates government intervention to provide the equality promised in our constitution.

          • thinker

            So do you find it somehow morally reprehensible that males are charged a higher car insurance rate than females? Is that evidence of some grand conspiracy to keep males from driving cars? Or is it due to them being an actuarialy more risky demographic? I have no choice in my gender and am paying a higher car insurance premium for it. Why would women accept this as “fair” yet throw their arms up in fits of frustration when males do not want to pay extra for birth control and pre/post natal care? Can’t have it both ways.

            Government intervention is the problem both within the health insurance market as well as the healthcare market. If we got rid of the absurd tax incentives that tie health insurance to employment this entire line of argumentation would be moot. They would have to simultaneously actually prevent the state grants of monopoly to certain providers – a perfectly legitimate exercise of the interstate commerce clause. Everyone would approach a private provider to purchase health insurance, just as they currently do for every-single-other type of insurance that exists. This would simultaneously drive prices down as competition amongst providers forced them to slash rates, and would allow each individual or family unit to choose what type of coverage was better for them. I am absolutely at a loss how you think that this would be a bad thing and a net negative for the economy.

            To address your last paragraph I have never ever witness a woman or a minority be overtly discriminated against ever in my life. I have seen white males be routinely discriminated against by a system that permits legalized discrimination in the form of affirmative action and its derivative programs. But, if the discrimination against women and minorities truly does exist as you say, the best way to end it is to remove as many artificial restrictions and grants of monopoly as can be. When everyone has to compete on the same playing field, with no artificial state-sponsored advantages, only the best will survive. Any racist/sexist employer who was so stupid as to not hire more competitive employees due to gender or skin color would rapidly go out of business. See professional sports for how this works out.

          • How can you complain about unilateral corporate discrimination on car insurance rates in one paragraph, then turn around and say “government intervention” is the problem in the next?

            Men’s groups sued the auto insurance industry on discrimination grounds and the hyper-partisan, corrupt judges said they would not interfere in “the free market” (e.g. – they refuse to enforce the LAW when there isn’t enough political power in the minority group’s superpacs to harm their party)

            Before government intervention, mercury and liquor were sold as over the counter children’s medication, and “bad batches” of food infested with pathogens were commonplace.”

            ” But, if the discrimination against women and minorities truly does
            exist as you say, the best way to end it is to remove as many artificial
            restrictions and grants of monopoly as can be.”

            Please read up on US history, particularly 1850 to 1920, where “the free market” went unchecked and “only the ‘best’ survived”. We ended up with vertical and horizontal monopolies in nearly every sector, and the average person’s standard of living resembled the most undeveloped portions of Somalia. Anyone who got “uppity” and dared to seek better wages was blackballed or shot, and anyone who dared to call in sick was fired. The elderly were allowed to die.

          • thinker

            Sadly it is you that need to read up on your history. All of the “robber barons” existed due to government granted monopolies. AND, probably more importantly, wages and standard of living skyrocketed during this era. Drop the union talking points and spend some time researching issues on your own. You may learn something new.

            And my point is that it is NOT discrimination. Insurance premiums are calculated on an actuarial basis due to the inherent risk of the insured requiring a payout. If males are more likely to crash cars then so-be-it, they will pay higher premiums. How is that anything remotely resembling discrimination?

            Your mercury example is a strawman, nobody knew mercury was hazardous then. That would be like faulting the Romans for using lead pipes, or me faulting you now for using plastic cups to drink from. People don’t realize it now, but plastic will become the lead/mercury of the 20/21st century. You don’t need a government to protect you, you need knowledge. And I would like to see a single reference that “bad batches” of food were “common place”. Cite one reference. People would not have survived if their food was as awful as you are insinuating.

          • stop

            You do not understand the nature of competition. Really, in order to gain an edge on his competitors an employer will provide his employees less desirable benefits? How does that work? In a system of voluntary exchange where individuals are free to choose where they will sell their labor, businesses/employers have every incentive to offer their employees the benefits they desire. The best benefits, actually. You seem to think it has the opposite effect… like if someone applying for a job found out he was up against another highly qualified applicant, it would make him try to sell himself less effectively and not more effectively. It makes no sense.

            Remember that business, in a free market economy, has zero coercive power over the individual; it is only when government proposes to regulate and subsidize business that they do gain such a destructive influence. After all, they are only acting in their self interest given the circumstances… and it is unfortunate that our system incentivizes such behavior.

          • “You do not understand the nature of competition. Really, in order to
            gain an edge on his competitors an employer will provide his employees
            less desirable benefits?”

            Do you understand the nature of competition?

            In any given market, those who control the most scarce resource in an exchange are the ones with the leverage. There are very few economic conditions in which labor is more scarce than employment. Ergo, it is not employers competing for employees, it’s employees competing for jobs.

            We’ve seen the result when government does not step up to protect general labor standards in the forms of minimum wage, anti-discrimination laws, protection of the right to organize, etc: It was the gilded age, where humans were treated as serfs, were fired if they dared even get sick for one day, and parents were often forced to send their kids to work due to horrible wages.

            Scrooge was not some hyperbolic character, he was actually merciful compared to his real-life contemporaries of that time period.

          • thinker

            Once again this is just not true. American wages and standard of living skyrocketed during the Gilded age. AND, more importantly, the robber barons only existed due to government grants of monopoly.

            You ought to spend some time reading and learning even basic economics. Minimum wage has caused a loss of jobs to the least skilled. Anti-discrimination laws have clearly accomplished nothing since a large number of people on this thread are complaining about rampant sex discrimination (despite providing no proof of it existing). Nobody argues against the right to organize, but currently unions are granted an entitled negotiating position that is backed up by government force – this is the position that many hold to be reprehensible.

            Finally if you think that good labor is not a scarce resource then you have very obviously never run a business. Perhaps you should try this before commenting.

          • “You ought to spend some time reading and learning even basic economics.”

            You’re telling this to someone who holds a degree in the discipline from one of the highest ranking institutions in the world. Perhaps you should listen to what i’m saying? If you cite the von mises institute or any of its affiliates you immediately discredit yourself.

            “Once again this is just not true. American wages and standard of living skyrocketed during the Gilded age.”

            Citation please.

            People lived in hovels, disease was rampant, basic food procurement was a crap shoot, and most medications were more hazardous than the diseases they claimed to cure. Children worked on assembly lines. The work houses of dickens were typical of the age.

            “Nobody argues against the right to organize, but currently unions are
            granted an entitled negotiating position that is backed up by government
            force – this is the position that many hold to be reprehensible.”

            As opposed to incorporation, which gives capital equivalent right to organize, and also backs it up with government force. To not back both is hypocrisy.

            “Finally if you think that good labor is not a scarce resource then you have very obviously never run a business.”

            Again, from a family full of business owners, myself working in a highly skilled industry. The general consensus is “replace them like tires”, and most companies make that work rather than actually pay what people are worth.

          • Katherine Walton

            Oh bullshit :). I’m laughing to hard to reply.

          • Counter Thinker

            Your scenario only makes sense if the supply for jobs is greater than or approximately equal to the demand for jobs. In our current economy, the demand for jobs greatly outnumbers jobs available and therefore employers have no incentive to offer the best benefits. The competition is not supply-side, it’s demand-side. Or if you want to think of it this way, there is always someone willing to do your job for less as a result of the scarcity of jobs available. Think for a second about why outsourcing happens–it’s not because employers are offering the best benefits to people overseas, that’s for sure–and there is your ideal “free market” in action. Your ideas may apply to jobs requiring skilled labor, but in a country where the majority of jobs are unskilled, the lack of government regulation would absolutely allow a trend towards exploitation and overall impoverishment.

          • thinker

            Then fix the government interventions that are creating this problem. Stop paying people to not work and end the minimum hourly wage. Employment will reach its maximal level very quickly. You can’t intervene to break a system, and then complain about the effects of that intervention.

          • A Recovering Republican

            Insurance companies premiums are based on shared risk. I find it almost comical to continue reading about this birth control debate. Complaining about a twig on fire at your feet when the whole forest is burning around you. All you can focus on is the twig?

            Shared risk? How about the fact that premiums are high because we support the lifestyles of lazy Americans (most of whom populate Southern States) We support the dialysis treatments for the 550 pound right wing nut prepper buying ammunition for their assault rifles at Wal-Mart. Who incidentally is enjoying a ride on the scooter paid for by my tax dollars.

            FYI, dialysis is a 3 trillion dollar a year industry largely used by Southern Red States to support their obese and hypertensive population. How about those smokers? I won’t even address what their health care costs the shared risk insurance pool. I’m a pathologist….Keep smoking away because your oral cancers, lung cancers, esophageal cancers and lots of other cancers keep me in biz and my kids fed.

            Side note, I am a first generation college graduate, was a “stay-at-home-mom” until my philandering husband ended that. I became the “welfare” mom that the GOP loves to harass. I worked my ass off to get through college and medical school with small children.

            If a business does not want to provide the option of OCPs to their employees, then by all means open up shop in say….Iran or North Korea. You will fit in well there. Any university institution who does not want to provide OCPs to their employees, just decline all the government handouts being sent your way. Will never happen so STFU. If you want to go to med school, fine. In the meantime, shut up and quit practicing Medicine. You don’t
            have the education or a license to even sound like you know what you are talking about.

            The irony and hypocrisy is hysterical. GOP is vehemently against birth control, yet foams
            at the mouth to give a zygote rights. As soon as that umbilical cord is cut, if that child is aided by public assistance becomes a parasite. All within a 9 month time frame. Wow. Viagra and inflatable penis devices? Covered by nearly all insurance companies. Funny how that works.

            Biggest welfare queen? Exxon and its $19 billion profit while paying ZERO dollars in taxes. Mrs Anti-socialism herself, Sarah Palin, and her daughter Bristol Palin no doubt enjoyed their tax payer subsidized reality TV show. Seriously John McCain? Shall I go on? Wal-Mart makes my skin crawl. Quit harassing Americans whose jobs were outsourced by the Mitt Romney’s venture capitalists types. Jobs once plentiful have been eliminated thanks to Dubya and his policies that rewarded this disgusting corporate behavior.

            President Obama? Anyone should know that a president’s first term is spent cleaning up
            the mess the prior one made? Fiscal cliff? Let Bush tax cuts expire. Bring it ON!
            It’s the best thing that could happen to us as a nation. Time to cut up that credit card, clip the
            wings of corporations a bit and get back to being the best nation in the world.

            And guess what! I’m a 1% per. Yep you read that right. I gladly pay taxes (historically
            at their lowest). I would rather support my employees and take less of an income than continue to watch the GOP pilfer away the middle class, which I see happening.
            President Obama’s healthcare policies are brilliant. You will all be singing
            the praises once you see how it benefits YOU! The GOP? They sound more like Taliban than ever before. I couldn’t be paid enough $$$ to vote for their policies.

            If you do not earn more than $1 million a year, the GOP policies will not benefit you one bit. Anyone earning less than $250K a year and especially female who votes GOP, needs a psych eval, is bigoted or needs a fact enema.

          • Afliesaway

            Then I’d like my insurance to stop paying for prostate screening or treatment for prostate cancers, since they don’t affect me. Oh, wait, maybe that’s preposterous. I can’t even exclude sports channels on cable…

          • thinker

            Why is that preposterous? Give me a single reason. If competition amongst insurance providers were opened up you would be able to purchase a plan that covered exactly that. You’d likely change the plan if you got married / had a son, but until then it makes no sense for you to pay into a pool to cover prostate problems if you don’t have a prostate.

            Your cable analogy follows the same exact reasoning. Kill the rights of way that were granted to the cable monopolies, force them to be sold off since they were unjustly attained in the first place, and allow competition amongst cable providers. You would likely rapidly be able to purchase a cable plan to your liking.

            Imagine if the government were involved in the shoe sales business. Because, we all need shoes, and who would possibly provide shoe sales if not for the government? We would probably have 3 styles of shoes that came in small, medium, and large sizes. Instead look at the tens of thousands of possible shoes you can buy, because a variety of private actors are competing with each other in an attempt to win your business.

          • Thyme Pomagranite

            it does not surprise me that you never get laid.
            but if you do, be ready for the paternity suit.

          • thinker

            Non sequitur that contributed absolutely nothing, other than illustrating that you haven’t understood a single thing I have written. Bravo.

          • Katherine Walton

            And you need to think about the fact that you’re an asshole. And I am loving, in a bitterly ironic way, your “gun to the head” metaphor.

            Oh, wait, that’s unkind. As a woman, I have *every* right to make demands on the government I pay for. As you *males* have for years uncounted. And I don’t give a good god damn if you, as a male, don’t like it. Thing is? Women are a *majority* in this country. And you are about, I think, to find out what *we* think is “unjust”. Just sayin’.

            In other words? Good luck.

          • Katherine Walton

            Exactly, Alice!!

          • I, personally, was denied a tubal ligation in a Catholic hospital because it was deemed to be “birth control.” Problem is, in this case a tubal ligation was SOP as part of an endometrial ablation because pregnancy after an ablation can cause complications including miscarriage and uterine rupture or hemorrhage (can be deadly.)

            Chances of bringing a baby to term without an endometrium = very, very, very small. Chance of negative complications to me = not insignificant. I’m not about to take chances that my existing child will grow up without a mother.

            The practical result of their choice: two more invasive, expensive and unnecessary surgeries, one to address the fertility issue, one tomorrow to address hydrosalpinx that might never have happened if I’d been offered a tubal ligation. Let’s not mention the years of pain, I’m sure the Catholic church doesn’t care about that.

            If YOU don’t want a tubal ligation, don’t have one – but don’t go telling me and my doctor what’s good for ME.

          • thinker

            Why didn’t you go to another hospital? I don’t understand. I have been to one catholic hospital in my life and it was terrible. I will never go back to that place. Why didn’t you choose to spend your healthcare dollars at a better hospital? And I do agree with you. Your healthcare choices are your own, no hospital should dictate to you what to do with your own body… ever.

          • I wasn’t told of the issue until after the surgery was scheduled, and my doctor didn’t have surgical privileges anywhere else. I had waited for 6 months to finally find someone who would help me, had already switched doctors to find this one – and didn’t understand the ramifications of the situation at the time. How many other women are put in this position?

            Now that it’s happened, I make every effort to go to the hospital that is across town, instead of this one, which is walking distance from my house.

            Here’s the problem with the “religious belief” argument: if you leave this decision in the hands of people who are not doctors, how will they draw the line between “medically necessary” and “birth control?” Obviously, not well in my case.

          • lillian lone

            Asheville, NC has one (1) uno, one hospital. It is a Catholic hospital. Many other towns, cities, burgs have the same situation. To allow the Catholic church to decide what health care an entire community can have is wrong. That’s what is at stake here.

          • thinker

            Nobody has been discussing having religious beliefs flow into the operating room, they have been discussing having religious beliefs dictate what someone will or will not pay for. I find the idea of having someone’s religious beliefs dictate operating room procedures to be reprehensible. But, if you find yourself in that position you need to either ask them to change, and if they refuse either travel further to a hospital, move to a new city, or go through the effort of getting the community together to build some sort of clinic as a competitor to the hospital. That is what people in a free society do. Its not easy, but that is what they do.

          • Katherine Walton

            Bullshit. That’s the whole point.

          • Aly

            It is a life-saving medical “procedure” for me. Thanks for caring.

          • Eric Root

            It doesn’t matter whether birth control is life-saving or not; it is absolutely none of the employer’s business. Don’t accuse someone of dishonesty and then come out with a wild hyperbole like, “why in the world do you think that you have the right to use force against an employer to satisfy your every demand?” It is just daft to think tht coverage with BC would drive an employer out of business but coverage without it wouldn’t, that’s just nuts.

          • thinker

            It is none of the employer’s business if an employee uses birth control. It is absolutely the employer’s business what health plans they are paying for. Do you not see the difference?

          • Katherine Walton

            I PAY FOR MY HEALTH INSURANCE. SO DOES SANDRA FLUKE, YOU MORON. What part of that do you not understand?

          • Katherine Walton

            Oh, my. You’re a guy, aren’t you?

          • Josh F

            Wait. I thought we’ve been in a recovery for the past couple of years. Recession? Really? I thought unemployement was going down. Isn’t that how Obama eeked out his victory by telling us that the economy was on its way back because of the trillions he spent? I’m all confused now.

          • Katherine Walton

            We are in much better shape now than we were four years ago. Tell me how we’re not.

          • Thyme Pomagranite

            in answer to who would work there: all the people who are currently unable to find jobs with any health coverage, like my brother in law, who works for a large retail chain, and like many of their employees is carefully scheduled to never work more then the maximum number of hours that qualify him as a “part time” employee, so they are not required to provide any benefits. In this economy, paying bills and rent, and escaping the soul crushing limbo of unemployment is a higher priority then a benefits package.
            or have you not read a newspaper in the last 6 years?

          • thinker

            This is only going to continue and get worse as more and more sections of Obamacare get implemented. People without skills that are in demand need to rush to acquire some better skills, otherwise this is the purgatory that awaits them within a year or two.

          • Katherine Walton

            Bullshit. It’s been going on for *years*, and has nothing to do with Obamacare. It has everything to do with corporate and 1% greed. Everything.

          • Whedon Activist

            with the crazy amounts medical insurance costs now their would be tons more people on governmental insurance if they were untied. I use to have that thought until I realized that unions were created for a reason, minimum wage was created for a reason because unfortunately greed can overwhelm the idea of good. You will end up jumping around from company to company to find a livible wage

          • thinker

            And that’s the crux of the problem. The skyrocketing costs of healthcare in the United States. A few things that the government could do overnight to help sink those costs would be an end to monopoly grants for insurance providers, an end to monopoly grants to various facilities in a geographic locale (MRI center, X Ray machines, etc.), end the ban on reimportation of drugs, end EMTALA. Those few changes would cause the cost of healthcare to sink significantly and fairly rapidly. To see costs drop even more you need to end even more cost shifting.

          • Eric Root

            The problem is that your solution infringes the religious freedom of the employee, and and does nothing for the religious freedom of the employer. Employess shouldn’t have to be unemployed or take a sucky job just so the boss doesn’t infringe their religious freedom. The boss owns a business in order to make money, not in order to have a bunch of people whose private lives he can control.

          • thinker

            Now I am confused and am not sure what you are replying to. Could you possibly clarify? I certainly agree with your final sentence. I am not sure exactly what the first two are in reference to.

          • Eric Root

            I was replying to you, thinker. “Just work for another employer” imposes a huge and difficult burden on the employee when the just solution is, don’t let employers infringe employees’ liberty.

          • gimme a break

            hey, let’s have the FDA stop regulating what goes into hot dogs! let the people choose the quality of their product!

          • thinker

            Were hot dogs particularly different or worse before the FDA existed?

          • Katherine Walton

            Yes, they were. But, as I said before, don’t let History kick you in the ass.

          • butterstar

            Wow, “thinker” — if that was the case, nobody would work for anyone who didn’t provide health insurance, right? Right?? Oh, wait… there are more people than jobs, and those kids can’t keep eating air sandwiches for dinner. Guess I’ll have to take the job I can get and hope something better comes along — maybe when those better-insured than I die off and I can get their spot — except I’m for likely to die first, seeing as I HAVE NO INSURANCE.

          • thinker

            If you want to hit full employment you are going to have to end the minimum wage and stop paying people not to work. You will never have full employment until that occurs. I guess you could possibly have an artificial “full employment” if enough money printing hits the economy. But that will be shot lived and end in a blow up a la the .com explosion in 2000.

          • Katherine Walton

            Full employment does *not* equal people being able to live on what they make. You want full employment with people making less money than it takes to pay rent and eat? Oh, wait, that’s a question, not a statement. So let me restate: You want “full employment” with people making less money than it takes to pay rent and eat. There you go. Geezuz Fricken Criste you people make me sick.

          • Wow. You’re insane.

          • TheBee

            Thank you!

          • Delphine

            I have said this since the Religious Freedoms™ gauntlet was first flung. I do not understand why it hasn’t already happened.

          • GrnMachine

            FYI, the Christian Science provides medical insurance for any employees who want it.

          • Col. Kevin M Jankoski

            Read Obamacare they damn sure do have to pay for it, the woman above Karen Davis tell me when Mitt Romney ever claimed single mothers were to blame for gun violence? You sound insane when you say ridiculous things like this. Criminals are responsible for gun violence. As a card carrying member of the GOP and the NRA you need to read the facts states with right to carry laws have experienced on average a 63% decline on one on one attacks, muggings, and home invasions. The criminals now are on notice that they may be breaking in to an armed citizens home. I agree with you on equal pay but Obama has sucked at enacting equal pay, hell he hasnt even submitted a budget in four years. This election was a mandate to lock the country down more of the same gridlock DC to keep Obama from doing any more damage to this country or civil war to prevent America from falling into a weak ass social country like france, hell Obama has the appology and surrender down pat.

          • John R. Smith

            PRESIDENT Obama HAS submitted a budget EVERY year he has been in office. Unfortunately, my Republican representatives have seen fit to place the “one term agenda” above approving or working on a compromise to enacting a budget. Mitt Romney did indeed say that single mothers are responsible for the increase in gun violence, and people are for RESPONSIBLE gun laws, not taking them away!

          • how many democrats actually voted for his budget? do you know?

          • None. The Congressional Republican leaders made it so it could never come to a vote until it was presented their way. So Obama’s budget was never even considered!

          • thinker

            This is an outright lie. His budget was so absurd it garnered something like 2 democratic votes throughout his entire term. Why would he submit a legitimate budget when he can continue to do whatever he wants via continuing resolutions?

          • Obama is one of those guys that only wants to talk if you agree with him, if you don’t then hes done talking.

          • thinker

            That does seem to be true. But I certainly don’t think that much, if any, of the GOP is better. I would really be happy if people would sit back and realize that both parties are nearly identically bad.

          • You’ve finally said something I can agree with you on. However, all of your car and boat analogies are just complete crap.

          • thinker

            And yet that is house an insurance pool works. Should we be completely honest about the whole situation? That very vast majority of people crying about “birth control coverage” do not want health insurance in any way shape or form. What they want is for someone else to pay for their routine medical expense because they don’t like to pay the costs on their own. Why would I buy car insurance from a company that offered to cover my oil changes as an insurance expense, but instead of paying $1200 / year in car insurance fees I now have to pay $15,000 / year?

            It is a foolish approach to take, and certainly is nothing remotely resembling “insurance” to cover a routine expense like birth control. So the fact that so many people are demanding that “everyone be required” to cover it is absurd. Maybe you should focus your efforts on ending the ridiculous connection between health insurance and employment, say nothing for the skyrocketing healthcare costs in the United States that are in large part due to government intervention in the market. That way you could buy your own health insurance like you do car and home insurance, and it would be irrelevant where you worked or what your employer thought.

          • Katherine Walton

            Really? I’m for birth control coverage and want health insurance. But I’m someone who pays for it out of pocket, and has done since 1986. Myself. And I’m past the age to worry about birth control, and my partner had a vasectomy years ago. So it “doesn’t affect me”. So why are you against Obamacare? From what you write, you should be for universal Medicare.

            And yet? You’re not. Good god in heaven, you’re a selfish, self-serving asshole. Seriously.

          • And I can say the same for you

          • You, sir, clearly have nothing to say…like me

          • Codger

            You’re factually incorrect here. The budget was never put for a vote.

          • thinker

            The Republicans put the budget up to vote in both the house and senate. Are you making the claim that it was not the “real” Obama budget proposal that they put up for a vote?

          • A Lie? Look it up.

          • Lie…

          • You, sir, are clearly a brilliant thinker

          • Hmm. My fact has 32 up votes, and your opinion has none–plus one down vote.
            Just sayin’…

          • Alqahira

            The last two budgets submitted to Congress were unanimously rejected by the Democratic Senate

          • Codger

            His budget never went to a vote. What went to a vote was a proposal by Republicans to vote early on the budget, which they presented in an abridged and unacceptable form. Democtrats voted against sending that version of the budget ahead for a vote. But the budget itself was never voted on. This was a pretty clear ploy to make it look like the Democrats didn’t support the budget, and it appears to have worked.

          • Hes not my “president” so dont correct someone passively, also your 1000% wrong. OBAMA has not submitted a budget since the first budget and in fact the last 2 years hes been trying to get elected for another 4 years instead of doing his job.

            FYI: In the first 2 years of his election he and his family went on 27 vacations that the tax payers paid for.

            So tell me what hes done in the last 4 years?

          • free1thinker

            @Brian – Obama is the President of the USA so unless you are planning on committing treason (let me know so I can dial up the FBI and Secret Service) or you are planning to move (we’ll all help you pack) he is your President, too.

            Also, please note that as of August 2011, “President Obama had taken 61 vacation days after 31 months in office. At this point in their presidencies, George W. Bush had spent a WHOPPING 180 days on vacation. And Ronald Reagan had taken 112 vacation days.” It sounds as if you just want to find something to be angry about and are rooting around for a good target. May I encourage you to find a useful outlet for that destructive energy.


          • And how many did Bush go on? And Reagan? And what makes you think we paid for them? I could have sworn he had a job, a damn good one at that,before he was elected………thought his wife had a job too………must be thinking about someone else. I want to see you go to work and not take a day off or a vacay…………didnt think so.

          • TrueLib

            Politifact: “In his speech, Romney faulted Obama for failing to pass a budget. He
            was correct that the two times Congress voted on the president’s budget
            requests, both times they were voted down. But the job of passing a
            budget resolution is not the president’s. That responsibility falls to
            Congress, and even then the president doesn’t sign it. As Ellis, our
            expert, put it: “The president has no role in passing a budget. The
            president can cajole Congress about passing a budget and advocate for
            positions and funding levels, but in the end, Congress approves the
            budget resolution for their own purposes.”

          • That pales in comparison to Bush- 1020 days on Vacay…more than any other President in history. And so what. Being the President of the United States is the HARDEST Job on the PLANET. The mental and physical fatigue endured from the pressure alone, seemingly coming from the world deserves as many days as needed to rebuild, to replenish one’s self. You are grasping at straws. Go down another road. This is not a strong arugument.

          • John, that statement is typical of the liberal Obamalies… Not one Democrat voted for your Obama’s so-called budget. Try some facts on for a change, turn off MSNBC!

          • You, sir, are an idiot

          • Hans

            Why are Republicans unable to use spell chechibg?

          • FybrOptx

            Wow. Is that all you have to come back with?

          • Steve D

            Colonel, with all due respect: Romney is the one who sounded insane — see his reply to a question at the 10/16 debate about gun control. He spins the topic into a discussion about the “culture of violence” and suggests that single parent households contribute to that problem. It doesn’t make much sense in context, and it was widely commented upon at the time. (It also ignores the fact that some of the young men involved in some of the most horrifying shooting incidents in recent years DID appear to grow up in two-parent households, with regular church attendance.)

          • thinker

            Statistically Romney was correct, although he could have certainly been more direct (and less politically correct) with his statement. Most gun violence is due to black males aged 15-35, and since this demographic grows up in primarily single parent households, the assumption is that lack of a father is a major role here. This gun violence occurs despite the vast majority of guns being owned by white people. You are correct in that there are plenty of crimes committed by individuals that grew up in two parent households, but the majority of gun crime is due to black males aged 15-35.

          • free1thinker

            Let’s be honest. This isn’t the gun crime that concerns most of us because we don’t live in the neighborhoods where it is manifested. When this violence leaks over into suburbia and when white youth begin shooting up their schools and universities, THAT, is when most of us become alarmed. But the reality is that alarm is just hypocrisy if we aren’t concerned about why military-grade, rapid-fire assault weapons are legal and available en masse on our streets (and no I don’t believe the NRA that they are for hunting deer), why mentally unstable people and people with a history of violence can pass background checks given all the loopholes and purchase guns, why in some neighborhoods it is easier to buy a Saturday night special than it is to find a school where even half the kids are reading on grade level. The fact is your analysis stops short and points to a symptom as a cause.

          • thinker

            Its certainly not the gun crime that concerns me, it is the ghetto culture that concerns me.

            Military grade full auto weapons are very difficult and very expensive to get in the United States. If you are attempting to equate semi-automatic sport rifles with military weapons don’t, they are a pale comparison. Semi auto rifles can be used for hunting deer, but in most states it is not legal. The purpose of the second amendment was not to protect hunting, and I doubt you will ever see the NRA make that claim. It is to give a final protection against tyranny, whether that comes from the gang down the street or from your own government. The colonists had just finished nearly losing a war to the British, where one of the primary tactics used by the British was to restrict guns, ball, and powder to the colonists. Do you really think that they were thinking about hunting? There is some good scholarship on piracy during the revolution and how important the weapons captured by pirates turned out to be to the colonists.

            To further point out some misconceptions on your part it is not particularly easy for someone with a past criminal history to pass a background check and acquire a weapon. I would be interested to see any felonies that would allow one to pass a background check. With the enormous lobbying put forth to stop states from checking ID’s to vote, I am rather curious why so many are up in arms about requiring IDs and background checks in order to purchase a gun. Why is one constitutional right treated differently than another?

            So, I do not understand your charge of hypocrisy. I don’t think that America has a gun problem. You would be more accurate to describe America’s violence problem as a “black youth” problem than a gun problem. If you disagree I welcome you to move to West Philly, where I had to (unfortunately) spend several years. It won’t take you long to recognize a pattern when it comes to crime and violence, and guns are not the common denominator.

          • free1thinker

            You should review the NRA arguments. They often talk about hunting when arguing against bans. And no, unfortunately, military-grade weapons are not hard to get. All you have to do is watch the local news of any major city and see that many police are outgunned.

            Contrary to your erroneous assumptions I have lived in West Philly (spent 4 years there). I also have lived in Brooklyn before its recent resurgence, the south side of Chicago, Los Angeles and Oakland,CA. Again I say to you that black youth are a symptom of the issue but not a cause. You seem to be focused on drawing racial conclusions from this issue and, if so, have at it! (Many people draw self-satisfaction out of demonizing the other as laid out in Eric’s blog). But if you are interested in intelligent dialogue, you will realize that it is our lack of investment as a country in people who look a certain way, make less than a certain amount, or live in a certain neighborhood that is the cause of the problem. Because of our history black youth tend to fit into the category of peoples whom we do not invest in, but there are plenty of others including white youth in the Ozarks and rural, impoverished areas.

          • thinker

            If I have only identified the symptom, and not the cause, then please inform me of the cause. I have heard about “racism”, and “oppression”, and “white privilege” more times than I can count. Yet nobody ever seems to be able to provide even a few concrete examples of such things in the real world, certainly not in numbers enough to explain the broken ghetto culture that is so pervasive amongst blacks.

            Where is the lack of investment? Billions per year every year on schools and scholarships. Billions more on rent assistance, energy assistance, food assistance. Special status in university admissions and when seeking employment. I don’t see a *lack* of investment at all, just failed investment. What is your solution to the problem? What do you see as the problem?

            As to the weapons bit I really do not like the NRA and don’t pay attention to whatever they are pitching, but I can take some time to review their most recent talking points. I can’t say that I have EVER seen the police being outgunned, certainly not in the last 10 years or so. The police have become so heavily armed and militarized that they routinely enjoy flaunting their equipment. If you truly wanted to get into an armed standoff with police you would have to be exceptionally well prepared if you expected to win. Standard gun store weapons and ammo will do very very little to overcome their arms and armor.

          • free1thinker

            Your comment.. “The broken ghetto culture that is so pervasive amongst blacks”.. tells me all I need to know about engaging in a discussion with you and that is that you have your mind made up based on limited information, that you are not open to new information, that you are smug about stereotyping groups of people and nothing I say is likely to change any of the above. The problem could be summed up in opinions like yours where groups of people are written off as children without ever having had a fair shake at life, but until you can at least attempt to be less offensive in your musings, forgive me if I don’t go into depth with you. Good day!

          • thinker

            Unfortunately I have gotten that response quite a bit. Usually following the provision of data the other side has no rebuttal for. I am always open to new information, and would encourage you to attempt to present any relevant data that you actually have. For instance, here are some FBI crime statistics that support my point http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10shrtbl06.xls They get even worse when you look at single victim multiple offender. My point of view has grown from thousands upon thousands of anecdotal experiences, as well as looking at crime statistics such as those, and watching black v white crime get reported on msm at an astonishingly tiny rate as opposed to its converse. I would be happy to hear why you think this is anything but a black problem.

          • free1thinker

            Why am I not surprised that you have gotten that same response when you have said offensive, stereotypical things in the past and yet you continue to say them? Shame on you for purposely being obnoxious; it is not an endearing quality. I never disputed the crime statistics, which is why there was no need for you to post the link, but if it made you feel better – great.

            What I am disputing is the ultimate cause of crime not just where and how it is manifested. I believe crime is a poverty problem not a race problem. You don’t see middle class and affluent blacks besieged by crime issues do you? Would love to see you produce some links on that if you disagree, but won’t hold my breath. In this country, due to our history, wealth and access to resources and opportunities are not now and were not ever distributed equitably, meaning that poverty affects a disproportionate share of black people (who are only a few generations – and for some less – out of illiteracy and having nothing but the clothes on their backs due to slavery and Jim Crow). Economic problems, in turn, exacerbate social problems, such as crime, drug abuse, gangs, reliance on government assistance, and family break-ups. All one needs to do is visit rural impoverished areas with a low percentage of blacks to know this is not just a black problem. (It seems clear you are not aware of such rural, impoverished areas so may I encourage you to take a tour through your own country.)

            Just as the stats for crime stats whites for whites in these impoverished, rural areas do not hold for all whites, the crime stats for impoverished blacks do not hold for all blacks. Thus this cannot be a black problem. To intimate it is, is to show your own interest in creating and maintaining false beliefs about people for your own benefit.

          • Why does it have to be “black” youth? I have yet to hear of a “black” youth going into a school,movie theater,mall, and shooting people. Why cant it be a crime? Why does it have to have color? Until people stop seeing color we will never be a UNITED States of America. There is crime all over this country, Asians, American Indians,Middle Easterns,Whites,Blacks,Hispanic. All races have done crimes since the beginning of time, why “black” did we invent guns? Do we buy them? Do we ship them here?

          • thinker

            Its black youth because they commit a massive and outsized portion of violent crime in the United States in relation to their segment of the population. You are right that crime is obviously not restricted to black youth. But when people bring up the “gun problem” in the United States they are bringing up the problem with black youth whether they realize it or not. Until people stop closing their eyes to problems due to political correctness we will never find solutions to many of the problems that plague this country.

          • tomandyourmom

            Dear Col Mustard: You don’t have any idea what you’re talking about. Your right-to-carry “statistics” are straight-up lies, as are your views on Obama’s “non-submission” of a budget. Oh, and the claim that they “have to pay for it”. You really should go back to your hate-filled life, and leave the adults to talk.

          • Alyssa Van Story

            “Dear Colonel Mustard”… Lol!!!!!!!!!!

          • Heather

            It was in the second debate. Romney specifically tied single mothers to rising gun violence in a stream-of-conscious free-association exercise so breathtaking I actually didn’t believe he’d done it.

          • msjackson

            Mitt Romney stated that one of the causes of violence in crime ridden areas was because there are too many single women heading families. I heard that too. Said it in one of the debates. No one is saying that guns should be taken from responsible people like you. This election ended the way it did because the majority of people wanted Obama, the majority of states who had folks running against extreme ideologues voted them out, and those that returned, their House districts sent them back because their opposition was weak or in many cases non-existent (running unopposed). But keep turning a blind eye and deaf ear to the writing that’s on the wall. The country is no longer dominated by extreme views. As a country, we are getting more center and more moderate. The longer you ignore that, the longer you will keep losing national, senate, and house elections. And the paranoid hatred you have with Obama, that’s not helpful.

          • Barb Schaarschmidt

            In the presidential debate when asked what he would do about gun control, he said that he would start by telling people to get married before having children…that would reduce the cause of gun violence. Check it out…it happened.

          • thats true, less fucked up kids to grow up and rob people.

            its a fact that 2 parents have a better chance of raising a “good” child.

          • Hell Ted Bundy, and John Wayne Gasey had 2 parents, that dont mean shit

          • President Obama and President Clinton were raised by single mothers as well. Just agreeing with you that single mothers aren’t the problem. For me, it’s education and equal pay – or lack thereof.

          • passerby

            about at 40 seconds.

          • Spock

            There are too many untruths, or as we call them, lies, in this to reply to them all. It makes my head hurt. But Romney implied single mothers were to blame for gun violence in the second debate.

          • Katherine Walton

            Implied? He was very *clear*.

          • Galena

            Romney equated single parent homes with higher gun violence during the second debate. Or did you not watch them? Yep, it sure sounds insane when people are informed and then mention it!

          • John

            “This election was a mandate to lock the country down more of the same gridlock DC to keep Obama from doing any more damage to this country…”

            You can’t be serious about that, right? Do you really believe that the 52% of the country who voted for the President, and those other majorities that voted for Democrats, and liberal-leaning Independents 55 to 45 did so to ensure gridlock? In the first place, that is very poor reasoning.

            In the second place, a major reason the House remains under GOP control is the redistricting process that occurred under Republican control. Make that redistricting independent, and there is a significant likelihood that Democrats, and their 52% popular vote, would control both branches of Congress and the Presidency.

            So, between the popular vote for Presidency, and the Democrats picking up seats in both the House and Senate, this election, if anything, is a mandate for moderation, exactly as Mr. Garland has laid out.

          • Jeez, further proof why I didn’t much trust officers when I was a corporal in the Marines.

          • Amen

          • You are ridiculous sir

          • YOU read “Obamacare,” because no, you’re wrong, and Karen Davis is right.

            “Tell me when Mitt Romney ever claimed single mothers were to blame for gun violence?


            MS. CROWLEY: Governor Romney, the question is about assault weapons, AK-47s.

            MR. ROMNEY: Yeah, I — I’m not in favor of new pieces of legislation on — on guns and — and taking guns away or — or making certain guns illegal. We of course don’t want to have automatic weapons, and that’s already illegal in this country to have automatic weapons.

            What I believe is we have to do as the president mentioned towards the end of his remarks there, which is to make enormous efforts to enforce the gun laws that we have and to change the culture of violence we have. And you ask, how are we going to do that? And there are a number of things…

            But let me mention another thing, and that is parents. We need moms and dads helping raise kids. Wherever possible, the — the benefit of having two parents in the home — and that’s not always possible. A lot of great single moms, single dads. But gosh, to tell our kids that before they have babies, they ought to think about getting married to someone — that’s a great idea because if there’s a two-parent family, the prospect of living in poverty goes down dramatically. The opportunities that the child will — will be able to achieve increase dramatically.

          • Katherine Walton

            Wow. Can I get this in English?

          • mike

            bull, the country will pay for all the liberal giveaways, very sad all that education and no common sense.

          • snjmom

            Thinker, you may want to consider the extreme power differential between employer and employee. We don’t live in an economy where one can refuse to work until the best employer comes along. What other government enforced labor rules do you wish to discard? 40 hour wks, 8 hour days, child labor, company towns and scrip? It’s a new century. Kudos to Eric, my fellow St. Louisian. Great essay.

          • Eric Root

            Obama proposed the ACA precisely because it was a GOP project back in the Gingrich days and he very reasonably thought the Republicans would go for it. The kind of dishonesty it takes to whine that that is a “liberal giveaway” is precisely the kind of thing that drove a lot of us in the ploitical middle to vote for Obama, at least the Democrats didn’t make a point of being whiney, mean, and hating education.

          • Katherine Walton

            Yeah. No.

          • TheBee

            When and employer includes/excludes coverage from a policy, the premium that employer pays to the insurance co is affected. So yes, the Catholic Church would have to pay more for that inclusion.

          • Justin

            Studies have shown that providing BC actually DECREASES health insurance cost by minimizing unintended pregnancies and births. So the RC affiliated entities would be SAVING money by providing BC.

            Just saying…

          • John

            Agreed, Justin. This is an important point. Offering free birth control AND providing consultation on proper birth control choice reduced abortions in St. Louis by 80%. EIGHTY PERCENT! This in turn lowers both health care costs, and tax burden on health care by literally billions of dollars.

          • free1thinker

            Now that is fiscal responsibility and social policy I can support!

          • Alqahira

            Many Catholic hospitals and universities are self-insured. In these cases, the church is in fact required to pay for contraception in violation of their church tenets. For those institutions that do use insurance companies, the lion’s share of the premiums are paid by the church, no differently than any other employer offering issurance. Insurance companies do not pay for anything, they redistribute premiums paid by others. Different insurance companies can have different coverages and exclusions from one another – what my insurance company covers, yours may not. That is true of all policies, not just those that cover contraception, so the Catholic Church’s decision not to provide contraception is consistent with other coverages across most insurance companies with or without Obamacare.

          • “in violation of their church tenets.”

            Where in the bible does it state women shouldn’t have access to birth control pills?

          • Alqahira

            Dr. Matt,

            Though I am not a Catholic, or of any religious persuasion, I can tell you that not all tenets of the Catholic Church are found in the Judeo-Christian bible. The Catholic Church has a history of combining bible text justifications with its oral and written traditions. Birth control is found in the latter.

            —– Original Message —–
            From: Disqus
            To: [email protected]
            Sent: Monday, November 12, 2012 11:33 AM
            Subject: [ericgarland] Re: Letter to a future Republican strategist regarding white people

            Dr. Matt wrote, in response to Alqahira:

            “in violation of their church tenets.”

            Where in the bible does it state women shouldn’t have access to birth control pills?
            User’s website

            Link to comment

          • You never answered the question: How is birth control a violation of the biblical tenets?

          • Alqahira

            Dr. Matt – In the reply I sent you, I explained that not all Catholic tenets are found in the Judeo-Christian bible – some are a matter of written and oral tradition. Birth control falls into this category of tradition.

          • Gregoryd

            actually Catholic Hospitals and universities are only afilliated with the Catholic church for the most part. they are not run or operated by the chruch itself. I have worked at one for 16 years.

          • I’m very much looking forward to hauling the Catholic Church into the 21st century and forcing them to offer BC to its employees. It will also help end the institution’s fundamental hypocrisy, given that something like 95% of Catholics either use or have used BC.

          • Knack

            I don’t know if you’re Catholic or not, but it’s NOT the government’s job to “haul the Catholic church into the 21st century.” And how, exactly, is it “the institution’s” hypocrisy if it has ALWAYS said no to birth control, but SOME of the members (95%? Really? Cite your source) decide to use it anyway? Whether you agree with the Catholic church or not, they’re free to believe what they believe and shouldn’t be forced to provide something they consider to be a grave sin.

          • free1thinker

            @Knack – There are many sources for this info. Here is one: “Sexually active Catholic women older than 18 are just as likely (98%) to have used some form of contraception banned by the Vatican as women in the general population (99%).” I believe the original study was conducted by the Guttmacher Institute but it has been widely quoted.


          • thinker

            This makes no sense. You have a pathological hatred for the Catholic
            Church, and want to impose your own views on them. Do you hate the Catholic Church due to their history of committing evil acts and forcing their viewpoints upon others? If so you are exactly the same. You need not “force” anyone to do anything. Just refuse to do any business with the Catholic Church or with people who patronize the church if you feel so strongly.

          • JC

            That’s too bad, isn’t it? As employers they are bound to follow all the laws that apply to such, and providing an option is not the same as promoting an option. It really begins to boil down to a due process issue. Do these institutions get to fire employees for being unfaithful spouses? Can they not hire divorcees because they disapprove of that too? Can you be fired if they find out you ARE taking birth control? For crying out loud, they protect criminal behavior in their own ranks and want to deny others the broad coverage stipulated by ACA on their nebulous ideas about human sexuality and the origins of life? I can give you a Scripture, too: in the Bread of Life passage in the Gospel of John, Jesus Christ himself said “Let them go” about those who could not accept his teaching. The RC Church is outside her mission when micromanaging the lives of others on this scale. She may urge, she may call, but providing a blanket policy in which the end users choose their options, at the behest of the government (Ceasar?) does not make her collusive in the least; she has made it clear that it is against her will that she must acquiesce. FTR, I am Catholic, and actively so. I sympathize with the dilemma, but this is really the price of providing service in the secular world. Try looking from the other end of the telescope: the Church does not have to provide birthcontrol per se – however, neither is she allowed to construct policies that deny it. Feel free to reply, I love a good rhubarb, and have been debating these issues for years! 🙂

          • The thing that everyone is either ignoring or unaware of is that, by including birth control in their coverage, insurance providers are actually LOWERING their overall costs. (Pregnancy claims are big money). So rather than asserting that the Catholic church “would have to pay to provide BC”, the opposite is true – they’d have to pay more in total coverage costs if they DON’T provide BC.

          • no its not. you can buy condoms at 7-11

          • free1thinker

            And how do condoms relieve symptoms of dysmenorrhea, endometriosis, or migraines or painful medical conditions women encounter, and how do they serve as preventative measures against endometrial or ovarian cancer or other forms of diseases women encounter? Oh that’s right! They don’t. Only oral contraceptives do, because they are not just a method of birth control, they are hormone regulators. Are birth control pills available at 7-11? No. So back to the point above.

          • b

            “Ham is not a prescription medication.”

            You don’t live in the South, do you?

          • Book woman

            Agreed. If their members don’t believe in BC then what are they worried about? They won’t have any issues, right! It seems to me that they need to worry more about some (cough) bigger problems with their priests.

          • A Little Voice From The Middle

            I just have to butt in…employers do pay for an employees’ health benefits. I am not employed by a Catholic employer, but I am 100% sure that my company pays for more than half of my policy. Increased coverage more often than not means higher premiums.

          • free1thinker

            Someone has already pointed out that the slight increase in premiums would be more than offset by not having to pay premiums for pregnancy care and have employees out on maternity leave. I think the term they used was a penny spent, a dollar saved.

          • Dentree

            I have had seven years of Jesuit high school and university and can state with some authority that they rival Talmudic scholars for intellectual hair-splitting. The Jesuit order and Jesuit universities are quite comfortable with your explanation, Paula, and, given that level of remove (it’s actually the insurance companies who pay) they are fine with Jesuit institutions providing BC for employees. It’s the bishops, who, as creatures of the uber-conservative Vatican, are utterly out of touch with the vast majority of American Catholics and who are pushing the issue politically.

          • free1thinker

            Actually @me that’s exactly what they were saying. None of the Catholic employers would have paid for birth control, as no employer pays for the prescriptions their employees take. What Catholic institutions would need to do is simply to make sure their employees had access to birth control (which is also used for several other medical reasons) through the insurance they carried. But they didn’t even want to do that. This is not about ham being served at a synagogue. A more accurate analogy would be a synagogue that owns several businesses with hundreds and thousands of employees who are not Jewish using its power to try to block access to its employees (Jewish or not) buying ham though other foods are available and accessible.

          • Bad metaphor. The churches aren’t being asked to buy birth control. They’re being required to pay for healthcare costs and what it’s spent on is between the employee and their doctor. The synagogue isn’t being told to serve a ham dinner. They’re giving guests money for dinner and what they choose from the menu is up to them. In fact, I’m Jewish and don’t eat pork for religious reasons. If a friend is over and we’re ordering in lunch, I’m perfectly fine if they order pork or shrimp. I’ll even pay for it. I just ask that they make sure it doesn’t touch my table. The fact that I change my diet because of religion is MY choice. I ask others to respect my choices, not conform to them.

          • thinker

            If that is the case, and you want others to respect your choices, why do you not respect the choices of others? If you do not like the insurance policy offered by a catholic employer then don’t work there. Or pickup some sort of accessory insurance plan? Are you unable to see your own hypocrisy?

          • passerby

            Like at, say, the jewish-owned deli down the street where I bought a bacon cheeseburger. The Catholic hospital is not a synagogue.

          • Spock

            Food isn’t served at a synagogue at all so that is a silly comparison. BC is health care. Health care is part of your reimbursement for work at the company. A company should not be able to say what kind of treatments you are allowed to receive. Furthermore *religious* Catholic institutions were exempted. Only hospitals, schools etc., where the mission is NOT fundamentally or exclusively Catholic were required to comply

          • thinker

            Actually they should be able to “say” *exactly* that. An employer offers you a compensation package. You are free to accept it, turn it down, or negotiate for more. What you should not be able to do is get the government involved to extort more compensation from your employer than he/she is willing to provide. You believe in theft via force, and that viewpoint will come back to haunt you one day.

          • Barry_D

            “No one is saying that non catholics can’t have BC. They just won’t pay
            for it. Ham is NOT served at the synagogue. If you want ham you have to
            get it somewhere else.”

            Which basically says that your employer gets to tailor your benefits to their religious objections.

            Also, I recall these years 2001-09 where these people had no problem at all making me pay for whatever they wanted, with no religious objections possible. They wanted a war, torture, money for their cronies, I had to pay for it.

          • How about this – if the Catholic Church wants to legislate morality with its variously, partially-publicly funded operations, they can cease to utilize their non-profit status and pay taxes just like any other corporation. What’s that? Yup, thought so.

          • thinker

            In what world is the Catholic Church attempting to “legislate” anything? Are you seriously this deluded or do you just enjoy building up strawmen to break them down? The Catholic Church does not want anyone else to dictate to it what it can offer as compensation to employees, including the content of healthcare plans. People that work for Catholic employers can accept the compensation offered or move on to an employer they find to be more agreeable.

          • John

            The Catholic Church attempts to legislate everything. Recent memory: Don’t vote for John Kerry because he is Pro-choice, or more recently, the Catholic Church has been all over TVs in every state with Gay Marriage on the ballot. A person who doesn’t think that a religious institution is interested in legislation is deluded.

          • thinker

            John, you have no understanding whatsoever of what the word “legislate” means. Legislation is making a rule and enforcing it via the government’s monopoly on the use of force. Holding an opinion or position (which is what you just described as the Catholic Church’s position) is hardly legislating anything.

            You also need to realize that if you are supporting these various state law and state amendment issues “recognizing” gay marriage that you are on the wrong side of the issue. The proper position for the government is to be completely blind to marriage. It is no business of the local, state, or federal government if you are married to a man, a woman, or multiple men or women. The government is supposed to exist to provide essential services (that allegedly would not be provided by anyone else). These services have zero need to know your marriage status. The entire “issue” of gay marriage was created by the government via their numerous entitlement programs that spouses can benefit from. Do you not see the irony in the government creating a a new rule that causes a problem, causing a bunch of people to cry to the government about it so that they pass a new rule to try to fix the problem? Why not just get the government out of marriage entirely and the problem just solved itself.

          • John

            I’m pretty sure, as a lawyer, I’m qualified to use the term “legislate” accurately. For your enlightenment, the term means to “bring something about by making laws.” In fact, the Catholic Church has it’s own nation and does plenty of “legislating” by both your definition and mine. Your fatal flaw is calling everyone idiots/delusional, then offering your own absurd assertion. It cannot be said that the Catholic Church simply “holds an opinion”. Do you honestly believe that the Church sits on the sidelines with all of the money and influence it wields? Your argument about Gay Marriage, while significantly valid, is a complete red herring.

          • Ah, the libertarian speaks another false dichotomy…just get the government out of the way and all will be well.

          • sjs

            Health insurance is part of the compensation package for employees. The synagogue can’t tell it’s employees that they aren’t allowed to buy ham with their salary. Your choice of what to do with your compensation should be up to you, not the employer.

          • Eric Root

            A workplace is not a Catholic church, either. Mandatory adherence to the beliefs of the boss would infringe the employees freedom of religion.

          • Lita Villa-Coult

            Well, The $$ of this Country is part of our Political System, Not our religious beliefs! Separate Politics from Religion If I am WORKING at a Department Store Owned by someone it should Not be their Concern about My Religious beliefs to get my check OR my Benefits! Work Is Working, Not a Date with GOD! If you are Working, getting medical services , insurance or Any Other $$ issues, it is NOT Part of a Religion unless you are worshipping the Money!! PAYING for Someones Work Benefits should NOT have Anything to do with your religion unless you are working for the CHURCH…. MAYBE!!!

          • Lita Villa-Coult

            If you have a Business that does not want to pay for certain Healthcare Issues, then they should not Hire people of Other Beliefs…oh…wait…don’t we have something about that…oh yeah, something about Discriminating…beliefs…hiring… I know it is there…

          • Lita Villa-Coult

            WORKING for someone does Not mean you must Believe in God by their Rules…or that they can Force you into it by Deciding on your Health and Well being!

          • Uh… there are a lot of practicing Catholics who use birth control. S’truth.

          • Bob

            No one is telling them they can’t use it. They are just being told they wont have it paid for. Why is it that it’s of paramount importance to keep people out of our bedrooms, but it’s perfectly ok for them to subsidize what goes on in them?

          • Paula

            If it’s a matter of money, pregnancy is a lot more expensive, as is losing your workers every nine months.

            Birth control is a health issue, and it’s used for more than just controlling birth. But I am not going to justify to my employer what’s a healthcare reason for birth control and what isn’t. That’s silly, and it’s really just between me and my doctor. Birth control is a reasonable and cheap prescription drug, and it should be covered.

          • thinker

            You are free to find a new employer if you do not like the compensation you are being offered. Why are you unable to see that you can move to a better employer, and instead think that it is acceptable to coerce whatever you want from your current employer?

          • hacka

            Aloha, Thinker –

            Howzabout I tell you that I didn’t want my nice atheistic tax dollars going to religious institutions for ‘faith-based charities’ starting during the Bush years? Why should my tax money go to an institution the tenets of which are empirically untestable and the policies of which are demonstrably harmful to its adherents?

            If you don’t have a problem with my money going to faith-based stuff, then you should shut up about the gov’t paying for birth control.

            Except, of course, in the case of birth control etc, the money will actually be doing some demonstrable good.

            You’re just another religious moron spouting apologetics without facts….suck it up, buddy, the future is coming and there’s a lot less religiosity in it.

          • thinker

            Your money should NOT have gone to any of those charities or institutions. That is the whole point I am trying to make. A government should provide a few basic and essential services, nothing more. It should certainly not force one private party to give special treatment to another via its monopoly on violence.

            Now to your ad hominem attacks. I am not remotely religious, not a moron, and I have *many* facts at my disposal. None of this is of course relevant to the fact that the government should not interfere in private contractual arrangements, and you should be free to seek a better arrangement if you do not like your current one.

            I also have some bad news for you. In two years the country will be so angry with the economy and with Obama that they will usher in a Republican majority in the senate and a HUGE majority in the house. Four years from now they will extend both leads and will take the white house. They will then implement a ridiculous neocon agenda (that an honest observer would never be able to differentiate from what Obama is doing), and will induce a final fiscal/monetary collapse of the US by 2020. And the part you will not like (I am guessing), is that following a fiscal/monetary collapse people will flock to the church’s in droves, likely ushering in an entire generation of religious based conservatives. Oops.

          • Yes Catholic institutions are seeking exactly that. The law say employer provided health plans MUST offer prescription BC to women without cost to the insured. There was already an exception for the Catholic church (and any other church based on religious objection). But that wasn’t good enough. The church also wanted exceptions for its BUSINESSES such as hospitals. The answer was “no, but what we can do is with the agreement of the insurance companies, make it so you aren’t paying one penny for BC. The insurers will pay for that our of their side.” Not good enough. The church doesn’t want to just “not pay for” birth control for its female employees who would use the coverage, it wants to be able to DENY teh coverage to those women. THAT is not ok.

          • melzvox

            Bob…if Viagra is covered by insurance, then birth control should be too.

          • thinker

            Do you realize that every single insurance plan is different? That there is no one single “monolithic” thing called “insurance” provided to every single human being on the planet? If an employer wants to subscribe to an insurance plan that covers viagra and not birth control why would you ever care? If you don’t like it then choose to not work for them. If enough people think the same as you that employer goes out of business since they cannot retain employees. NOTHING “should” be “covered” by anything. Each group of people looking to become insured should choose what they want covered by the insurance pool based upon their own values and desires.

          • “there is no one single “monolithic” thing called “insurance” provided to every single human being on the planet” – Ah! But there should be. That’s the kind of thing I could really get behind. Oh, but how will we pay for it (I hear the wailing cries and gnashing of teeth). I suggest we already pay for it, only most people around the world pay the ultimate cost.

          • Because birth control is actually just a hormone regulator, used for a myriad of things other than to stop conception. (See ovarian cyst treatment, migraine headaches, and debilitating cramps).

          • Bob

            Yes, I’m sure that’s what the majority of people are using it for. And Viagra is actually just heart medication. You are going to have to better than that to go against the “separation of church and state” I am sure you espouse (as do I) in public schools. If religion can be kept out of the state, the state needs to be kept out of religion. Telling a religious institution they have to provide something that goes against their faith is as unconstitutional as it gets. And the constitution isn’t there just when it is convenient for you.

          • No one is telling the Catholic church that they have to provide an insurance plan to their nuns and priests for birth control. What they ARE saying is when the RCC owns a business, they follow the law of the secular land. Unless you would like to sit in every doctor’s office in the country while a woman begs you for hormone regulators so her ovarian cycts can shrink, please provide an alternate plan where women can get the meds they need to save their lives. Perhaps you could print up little ‘I am not a whore, and really need these meds’ cards for them?

          • free1thinker

            @Me – No I wouldn’t tell Jewish friends they have to serve ham but neither would I expect them to prevent others from serving or eating it. To each his/her own. And as for the kids in single parent homes in high crime areas, you seem to confuse cause and effect. If in fact there are are more kids in single parent households in high crime areas could it be because those are the only areas that are affordable? What does it say about us as a country that we relegate so many children to growing up in high crime areas simply because their parents earn a low income? A recent study shows that a 40 hour work week on minimum wage cannot afford the average two bedroom apt in the U.S. so whether mom was working 40 hours or mom stayed at home with the kid(s) while dad worked 40 hours it still wouldn’t be enough to have enough space in a decent, safe neighborhood.


          • tiredofyouall

            free1thinker, your analysis of the crime rate/single mother problem is rather ludicrous. A high crime rate is not a geographic phenomenon. It is a result of the people living in the area. This is NOT a racial argument. High crime is a result of low opportunities. Crime, especially violent, gang related crime, is generally a result of unemployed young men. (This does not address the Aurora shooting, or other suburban school shootings, those fall into a separate category.) A life of crime is generally not a first choice for anyone, it is dangerous, and is very unstable. Poor opportunities are a result of several factors, one being a poor economic climate. The second is a lack of education. Education in the inner cities is tragically poor. In Kansas City, the inner city school district is not even accredited. This is partly an institutional problem. The other side of the coin is partly what Mr. Romney alluded to, and failed to properly argue. Education is a value that children often take from the mother. This is partially due to the fact that generally (for good or ill, but still generally) children are raised primarily by their mother. Many of the single mothers in these high crime areas, are very, very young moms. A similar phenomenon exists in some small rural towns as well. When a girl gets pregnant at 14, she is still a child, and really can’t effectively raise a child of her own. In doing so, she generally forfeits much of her high school education, and almost always any higher education. An uneducated, very young, single mother, working full time, or not, is not as able to provide the parenting her children need (yes, children, many of these young women have multiple children from multiple fathers), and do not have an education, or value higher education in a way that imparts the value of an education to her children. I have many friends in the Teach for America program, who tell me that at all levels, the teachers spend more time doing basic parenting and trying to get ill-behaved children to pay attention, than they do actually teaching. As a result of this, and the fact that getting quality teachers to stay in these areas, these children don’t receive good educations. This when added to the fact that young men have no positive male role models in their lives, makes a life of crime more attractive, or even makes it appear to be their only option. Many of the sons turn to violent crime, and the daughters get pregnant at a young age. It is a cycle, and it is a cycle that cannot be broken without a return of familial values (Yes, old fashioned as that may sound, even the UN agrees that a family unit, two parents and their children, is the essential building block of society. This isn’t a hyper-conservative principle.), and a solid education, combined with economic opportunity. Mr. Romney did an incredibly poor job attempting to articulate this, but the fact is, there is a correlation between the very young, single parent household, and violent crime. But that violent crime doesn’t receive much press. No, no one cares when minority kids die in gang violence in the inner city. But when those suburban white kids go ape-shit and shoot a lot of other suburban kids, that is what gets press. And that is a whole different kind of gun violence.

          • free1thinker

            I think you must be confusing my argument with the one presented by @Me who indicated single mothers are to blame for high crime areas. I simply said they live there likely because they can’t afford any other place. I work in the ed sector so I’m very aware of the gaps and that there are those are vested in defunding education and ensuring those who aren’t born with a silver spoon in their mouths and can’t afford private school are relegated to a substandard education. I am also aware that there are those who are vested in ensuring that if you are middle class you will struggle with basic rights such as decent affordable housing, access to healthcare etc. These are the same people vested in lowering wages for workers while increasing salaries and payouts for CEOs who ship jobs overseas. And they dare to call the rest of us takers!

          • free1thinker

            And if the single mothers you refer to could live in a different neighborhood, one with low-crime and great educational standards, might you think their children could greatly benefit and thus be less likely to succumb to the high crime and/or be a party to it?

          • thinker

            It is unfortunately a racial issue. Politically incorrect as it may be.

          • mykelb

            STupd answer. Your analogy fails on its face. The real analogy is this: Contraception, like any other drug that is available by prescription. SHOULD BE AVAILABLE BY PRESCRIPTION and covered by health insurance. Your fucking religion has nothing to do with science and never will as science has proven over and over and over that your religion is nothing but lies, and bullshit.

          • FybrOptx

            Well, by your logic then all insurance companies that provide prescription coverage are at fault as well since ALL insurance companies providing prescription coverage have a list of items (regardless of whether or not they are available by prescription) they will NOT pay for. As for lies and BS, well, that is up to an individual’s personal faith; anyone that wants to defame that (or the believer) must be afraid of something that pertains to them.

          • thinker

            You do not understand how insurance works. It is not some monolithic institution that pays for whatever you want. People pay into a common pool in order to cover costs for rare but expensive events. 1.) Birth control does not fall into this category. 2.) You may choose to add birth control to this category, but each individual insurance pool will have to make this choice on its own, you have no right whatsoever to dictate to a private insurance pool what to cover and what not to. 3.) Your profanity and rant about science vs. religion is nonsensical and serves no purpose other than to demonstrate that you are as equally a fervent zealot as the people you attempt to demonize.

          • You really don’t want to go there.
            Employers can espouse whatever beliefs they wish…but it doesn’t give them the right to INFRINGE on their employees beliefs. Not that long ago, people posted signs that said “No Irish Need Apply”…because that was part of THEIR beliefs.

          • MsJoanne

            Let’s look at this:

            1. It is not Catholic institutions that are required to supply BC, it is insurance companies. The institutions themselves have been completely removed from the equation. People make up the workforce and people should not be forced to follow a doctrine unless they choose to. Options for all employees make it better for all.

            2. The pay within the Obama administration are set by law, not by Obama. You’re getting talking points from the likes of Glenn Beck and Fox News. Look it up on your own.

            5. Perhaps we could reduce single parenthood if birth control was more readily available? Abortion, too. Think about it.

          • Barb Schaarschmidt

            Would I tell my Jewish friends to serve ham? No. Unless they opened a ham dispensary. Then it would be pretty much expected that this is what they would serve. If you are a healthcare company you must dispense healthcare. If you are a pharmacy you must dispense medicine. And unless you are my doctor you do not get to pick and choose which treatments I get. If your religious belief prevents you from providing healthcare services, get out of the healthcare business.

            If you are simply talking about people providing insurance, then this is patently silly. What about an employer who believes that drugs that treat mental health are against his beliefs? Should he get to say that his employees can’t get prescribed antidepressants? Since when do employers get to decide which healthcare treatments are acceptable or not? That’s not religious freedom. Religious freedom is allowing that person to either take birth control, or take antidepressants, or whatever or not as they see fit.

          • Can we get past the idea that providing health insurance that covers contraception is the same as being forced to pay for someone’s birth control?

            I have a job, for which I am paid. As part of my total compensation package, I am paid a salary, in the form of direct deposits of actual dollars to my bank account, but I am also paid in the form of certain other benefits. When I accepted my job, I accepted it based on the full package: Dollars, paid vacation time/holidays, transit benefits, retirement account contributions, and yes, health insurance.

            My employer might be writing the check that is applied to my premium, but it is MY compensation, just as surely as my paycheck is. Those premiums are MY money. My employer has no greater moral right to decline to cover contraception than it has to tell me I may not spend my salary on it, or that I may not use my paid vacation time to go pick it up from the pharmacy.

          • Before the attack on women by the right catholic organization were already paying for bc. This was a way for them to once again put a wedge between the people of this fine nation.

          • The problem is that Catholic organizations that have taken over hospitals that receive PUBLIC funding are trying to tell people that work there that they won’t pay for BC. Sorry, as a taxpayer, that doesn’t work for me. I don’t pay for my Jewish friends’ ham, so if the Catholic Church agrees to IMMEDIATELY withdraw from all public funding for its entire operation, it can sure feel free to govern on their religious stuff, even if it is from the 13th century and that something like 95% of all Catholics admit to either using or have used BC.

          • cynic

            If the issue were allowing an employer who was a Jehovah’s Witness the “freedom” to refuse to cover blood transfusions in the health insurance plan provided as a benefit in lieu of increased salary (which is what it is), would we even be having this discussion? If you have a Jewish employers, he/she pays you a salary which allows you to buy ham. Should they be able to decide how to spend your salary, thus prohibiting you from eating bacon? Insurance coverage is another form of salary.

          • thinker

            You are incorrect. Insurance coverage is a form of compensation NOT of salary. If you do not like the compensation then leave your employer and find a better one, or attempt to negotiate for better compensation with your current one. Attempting to use the government to force your employer to compensate you in a way that you like implies that you are a believer that whoever carries the most force can do as he pleases. An attitude that will likely come back to haunt you one day.

          • transer

            I think what gets missed in a lot of these discussions is that the “birth control” pill is not used exclusively for birth control-because it’s an easy form of hormonal regulation for women, it’s used for a variety of other ailments as well. By not providing access to this medicine because of religious principles, the church is basically telling women their health is less important than their principles.

          • Krum

            Because they don’t only employ Catholic people. Besides, People are free to chose and to not have corporations or institutions choose for them.

          • brassyskts

            Ham is not a basic health care necessity. Birth control is.

          • If you mean Catholic businesses that serve the public, they should have to play by the same standards, rules and regulations as non-Catholic businesses. The Catholic church religious exemptions should apply ONLY to the church itself.

          • also to play devil’s advocate, should a Jehovah’s Witness employer be able to tell you you can’t have a blood transfusion? I don’t think so.

          • Michael Davis

            Your analogy is flawed in that they are not being asked to take it themselves. They are being asked to provide a medical coverage to people who do not object. Employers dont get to decide what is medically necessary or desireable, regardless of their faith. Would a company owned by Jehovah’s Witnesses be allowed to refuse coverage for surgeries that would require blood transfusions? But, but that infringes on their religious freedoms!!

          • Kimc

            the Catholic Church is not required to offer birth control. If the Catholic church has a secular business, then that business signs on with an insurance company. That insurance company is required to pay for BC for those that request it. It’s the insurance company that does it. If the Catholic church doesn’t like it, why do they have secular businesses? Aren’t churches supposed to be non-profit?

          • Eric Root

            As the judge said who adjudicated that employer benefit case, freedom of religion is a shield not a sword. Your religious freedom means no one can cross your boundary to make you use contraception; it is not religious freedom for you to cross somebody else’s boundary and keep them from using contraception. Once you cross the line between you and the other person, _their_ religious freedom cuts in and what your religion says becomes irrelevant. You wouldn’t make Jews eat ham because it infringes their religious freedom; the employer would not keep the employee from using contraception, because the employer would be infringing the employees freedom of religion; nothing concerning the employer’s freedom of religion is occurring. In other words, freedom of religion protects you from others doing something that you that you do not agree with; it is not a license for you to do something to them that they don’t agree with.

          • Michael Rhum

            About the BC thing: it’s a well-settled constitutional principle that religion does not exempt an individual or institution from obeying laws that were established for (non-religious) purposes that serve a compelling state interest. So, for example, where school districts require children to be vaccinated against common childhood diseases in order to attend, Christian Scientists cannot claim a religious exemption unless they are allowed to do so *by statute*. (In other words, they can be granted an exemption by the legislature, but the constitution does not by itself grant an exemption).

          • gimme a break

            f ham had medicinal powers of healing, showed preventative powers from contracting disease, and was included in other non-religious health plans I would hope my Jewish friends would be considerate of their gentile friends.

          • Chris

            Single mothers, single fathers, happily married couples, unhappily married couples, failing education, the war on drugs, easy access to guns, idiot kids, are just a few of those deserving of blame for gun violence

          • FaintCryofFreedom

            Your boneheaded distinction requires clarification: Catholic institutions are NOT supplying birth control. Healthcare insurance plans covering Catholics would then cover birth control & Catholics are saying it violates their religious beliefs to be forced to include BC coverage in their healthcare plans. Now does Obamacare make sense to you? Duh. Women don’t need some religious organization dictating to them on matters of family planning & reproduction. The reason why the ACA came into being was because of backwards religious beliefs -it removes them from this equation. And yes, I call them backwards because they insinuate religious beliefs into a discussion where they are NOT warranted & have no business being.

          • Janipurr

            The Catholic Institutions AREN’T supplying birth control! (In case you imagined a line of Nuns handing out packets of BC pills to all the employees.) The HEALTH INSURANCE companies that these institutions help pay for and which THE WOMEN THEMSELVES ALSO PAY FOR are paying for the BC. So BC is ALREADY paid for by these women through fees. Can we please stop saying “don’t make my religion pay for birth control”? And can we stop charging women more for insurance for having the preexisting condition called a vagina?

          • (4) It isn’t a zygote it is a HUMAN CHILD…..and at anyrate Obama promotes partial birth abortions which could never be classified as a zygote…..and finally when did anyone ever make the case that it is about CHOOSING the child/zygote over the Woman???….it is a false premise to begin with……more women die from botched abortions by far than risk their health in pregnancy….abortion isn’t a women’s health care issue, it is a child murder issue.

          • horrified by the repubs

            It’s not a human child. YET. In fact, in some times, there is nothing there, it is strictly preventative — to keep from having a fertilized egg implanted. You people would probably protest if the woman had used spermicide because horrors if the spermicide wasn’t used, those sperm may have produced a human child.

          • Whedon Activist

            You are officially my hero. I have seen people comment on some of those issues but no one has put it so succinctly

          • Gail

            Karen, your argument is surely not serious. When did the GOP ever say number 2 or 3? And a ‘zygote’ , otherwise known as a baby, is the weakest among us. So, yes, I will vote for the babies rights. And number 5 is nothing more than you hearing what you want to hear. I wish we could have intelligent discussions.

        • FaintCryofFreedom

          Did you not pay attention to what the GOP & TParty proposed as legislation, either in Congress (at the federal level) or in individual states’ legislatures…..??? How did you miss these things?

        • Katherine Walton

          What part of “controlling our fertility means controlling our lives” do you no understand?

    • A Little Voice From The Middle

      I am an independent, but I am having a hard time understanding why GOP has such bad image regarding women. Can you please be more specific? In what way did the GOP were insensitive to women’s issues? Are you referring to birth control?

      • The writer is perhaps referring to the plethora of prominent Republican candidates arguing silly things, offensive things about Rape: “Women’s bodies have a way of shutting that thing down” as an argument why even aborting a zygote created by rape should be illegal and unavailable to women who suffered rape. The shaming of a woman who argued that if all non-Catholic employers provide insurance that covers birth control, that was only fair that her Catholic University employer do the same for it’s public employees. For positing this argument, members of the Senate and Right Media openly called her a “slut”.

      • I forgot one: the GOP was also openly against the Lilly Ledbetter Law requiring equal pay for women working in the same jobs as their better paid male counter parts. Equal pay for equal work as GOP opposed.

        • Jack

          The Lilly Ledbetter Law was a sop to plaintiff’s attorneys, and will do zero or less than zero to provide women good jobs. Try again.

          • PissedOffAtIgnorance

            Stop being stupid.

          • Richard Gadsden

            The Lily Ledbetter Act is inadequate protection, but it’s ludicrous that a woman who is being paid less than a man cannot sue because she started work more than 180 days ago.

            The US needs a proper Equal Value law, which would grant all employees a right to equal pay for work of equal value, and require employers to operate audited single-status job evaluation schemes to demonstrate that they comply. That would remove fair pay from discrimination entirely – it’s not that men get paid more than women, it’s that citizens are treated unfairly by employers who don’t value their staff properly.

          • gfink2

            I don’t think these jerks (such as Jack, above) know ANYTHING about what the Lily Ledbetter act was supposed to do – all they know is what they were told it doesn’t do, so they could go around like good little minions with a stick up their behinds, condescending to those who dare talk about the bill at all. It was still a worthwhile bill even if it didn’t do what your talking point said it doesn’t do.

      • sharon a

        you’re kidding, right? Never heard Akin or mourdock? Never heard about forcing women to get an ultrasound before having an abortion?

      • free1thinker

        “A Little Voice..” where have you been for the past year? The GOP has shown insensitivity by saying women don’t get pregnant from “legitimate rape” as if all the women who became pregnant from rape were not legitimately raped. They have also introduced bills that would limit access to preventative healthcare such as annual gynecological exams and breast cancer screenings because they don’t like the fact that a major provider of these services for un- and under-insured and low income women also provides abortions. They fought Obamacare because it made employers cover birth control which, especially in the case of pills, have numerous uses other than birth control, including relief from dysmenorrhea, endometriosis, migraines, acne, PMS and can serve as a preventative measure against ovarian, colorectal and endometrial cancers. Further the GOP tried to pass a bill that would require any woman seeking an abortion to have an unnecessary and medically invasive procedure in order to be approved to have the abortion. I could go on and on but essentially the GOP has treated women as if they are incapable of making decisions regarding their health and their bodies and the GOP has talked a lot about small government while in actuality reserving a special place for government in-between a woman and her doctor.

      • Their stance on birth control (not even abortion, just birth control methods, medical ones) is one.

        But I will tackle the bugaboo of abortion.

        It’s a matter of body autonomy. Who has control of my body, myself? or someone or something else? Do I not have the mental capacity to make the choices I wish to live with?

        There are many conflicting viewpoints as to ‘when’ a child is it’s own person in the womb. Traditional Judaic view was ‘first breath’. Current Judaic view is 40 days after conception.(This was, in fact, the view of the Christian church up through the middle ages, with a blip in the late 16th century —Pope Sixtus V to learn more) So saying ‘traditional judeo christian’ is a total misnomer when you say ‘at conception’. So… take out the ‘judeo’ part.

        And ‘life begins at conception’ ? Lets look at the ‘traditional christian’ and see if it fits. We know that became the doctrine in the catholic faith – Catholic Canon was changed in 1917. It was first stated by a pope in 1869 (Pope Pius IX. Apostolicae Sedis changed it from the pervious ‘delayed ensoulment’ tradition. He also tried to ram through a total ‘papal infallibility’ clause through Vatican I and failed. He’s also the one who stated, in 1866 that slavery was a necessity, and that it was totally in keeping with natural and divine law. Things to think about.)

        So ‘tradition’ of less than 100 years in the Catholic church.

        Lets look at the Protestants. Most of the mainstream protestant churches Presbyterians, Methodists, Lutherans, United Church of Christ – all, in 1970 and later, supported open and free access to abortion. (to be sure, others, including most Baptists, joined the Catholic viewpoint, but I think the above sects are significant). Though, since that time, many have modified their stance to be less liberal.

        So… ‘traditional’ ?

        I will end with another thought. Lets go back to the whole ‘body autonomy’ issue.

        Do you agree to allow the government to force a someone to give their kidney to another, because they are a perfect match, and because ‘without this that other person will die’…

        Do you agree that ‘to save another’s life’ is enough of a reason to force, as in against their will, a person to go through a health changing if not damaging and perhaps life threatening medical procedure not of their own choosing… because that is necessary to save the other person’s life…

        Why do you believe that women shouldn’t have such simple body autonomy?

        • tired.

          Not going to get into this one too much here, but I can’t let a few statements go. First, the traditional Judaic view was that if you injure a pregnant woman, and it injures or kills the fetus, then the penalty was the same as murder. Exodus 21:22-23. So the same value was placed on the pregnant woman’s fetus as any other life. Second, the reason for the change in the “traditional” stance is actually science. Before a hundred years ago or so, pregnancy was kind of a mystical thing. That is why “quickening,” when the woman could first feel the child, was used to determine if it was alive. Anymore, with medical technology improving, we know that movement and heart beat begin much earlier, so the idea of when life begins has moved forward accordingly. Conception is used by most because drawing a line is very difficult, so they use the hunter in the woods argument in order to be on the safe side. Being on the safe side of not ending a human life is usually a good idea. Finally, using the kidney argument is ludicrous. No human being is going to be able to survive alone for several years after birth. Neglecting a child then is a crime. Claiming that you are not responsible for starting the life inside you, except in cases of rape, is ridiculous. You are no less responsible then if you had carried it to term. And the kidney argument? wow. No, abortion is not like deciding you don’t want to be a kidney donor and letting the person die of natural causes, or let someone else donate. No, it would be more like saying, I don’t want to be a kidney donor and shooting the person. Abortion does not permit a life to end, it terminates, if you prefer more PC language. I am not anti-women’s rights. I am just in favor of protecting human life. You will likely violently disagree with me. I don’t care. I just couldn’t let some of those statements fly for my own sake. What you think is your business. I couldn’t give a fuck less.

          • JackHuang

            Sorry, but it’s about personhood, not life.

            “Conception is used by most because drawing a line is very difficult, so they use the hunter in the woods argument in order to be on the safe side.”
            That doesn’t fly. Most conceptions result in early-term miscarriages that women don’t even notice, yet such events aren’t counted as manslaughter. Heck, even later-term miscarriages plausibly due to health risks incurred by the woman’s activities aren’t considered manslaughter/murder/criminal negligence. I rather doubt you’d like them to be considered as such.

            “Claiming that you are not responsible for starting the life inside you, except in cases of rape, is ridiculous.”
            Using your “after conception, let’s legally call it a human life” claim, your implied rape exception says, in no uncertain terms: “committing murder is okay by me as long as the victim is the product of rape.” Have fun with that one.

            Of course, if you’re NOT advocating a rape exception to this whole “all post-conception abortion is murder” gig, have fun trying to rally support for your “I want to force women, under threat of criminal prosecution, to carry rape babies to term.” policy platform.

          • Morte

            Naturally occurring miscarriage (as opposed to punching a woman in the stomach to cause one) is not a good example of manslaughter due to the fact that it is in and of itself a biologically naturally occurring event, as opposed to a voluntary action where something is actively acted upon by a person with varying degrees of intent.

            I don’t understand how distinguishing between life and personhood takes the conversation any further forward. Especially since things like animal, corporate, or other legal rights generally considered under the discussion of personhood, are in no way less contentious, than how we define “life” and all things imbued within the term.

            As for the rest – again, I don’t see how the ‘good luck’ statements helps move the conversation forward or carry us through to any resolutions around those subjects.

          • Fushi


            Noun:The crime of killing a human being without malice aforethought, or otherwise in circumstances not amounting to murder.

            Definition for first degree murder:

            Web definitions:Murder, as defined in common law countries, is the unlawful killing of another human being with “malice aforethought”, and…

            Technically natural abortions WOULD be considered manslaughter, while abortions would be first degree murder, if we accepted that personhood begins at conception.

          • horrified by the repubs

            a lot of women receive the morning after pill after a rape has taken place to prevent a pregnancy. anybody who wants to tell me that these women are now baby killers because they do not want a fertilized egg implanted in their womb really need to have their heads examined. Period. Done deal

          • free1thinker

            it’s interesting how this debate has grown so intense across religious factions in the U.S. when in the backyard of the Catholic Church HQ (Italy) nine in ten citizens nominally identify as Catholic, but codified in Italian law since 1981 is the right of its women to receive an abortion
            within 90 days of conception, without questions and free of charge. Women can also buy birth control and fill prescriptions for the morning-after pill at their local pharmacy, and by law, these pharmacies are required to acquiesce.

          • horrified by the repubs

            I didn’t know that. Thanks for sharing. In the US, there are a lot of pharmacists who will not even dispense the morning after pill because it is against their principles (I know because my daughter is a pharmacist and is horrified that any of her colleagues could refuse to fill a doctor’s prescription).

          • JackHuang

            “Naturally occurring miscarriage (as opposed to punching a woman in the stomach to cause one) is not a good example of manslaughter due to the fact that it is in and of itself a biologically naturally occurring event, as opposed to a voluntary action where something is actively acted upon by a person with varying degrees of intent.”

            Does this mean you’re okay with charging, say, a chain-smoking mother with involuntary manslaughter if the fetus dies of complications with well-established links to smoking? If not, your criticism is irrelevant.

            “I don’t understand how distinguishing between life and personhood takes the conversation any further forward.”

            “Life” is ambiguous to the point of meaninglessness. For example, a red blood cell counts as human “life,” as does a frozen embryo used for in vitro fertilization. Yet, neither are granted personhood, which is why we don’t condemn sucking a papercut as mass murder and label IVF clinics (which throw thousands of such embryos every year figuratively down the drain) as modern-day Auschwitzes. “Life” is, in this context, useful solely for the purpose of vapid emotional appeal and trite demonization. By the way, the latter example does double duty, clarifying “personhood” and simultaneously illustrating another example of the intellectually condescending absurdity of the so-called “pro-life” platform.

            “As for the rest – again, I don’t see how the ‘good luck’ statements helps move the conversation forward or carry us through to any resolutions around those subjects.”

            I’m not sure what “resolutions” you’re looking for, but I’d argue that “good luck” is a bit more generous that tired’s concluding sentences, and at least provides a thin invitation for rebuttal and threadbare encouragement for any sort of self-consistent action the original commenter most likely wasn’t considering in even the slightest way.

          • wendy

            First, the traditional Judaic view was that if you injure a pregnant woman, and it injures or kills the fetus, then the penalty was the same as murder.


            For thousands of years, everybody understood Exodus 21:22 to say that if you assault a pregnant woman in such a way as to cause miscarriage, but the woman is otherwise unharmed, financial compensation is called for. The penalty is far less than would apply to the death of a human being. In the mid-1990’s, Evangelicals changed their translation of that passage in order to bring the scripture more in line with their political beliefs. As if late 20th-century American Christians are suddenly more knowledgeable about the Torah than millennia of Hebrew-speaking Jewish scholars.

            Jews are overwhelmingly pro-choice, even the Orthodox. Even the rabbis. Jews are also overwhelmingly in favor of contraception (and opposed to abstinence); if a couple already has as many kids as they feel they can take care of properly (physically, emotionally or financially), or if they’re trying to space their kids a few years apart, even the most extreme traditionalist rabbi will advise that the wife go on the pill (only hormonal birth control is orthodox-approved, barrier methods are contrary to halachic law). If a pregnancy is damaging to a woman’s health, or to her ability to care for the children she already has, the rabbi will advise an abortion. When the Catholic bishops say “shame about the woman, but we have to protect the innocent child”, Jews see as pursuer who’s threatening an innocent woman and she’s the one most deserving of protection.

        • Morte

          Not as “cut and dry” as defining as “woman and the autonomy she has over -her- body, only”

          Kidney analogy is flawed, insomuch as the mother, except in the case of rape, actively participated in the creation the other human-being, who incidentally happens to reside within her womb. She has created another life as a direct result of her action. Also, as a side point, because the child is wholly dependent upon the mother for sustenance does not mean that the child IS the mother in this sense. Meaning: the child is not “the mother’s body” – it is an independent being.

          Therefore, the question is more accurately described as such: Does this afford the mother the right to take that life within her (“I brought you into this world, I can take you out”)? Can the mother kill her child? Put another way: under what circumstances is this ethically acceptable? For instance, “mercy killing” and/or “health/survivability of the mother” are common justifications. So what defines these? In the case of the “mercy killing”, because a mother is too young or poor to adequately care for the child, should the child be killed to prevent future suffering of both mother/child and prevent a drain the societal resources? The problem is that the definitions for “what justifiably constitutes too poor, young, or otherwise ‘equipped for parenthood'” are too subjective to properly define to justify the utter destruction of a life, as is who is qualified to define the definitions.

          Furthermore, is the mother more so justified to terminate her child inside the womb than outside? What affords her that right? Is it the fact that the child is underdeveloped / more venerable? How about if the child is fully developed outside the womb but mentally disabled and unable to defend its’ position? These are the types of ethical considerations that distinguish between “murder” (which we collectively find acceptable to legislate) and something else. That and the absence/presence of malicious intent. ..but what if mother is malicious in her intent (shudder to think but yes – there are people like that)? Assuming morals are a factor at all, is it somehow morally justifiable that she has a ‘free pass’ to maliciously take the life because the law is presently in her favor? Justice then becomes diminished.

          Foregoing middle-age thought and examining from a modern perspective: a) Assuming that a fetus is an independent being (and removing the mother from the discussion in this hypothetical example) – let’s say it was floating in space (and hypothetically able to survive the vacuum of space – think: 2001: A Space Odyssey <j/k) or it was discovered on Mars, how might we approach the discovery of that life? Would we split hairs that because it hasn't taken a breath, it's not a sentient or potentially sentient life-form and we are justified in destroying it? What about whether or not it has a heartbeat or some other definition of sentient life that we ascribe? Because it cannot communicate nor does it have the intellectual or physical capacity to defend itself – How does that lend to ethical validity of the termination? After all, a human child will likely have that defense ability in the future anyhow – it just doesn't in early life.

          So we legally consider children to be dependent until they reach 18 or 21 for various legal restrictions so if, like a fetus, they can't fully grasp the concepts of life and death, and the same financial / societal burdens that we've considered earlier (above) apply at the age of, say (arbitrarily), 3 yrs old – NOW can we strike them down? Why not / what's the difference? That they can walk, breath, talk, raise their hand in self-defense, or look you in the eye, does not afford them the intellectual capacity to understand self / mortality as a "legal adult" so why are they allowed to live and a underdeveloped child (in the womb) is not?

          We could go on to examine (over)population's impact on resources, eugenics, etc, and extrapolate but while I know I don't have all the answers, I take issue with folks defining the discussion as -purely- the mother's right to 'her body'. ..and my point is: if you acknowledge that there's independent life there at all, how we define "life" and legislation, particularly how we define acceptable circumstances / rights to end a life, are fairly 'hairy' and subjective.

          Being as I've observed the humans capacity for savagery, I like to err on the side of the preservation of life in legislation. So does making abortion illegal achieve that goal? That's another question, isn't it? We could discuss that at length, I suppose, but I would generalize heavily to ask: Does making murder illegal achieve its' goal?

          • Guest

            ADDENDUM: WOW! I don’t know what happened there but here is the rest of my post that this tool “chopped up”

            A Space Odessey <kidding) or it was discovered on Mars, how might we approach the discovery of that life? Would we split hairs that because it hasn't taken a breath, it's not a sentient or potentially sentient life-form and we are justified in destroying it? What about whether or not it has a heartbeat or some other definition of sentient life that we ascribe? Because it cannot communicate nor does it have the intellectual or physical capacity to defend itself – How does that lend to ethical validity of the termination? After all, a human child will likely have that defense ability in the future anyhow – it just doesn't in early life.

            So we legally consider children to be dependent until they reach 18 or 21 for various legal restrictions so if, like a fetus, they can't fully grasp the concepts of life and death, and the same financial / societal burdens that we've considered earlier (above) apply at the age of, say (arbitrarily), 3 yrs old – NOW can we strike them down? Why not / what's the difference? That they can walk, breath, talk, raise their hand in self-defense, or look you in the eye, does not afford them the intellectual capacity to understand self / mortality as a "legal adult" so why are they allowed to live and a underdeveloped child (in the womb) is not?

            We could go on to examine (over)population's impact on resources, eugenics, etc, and extrapolate but while I know I don't have all the answers, I take issue with folks defining the discussion as -purely- the mother's right to 'her body'. ..and my point is: if you acknowledge that there's independent life there at all, how we define "life" and legislation, particularly how we define acceptable circumstances / rights to end a life, are fairly 'hairy' and subjective.

            Being as I've observed the humans capacity for savagery, I like to err on the side of the preservation of life in legislation. So does making abortion illegal achieve that goal? That's another question, isn't it? We could discuss that at length, I suppose, but I would generalize heavily to ask: Does making murder illegal achieve its' goal?

        • Morte

          ADDENDUM: WOW! I don’t know what happened with this thing but it won’t let me delete the post .. here’s the rest though:

          A Space Odyssey ..just kidding) or it was discovered on Mars, how might we approach the discovery of that life? Would we split hairs that because it hasn’t taken a breath, it’s not a sentient or potentially sentient life-form and we are justified in destroying it? What about whether or not it has a heartbeat or some other definition of sentient life that we ascribe? Because it cannot communicate nor does it have the intellectual or physical capacity to defend itself – How does that lend to ethical validity of the termination? After all, a human child will likely have that defense ability in the future anyhow – it just doesn’t in early life.

          So we legally consider children to be dependent until they reach 18 or 21 for various legal restrictions so if, like a fetus, they can’t fully grasp the concepts of life and death, and the same financial / societal burdens that we’ve considered earlier (above) apply at the age of, say (arbitrarily), 3 yrs old – NOW can we strike them down? Why not / what’s the difference? That they can walk, breath, talk, raise their hand in self-defense, or look you in the eye, does not afford them the intellectual capacity to understand self / mortality as a “legal adult” so why are they allowed to live and a underdeveloped child (in the womb) is not?

          We could go on to examine (over)population’s impact on resources, eugenics, etc, and extrapolate but while I know I don’t have all the answers, I take issue with folks defining the discussion as -purely- the mother’s right to ‘her body’. ..and my point is: if you acknowledge that there’s independent life there at all, how we define “life” and legislation, particularly how we define acceptable circumstances / rights to end a life, are fairly ‘hairy’ and subjective.

          Being as I’ve observed the humans capacity for savagery, I like to err on the side of the preservation of life in legislation. So does making abortion illegal achieve that goal? That’s another question, isn’t it? We could discuss that at length, I suppose, but I would generalize heavily to ask: Does making murder illegal achieve its’ goal?

      • The whole talking about rape and rape babies could be seen as insensitive. Insensitive and flat out stupid for men to continue talking about it in the national discourse. Legitimate Rape? Rape pregnancies are gifts from God? Yeah…flat out stupid.

      • And lets not get into what Rush Limbaugh said about Sandra Fluke.

        • Craig Mack

          EXACTLY! You have every right to disagree with Ms. Fluke, but to speak about her in the terms that Limbaugh used is inexcusable. And the relative silence of the GOP after his gaffe was also telling…

      • You have got to be kidding! When Rush Limbaugh went on a three day bullying rant, repeatedly calling (as in over seventy times) Sandra Fluke a whore for having the nerve to express her opinion on access to birth control it was a wake up call to a lot of women. The GOP was not only in favor of reducing women’s access to birth control and medical attention, they also wanted women to JUST SHUT UP. GOP leaders had every chance to repudiate Rush’s behavior and lies, but they wimped out——Romney was the most pathetic of them all. “Those we’re not the words I would have chosen,” indeed!

      • See all of the above. You can read…… can’t you?

      • thinker

        It is primarily how they are portrayed by the media. Both the Republicans and the Democrats have some stupid members that say stupid things. Sadly it seems to be the stupid things said by the Republicans that fills up all of the air time. Also it has to do with peoples’ ignorance of the difference between healthcare and health insurance. And also their ignorance of the major factors driving these costs up.

    • JR

      I am curious. Just what do you think the GOP’s position on Women’s issues were?

  • I’m a descendant of a Signer and middle-aged white guy who loves my former Eritrean mail carrier and his Burmese replacement, both of whom came here as teen political refugees and worked hard and went to school and on a day they both have spoken about with pride, they raised their right hands and swore an oath and allegiance and became genuine Americans, every bit as much as you or I or my ancestor Robert Morris. By turning their backs on immigrants (regardless of their legality) the GOP turns its back on what makes the US of A great.

    Our ancestors wouldn’t recognize the place and in a couple of hundred years, neither would we. I like that idea.

    • Stannous, I love your story about your mail carriers, and I have some of my own. I am a professional musician on the side, and I played afro-cuban music primarily for years in Washington DC. I met several people who came to the United States without proper authorization. Generally, I don’t approve of that because a nation needs to define its borders for many reasons. But I’ve seen these people from Latin America do whatever it took to work their asses off, working extra jobs, just to pay shady immigration lawyers so they could STAY and become legal. And years later, I’m see pictures of my friends in their suits with little flags in front of the Courthouse, smiling from ear to ear because they are my countrymen now. Whose heart is not warmed by that.

      I like the idea of our assumptions dying with us. More than 200 years from now, I’ll kick it up even further. I hope that when my son William is 33, in thirty years, he and his friends think I am ridiculous and out of touch. Likely, I will be. I hope he and his contemporaries take over from us and lead based on their more vibrant and realistic view of the world. Lord knows in 2042 I’ll still be quoting Star Wars and playing Kurt Cobain songs on guitars, or whatever, totally out of touch. Time will move forward.

      And in this moment, time is moving on.

      • bsaunders

        I read a great piece by George Will where he argues not for accepting illegal immigration wholesale but for understanding it with more empathy as essentially an entrepreneurial act.

        • First smart thing I’ve ever heard from him and it has to be REALLY smart.

      • Jon Husband

        IMHO being smart and aware will ensure that you are never really ‘out of touch’. Basic human values remain more or less the same over time, as does their impact on how we live and how we ought to live. Just one man’s opinion ..

      • margieR

        My daughter is 23. Her friends voted Democratic and I suspect most of her age group did. They appreciate our Constitution and want this country to keep that document in effect. She told me that Obama would win,( even when the national polls said differently) because the twenty somethings were mostly on his side, and she was right.

    • Economy-is-National-Security

      Exactly where is this notion that the GOP turns its back on what makes the USA great? Proof? The GOP firmly believes in immigration. LEGAL immigration. All the GOP wants is secure borders BEFORE some huge amnesty bill is passed, thus encouraging MORE people to come illegally over the border, doubling down on the problem. Back in the 80’s, Reagan agreed to an Amnesty with the understanding that the borders would be secured. They never were. It was a lie and he was duped. California, Texas, Arizona are all paying the price with tremendous issues surrounding the flooding of their social services with people who jumped the line to get here. We are indeed a nation of immigrants, and God Bless every one of them. But this notion of wanting our laws to be observed, wanting those who come here to respect OUR laws, respect OUR society, respect OUR language can somehow make us “mean spirited” or “racist” really defies logic. How many other countries print their BALLOTS in several languages so people who have no clue can vote in their elections? How is someone who can’t speak our language supposed to understand the nuance of our politics and have an educated say? And why people expect us to turn ourselves inside out to accommodate illegal immigrants, is wrongheaded and completely unsustainable. Secure the borders, THEN and ONLY THEN create a pathway to citizenship for those who are here. Welcome to America. Anything else is simply another case of Lucy holding the football like in the 1980’s, and we’re right back here in 20 years. That’s not mean-spirited or turning our back on anything. It’s common sense.

      Ohhhh, could it be that this problem isn’t solved because the Democrat party doesn’t want it solved? Why would that be? Maybe because there is also the fact that over 70% of these immigrants end up supporting Democrat politicians because of their pandering to the ‘illiegal’ constituency? So if I can guarantee I have an influx of people who support my party, and all I have to do is sit on my hands to let it happen, why would I care about solving a problem? The answer is in the evidence: they don’t, because they do, and it will be a cold day in hell when we actually get a secure Southern border.

      Eff american politics. I’m so disheartened.

      One more thing. I’m a social liberal, but a fiscal conservative. Nowhere above in the article or comments has anyone commented on the single biggest national security issue confronting this nation: that is our out of control federal spending, the budget deficit and the 16 TRILLION dollar debt that is on it’s way to $24 TRILLION if spending continues at the same rate. We are rapidly approaching the point at which we will never be able to pay back the debt, at which time we’re screwed.

      How much longer will the world accommodate us printing our own money, screwing them by diluting what we owe them? How much longer will the world allow us to be the reserve currency? When they decide they’ve had enough, we can no longer print money to temporarily and artificially hold things together — we’re stuck with hyperinflation. Taken another way, how long can you screw your neighbors before they get fed up?

      I care about women. I care about the environment. I care about gays. All of them. But frankly, women, trees and gays are a hell of a lot less important to me than the sustainability of this society, and the inevitable COLLAPSE of our economy and government if real change is not invoked YESTERDAY. To me, you’re all quibbling about nothing. My kids (and YOUR kids) are going to inherit Greece, and you’re worrying about who pays for birth control. Unbelievable. I just don’t think most of you understand the magnitude of the problem, because if you did, you’d be treating it with the importance it deserves instead of quibbling about these *distant* secondary and tertiary issues. Does anyone realize just how fucking fucked we are? Does anyone care that Obama has not provided ANY leadership on this issue, and that his answer to every problem is to spend more money we don’t have????? What in his last four years gives you ANY indication he has a competent vision for how to handle the economic problems that face us? And don’t say that he had solutions but the GOP blocked him. The only bill he submitted was bipartisanly rejected because it was such a meaningless stinker. Truth is, he had control of the whole government for two years, and two thirds of it for the other two years, and chose instead to ram healthcare down our throats. I don’t think Governor Romney could solve the problem. It will take many elections of strong-willed, independent and principled leaders who truly love this country and seek to heal her. BUT, I strongly believe he and Ryan would have slowed it down so we could catch our breath, and for that reason, the MOST IMPORTANT reason, I voted for him. And for that reason, I think y’all are missing the boat.

      • Curious

        How exactly is the Romney/Ryan non-plan including tax cuts and increased defense spending going to slow down the problem?

      • Don’t vote with blind faith

        I, too, am a social liberal and fiscal conservative, but I fail to see the logic behind voting for a platform (GOP ) that has no definitive blue print. Particularly when that platform is uncompromising and in recent history has been so deleterious. We need more moderate conservatives who stand for what they believe in, but are not swayed by ill guided right extremists. As Eric/Louise pointed out, this year’s GOP campaign had focused severely on non-issues (which you also point out). But when asked for fiscal details, the GOP severely underwhelmed me with their “vote me in now, and I’ll tell you later” stance. No sound person votes for an incomplete proposal. Even when asked for a revised proposal, the GOP had nothing to add.

      • “Women, trees and gays are a hell of a lot less important to me than the sustainability of this society”

        Well, I fundamentally disagree. I’d much rather live in a country that is poor but respectful than a rich country who stands for bullying and bigotry. What’s the point of living in a super-rich country that hates its citizens? Those issues are the most important because they speak to who we are as people. But way to try to defend your misogyny and bigotry! Also, I hate to break it to you… the economy is irrelevant if we don’t have trees. There’s a whole oxygen thing you should probably Google.

        Hilarious to me that you included women in that, btw. Hate to break it to you, but we’re the majority and we’re not going away. And our tiny, pea-sized brains might one day squeak out a thought or two.

      • JackHuang

        So, let me see if I’ve got this straight…

        You start off with a grand rant about how Democrats’ core constituency is illegal immigrants, and that the GOP totally cares about all legal immigrants. Never mind the fact that the GOP routinely uses racist rhetoric in policy exhortations that have NOTHING TO DO WITH IMMIGRATION. But hey, this Democrat love-in for illegal immigration somehow makes you hate all of American politics (which the GOP is a big part of).

        Then, after a throwaway line about caring about (and I paraphrase) “women, trees, gays, blah blah blah, whatevs”, you claim that, ACTUALLY, f— the social issue that you just spent a couple of paragraphs firebreathing about, the economy is a much bigger problem. Yet, even though you supposedly consider the economy the ultimate problem with America today, you don’t bother to take the time to actually understand what the national debt means (No, it’s not a national security issue whose seriousness crudely scales proportional to dollar amount, and no, in case this is where your logic there came from, China doesn’t own the US.) and what actually incurs hyperinflation (A nation whose currency is still the world reserve currency is somehow totally on the brink of Reichmark-esque hyperinflation? Are you f—ing serious?). On top of this, you believe that an economic policy which is barely more complex than “let’s lower rich people’s taxes, loosen restrictions on Wall Street, and wood-chipper whatever gov’t social program I can name at the moment while I’m on stage right now” will, somehow, delay this alleged economic apocalypse to such an extent that anyone who: 1. cares about anything else, and/or 2. cares about this but disagrees with your “assessment,” is a monumental imbecile.

        Have I got that more or less correct?

        • horrified by the repubs

          yeah. If he is a social liberal, I will eat my hat.

      • horrified by the repubs

        I am a social liberal and a fiscal conservative as well. I hesitate to say as well, because you don’t seem to realize that Obama’s “spending” as you call it is not out of control. Read the facts.

      • horrified by the repubs

        Oh. and Obama did NOT have control of the whole government for two years as you put it … he had control for basically 60 days. That was it. Look it up.

  • Dana Carpender

    D00d, you an Alden descendant? I’m one, too — and a white,
    upper-middle-class, self-employed, property-and-investment-owning
    Democrat. Nice to be a very, very distant cousin.

    • Dude, we’re related! Can I borrow some money? Too soon?

      Thanks for reading.

      • Morri


  • The hilarious thing about the Republicans is that they keep saying that they need to “more effectively sell their message” to the new demographics of the country. Bullshit! They need to CHANGE their message because that’s what a majority of the country voted against. And most of those who voted FOR Republicans did so because they always vote Republican by rote. Obama’s version of Democratic policy is actually very conservative. I would like to see his second term much more progressive and Liberal!

    • That is the second stage of denial after “We Lost?. Stage 2 is “there’s nothing wrong with our policies, we just have to sell them better”. The reality that their policies might be a pile of bovine excrement is something that they are unwilling to examine as a possibility.

  • Wow. Not a single troll here. Wonderful. I am getting so weary of reading wonderful, soul bearing articles, only to have my buzz killed, by ridiculous point-missers.

    The one thing I think that needs addressing is the mystifying wonder of people actually subscribing to the GOP messaging. I have friends and loved ones who bought it hook line and sinker. It can’t be education, or gender, or class because I have college educated women friends from many different cities and income levels who actually think the GOP can fix the economy, and that is more important to them than any other issue. What could it be? Poisoned water?

    • We have our first troll now! Scroll down!

    • amethystlady2

      Harmony, I too have loved ones who seem to have closed their minds and ears, and hearts, to anything BUT the GOP…Having been raised in an almost fanatical Republican family, I learned after being AWAY from home….many miles and listening with my head and brain,that I didn’t follow that way of thinking at all, I am positive that today’s Republicans are NOT what my parents were…my parents were not hate-filled people…they were both college educated…and devout Catholic….but today’s GOP certainly is no longer Grand. I have voted for the Democrats since I think around the 80’s, and never have voted a straight ticket until THIS year. Reading Eric’s piece gave me the courage to say, I am appalled at the hate vented towards Barack Obama…who is a kind, gentle, man who was obviously taught love and kindness, if not by his mother, completely, then certainly by his grandmother….I feel the tears he shed in Iowa, and in Illinois, are the tears he has held back with all of the hateful words and actions that the right has slung at him since day one in office…I would HOPE they have learned that WE the American people, WANT President Obama to succeed, despite them! Great article, Eric.

    • James DoubleU

      For the older ones, it’s probably habit. For some, possibly fear? Or they hook on to one thing that is really irrelevant to the election but seems important to them. To me, the Republicans seem to be more about harping on things that aren’t connected to politics, or aren’t in any danger of changing no matter who is in power.

    • bsaunders

      The idea that the GOP will fix the economy seems one of the most misguided notions of all. In particular, as Eric mentioned, the problems with the individual health insurance market prevent people from starting small businesses, limit their ability to find talent for/work for new businesses, and have probably sent some small businesses over the cliff because the owner or a key worker got ill. That alone, to me, reflects a serious disconnect over how to get the economy going by “helping small business.”

    • Harmony, I don’t mean this to be in any way invidious – but I think some of us are born more fearful than others. There was some research lately showing some newborns possessed of a bigger ‘startle reflex’ than most. In later life, they tend toward the authoritarian side. In other words, ‘Born This Way,’ but not in the Lady GaGa sense.

    • MargieR

      They believe that the Republican Party can fix the economy, because they don’t know their recent history. (History since just before the Great Depression).

  • This is the best thing I have read about the current state of the Republican Party in quite some time. Very well said, sir.

  • Great great article. My wife is not politically savvy, she’s an OBGYN physician out in OFallon / St Charles. she’s like you, affluent, career orientated, kids, big suburban mcMansion, white picket fence. everything the GOP could want and then some. but she heard Akin talk about legitimate rape and federal student loans (which helped her attend at Drury and KCUMB to become what she is now) and thought screw this, he’s obviously insane and voted Obama and McCaskill in a straight party ticket.

    • WAIT – an OB/GYN thought Akin’s comments were enough to dishearten her about the entire party’s commitment to logic? Very curious.

      • The guy sits on the congressional science committee and doesn’t understand the basics of human reproductive biology. Plus, he’s a prick who’s been arrested 8 times for harassing women outside of Planned Parenthood clinics. When my girlfriend (now wife) and I were poor teenagers, we could not afford to go any other place than our local PP to be tested for STD before committing to each other (the responsible thing to do). Planned Parenthood is for health, and it’s for poor people, and it deserves almost none of the “meanness” these zealots heap upon it.

        Enjoyable essay!

        • A Little Voice From The Middle

          “Poor teenagers,”…why would teenagers have sex for goodness sake????

          • A Little Voice From The Middle

            “Planned Parenthood is for health, and it’s for poor people, and it deserves almost none of the “meanness” these zealots heap upon it.”
            Planned parenthood (the real planned parenthood) is what all responsible people need to do. There are lots of ways to go about it, not just through birth control. It is a sad thing that this country had almost made it a crime to be a virgin at age 18. Just saying.

          • You are aware that the Red States have the highest teen pregnancy rates in the country? You’re a troll, aren’t you?

          • wendy

            Are you of the mistaken belief that abortion, contraceptives, and Planned Parenthood are only of interest to the very young and single? Women in their 20’s, 30’s, and even 40’s are in need of such things, and many can’t afford private physicians. When you say “there are lots of ways to go about it, not just through birth control” I assume you’re talking about abstinence… which is a pretty disgusting thing to suggest for a 30-year-old married woman.

          • horrified by the repubs

            don’t you realize that you shouldn’t be having sex if you can’t afford to take care of every little egg that you may fertilize? Because you know, we shouldn’t infringe on the catholic church’s right to impose their religious freedom on everybody. snort.

          • A Little Voice From The Middle

            I guess I still want to believe that I can live in an ideal world where if we practice a little self- discipline and self- control we can do lots of things the natural way. My point is that, since it is a convenience for me to use BC, I do not mind paying for it and I do not need the government or other people to pay for it. I am not referring to BC being used for medical reasons, btw.

          • Paula

            I don’t think this country came anywhere close to making it a crime to be a virgin at 18, unless you live somewhere other than America. Crazymerica or something. Because laws against virginity aren’t a real thing.

          • howard mccain

            for the same reason anyone else would, but more so

          • *Meanwhile, on Planet Earth, teenagers are having sex*

          • JackHuang

            Seriously, people, why can’t teenagers see sex solely as the reproductive duty that the rest of us are sensible enough to see it as? Silly teenagers. Doubly silly if they decided to be poor, too.

          • *Meanwhile, on Planet Earth, teenagers are having sex*

      • horrified by the repubs

        I am sure that she was on the fence. But her husband obviously was not on the fence, and when she heard Akin talk and then the double down, it all clicked into place.

  • Eric,I’m not a republican or democrat and I’ve voted across partylines in the past until this year,when I swore I would not vote for another republican politician for a long time,because of the stalling that this congress has done to keep the economy from going forward and blaming the president and others for it.The day after the election,our local congressman,Kevin McCarthy (republican) wasted no time blaming the House of Reps for stalling and that he was eager to work with both parties to get things moving(pass some laws finally).He should of done this a year ago when the reps took over congress. No offense but most of the republicans I meet are very closed minded and will not sway or listen to reason,unable to compromise as though they were brainwashed.So,I was shocked when I read your essay.I had no idea that there are republicans who think like you do.I believe that the GOP will eventually get a backbone and change or break away from the Tea Party in the future,which is a shame because I had high hopes for the Tea Party,American Independents and others to take this country in a more positive direction,but they spout the same rhetoric as their constituants but with greater hate and ignorance than their predicessor.
    I have one last thing to say,if there are more republican politicians that think like you,I will vote for them,infact if there are,I won’t vote for another democrat.Thank you for enlightening me.

    • Thanks Richard – the two-party system is the real problem. We need to get back to listening to the person, not the platform.

    • KarenJ

      Richard Contreras, your local congressman Kevin McCarthy was one of those Republican House and Senate leaders who met with Frank Luntz and Newt Gingrich the night of Obama’s inauguration Jan. 20, 2009, and plotted to sabotage the US economy in order to undermine the Obama presidency and turn Americans against him. The hoped-for result would be the GOP taking back complete control in 2012.


      I can’t speak for you, but for me Kevin McCarthy and others of his ilk will have to do a lot of progressive bipartisan business in Congress before I’d trust them an iota.

  • Geno

    Beautiful! May I come and work for you, sir? Do you have any use for a middle-aged former radio announcer? (I could voice commercials for you, actually.)

    • I need somebody to provide live funk music for me as I strut down the street. Email is in the contact field above.

  • This. Is. Fucking. Brilliant. Thanks 🙂

  • a very interesting voice, we need more of these

  • Larry

    Eric..Let me start with the Economy : the day Obama took office the Dems controlled the House of Reps for 64 of the prior 78 years. 40 straight at one point. Democrat Pilots Dodd and Frank flew Fannie and Freddie into a mountain. Sending the World markets into free fall. Both organizations run by a list of ex- Clinton cronies. The Economy is in rubble and the middle class is under that rubble. Obama made it much worse. Both parties deserve blame, but for a moment break free from patting yourself on the back and open your eyes to those crazy inconvenient things called facts. The Wars. The Clinton’s, Gore, Pelosi, Kerry, Kennedy, Reid and hundreds of Democrat Congressional members all boasted the USA needed to go into Iraq and disarm Hussein using MILITARY FORCE if necessary. At the time, George Bush was Governor of Texas. Question- If Bill Clinton had taken Bin Laden out via the 3 golden opportunities he had, would there have been a 9-11 attack ? A need for ‘War’ ? All that education of yours- you’ll figure that one out methinks. The Election. Obama won for several reasons. First and foremost he represents the . To deny this is either hyper P.C. or completely politically ignorant. I have concluded you are both. People hopping southern border fences a few years ago are changing the outcome of Presidential Elections today. Would you consider ? If illegal aliens one day would Vote 90% Republican as they now do for the Democrat Party- in 6 months flat you would see electrified fences along the southern border thousands of miles long and 50 feet high. A satellite defense system armed with laser beams picking off any champion fence climbers…..trenches with crocodiles… and machine gun nests atop the fence every 50 yards armed by certified card carrying left wing loony tune Liberals. Each nest could be named after a different Main Stream Media personality. Tongue in cheek but not too far off. Obama also won re-election because the Liberal Media has ZERO curiosity in Democrat scandals. Fast and Furious is an Impeachable Offense. 300+ dead so far. Amer-Mexican Treaties broken. The media has no interest, knowing this baby goes all the way to the top of the Administration. Not a soul stubbed a toe in Watergate- and it took down a Presidency. If Obama were a Republican he would have faced a thousand microphones EVERY DAY the last 12 months up to the election. “No comment” or “Sorry- I declared Executive Privilege” would have been met by “Journalists” turning into a pack of hyenas, and rightfully so. Fast and Furious stories 24/7. The Media would have had endless Interviews with families of the victims. The Libya scandal. Not a peep out of the Media. Fantastic corruption and cover up. Being a staunch Republican lol – I bet you’re as outraged as I am. Science. Greetings from the 13th Century. Man made global warming is the greatest fraud perpetrated on the masses- ever. Utter nonsense. The entire population of the human race could fit in Rhode Island. So much for over-population. We are a mere speck on the Planet. Check all those fraudulent “Pro Global Warming” emails and put that education of yours to work. 20,000 years ago Manhattan was under a mile of ice. No F150’s or back yard barbeques back then. What melted the ice ? In Geological time- 20K years is the blink of an eye. “Hottest temperature since 1877.” What was going on in 1877 that made it so hot ? “Most snow since 1903.” Perhaps the Wright Bros caused all that snow back then. Man made global warming is a fraud. Gay Marriage. The Law says : Change the Law or obey it. The sign says 55 on the highway. Because I want it to say 75 never works when explaining to the State Trooper. If people DO NOT want to change the Law- maybe they have a damn good reason. In closing….the GOP lost the election because we have reached the tipping point of 50%…50% or more of people not paying Federal Income Tax and those receiving goodies from the will NEVER EVER vote for the other guy who wants to clean the mess up. Any threat to their gravy train coming to a halt is met with what we witnessed Tuesday night. Obama certainly got other voters also. The PC guilt ridden white Liberal vote ( that would be you Eric ), the young gullible student Vote- hoping for Free tuition and loans forgiven, etc….Need I even mention the Black vote ? Obama could eat puppies for breakfast on youtube and still get 95% of the decimated black family vote. With your education- you can figure out why. Obama also got the money laundering / Union Vote. To hell with Country- keep the Train rolling. The Democrat Party had made victim groups for 50 years and expand on them every day. A built in permanent, dependent electorate. Outrageous. With all that education you missed that ? Shame on your Professors. Let’s continue this when I am not so pressed for time…I could go on for hours making mince meat of your hissy fit…After you have your rant on how insensitive and Un- PC I am- please refute one word.

    • Hi Larry, thanks for writing in.

      I’m not trying to convince you of anything. I am pointing out that your narrative is only accessible to enough people for a minority voice in politics. That’s why you lost so badly Tuesday, and when you look at local state, and Senatorial elections in addition to the presidential, the Republicans got destroyed on a historic level.

      The point of the piece is not to refute your inane, self-serving, paranoid, ill-informed worldview – it is to indicate, ostensibly to a political strategist, that they have abandoned the demographic of educated white voters that are the key to winning elections. You clearly don’t know what this means, but somebody bundling PAC money should.

      But Larry! Don’t change a thing! You’re great the way you are! Many people are quite comfortable with you not winning elections. So keep it up!

      All the best.

      • MTishere

        wow. I don’t agree with you, Eric, and I don’t agree with a lot of people posting here. Sorry.

        • You don’t agree that this is my personal story about disliking your political party? So: You’re saying I DO like your party? I’m not married? That Todd Akin’s view on biology turns off my wife who is a doctor? I’m confused.

          OHHH – my conclusion makes you uncomfortable! Of course! That’s different. It should make you very uncomfortable. Because it means you will need to change your attitude or lose political power for good. I wouldn’t like it either!

          Thanks for writing in.

        • Cathwithac

          Me either MTishere. Eric’s thoughts are a joke. Check out Larry’s read. That is fact filled!

          • KarenJ

            To quote an overused acronym of the RWNJs, “LOL”.

            It’s pointless to attempt to refute any of Larry’s fact-free assertions or his friends who are chiming in “me either”. They apparently aren’t familiar with or do not believe the dozens of debunktions for their favorite issues, but we knew that — we’ve been reading their RW copy-and-pasting parroting for many months now.

            Larry, you and your sore loser friends are merely a source of amusement now, but one that needs to be watched carefully, because one of you just may decide to “act out” your inane (I might add the “s” later) worldview.

      • Larry

        Eric Garland, The Pro Abortion, Man Made Global Warming, Pro Union, Pro Illegal Immigration, Pro Gay Marriage, Anti- Business, Anti-Military, voted for Obama twice Republican ? Utter nonsense.

        • Linda

          Let me guess, Otto – you’re “prolife” — but don’t believe in exceptions for the woman’s life, yes?


      • Larry

        Eric lol ! You didnt refute one word. How could you ? 1 round knock out. Typical liberal. Once removed from your echo chamber and faced with opposing views you curl up in a ball and suck your thumb. One last thing- your patting yourself on the back is obnoxious. It’s probably the one thing everyone in here would agree on. Good grief man, it’s unseemly. As for losing elections….2010 was a colossal victory against Liberalism- yes ? Why ? Local elections. Hundreds of them went GOP. Be careful what you wish for. There is a HUGE financial Asteroid coming and it will be on Obama’s watch. the Statute Of Limitations has run out on “BUSH DID IT”……At least in January, when Obama is sworn in again- when he says “I inherited an economic nightmare from the prior 4 years” we can all agree with him. Eric the Republican bwhahahahahaa. God I hate spineless people.

        • typical, someone who points out how irrelevant and out of touch the Republicans have become and all the knuckle-draggers can do is accuse the messenger of being a liberal for not subscribing to their flat-earth, old testament, dead end ideology

        • Thanks for blundering into this discussion and proving the underlying truth of many of Eric’s points.

        • amethystlady2

          Knock Knock !! Hello, Larry? You need help, son….seriously…Eric answered you…but I understand…you didn’t get his answer because of your low intelligence…I feel sorry for you…sort of…but not enough to do anything but chuckle at your ignorance…47% my A$$ Try living on $113 a month from Social Security withOUT any handouts from any government agency…simply because I worked in the 2nd half of my working life, for various government entities…all run by ….TA DA …. elected Republicans! And thanks to your St. Ronald, my SS benefits are taken away….completely…and also my husbands, should he die before me…
          It might be wise for you to stop touting your party here…because no one here will listen to your rants…just as we laughed at the stupid comments on rape spewed from so many of your “Right Wing Conservatives”. TRAGIC!

        • Always a victory when they move on to the ad hominem – clearly you are on the right track Eric!

        • Laura

          Actually, Larry, you haven’t provided anything to refute. What you offered was a chaotic pile of unsupported claims. If you want to come back with a coherent argument based on evidence, perhaps some of the good people here would bother trying to have a discussion with you. But given the lack of order or substance in your first and second efforts, I won’t hold my breath.

        • HFC_Tom

          The point you miss, Larry, is that people *want* to vote Republican Party, but not if they’re going to have to align with “God, Guns & Greed” to do it.

          This country *needs* a strong opposition party to balance things out if we’re going to remain a two-party system. As a Republican (gasp!) I can’t tell you the number of times I’ve had people tell me I’m not “Republican Enough” when I call them on the mat over their bullsh*t.

          When the hard-line Neo-Cons took over the party and demanded if you weren’t with them you weren’t a real Republican it left historically progressive fiscal conservatives without a home. And now that Obama, who *shouldn’t* have been re-elected *won* it’s time for the GOP to do some honest soul-searching and move back towards the middle where *we* need them to be.

          IMHO “Americans” by a majority, want to be fiscal conservatives. We want to see less Government waste and bureaucracy which have stifled *true* Small Business creation. I know I could certainly use a lot less hurdles to jump in my own business.

          But telling us all we have to continue believing that the wealthy who have benefited from Reagan’s “trickle down” scam or Bush’s tax cuts will magically produce job creation because that’s really what Rich Folks want is a fairy tale with no happy ending.

          Why else do you think so many folks voted for Johnson & the Libertarians this time around?

        • Morri

          Oh, look – it’s Otto from a Fish Named Wanda.

    • Dawn

      Larry, I think you might find this helpful.


    • Mel

      Larry, I find it HIGHLY offensive that you assume that Obama gained the black vote merely on the color of his skin. Your remark insinuates that the black population is incapable of intelligently delving into issues that not only affect themselves as United States citizens, but also affect their nation as a whole. To suggest that American citizens vote according to race alone is insulting. And if that is truly the case, please explain that line of thought to the millions of people who were white that voted for Obama.

      • Larry

        I find it HIGHLY ridiculous that you can say with a straight face that Blacks are not voting for Obama because of skin color. Forget percentages- Blacks have been on the Democrat Plantation for decades voting 85% + for Dems…..but for Obama MILLIONS MORE came out of the woodwork for Obama. Blacks have been decimated by Obama policies. But they fist bumped on Tuesday for Da Bambster. Whites voting for Obama ? Of course. Union slugs….white moochers, college brats looking for free tuition or loan forgiveness, government workers, shall I go on ? now has over 50% of the electorate. Once every 4 years they get off the couch. Re-fuel the Gravy Train. Is this really NEWS to you bumpkins ? Those idiots in Chicago Tuesday night couldnt pass a 4th grade civics test….Probably voted with crayons.

        • You must be the troll. The sunlight must be really painful to your cave-eyes, huh? your comrades have probably saved a space for you back in the cave, hurry up and claim it before you get mistaken for a liberal who just wants a free seat in the cave! Everyone is just laughing at you now. 🙂

        • Nice use of the dog whistle “plantation ” there Larry. You are indeed the living personfication of Republican obnoxiousness.

        • free1thinker

          This argument is so ridiculous that I felt compelled to set you straight. On the national level, Democrats typically get around 90 percent of the
          black vote. Al Gore got 92% of the black vote in 2000; John Kerry
          got 88% in 2004. In 2008, Obama received 95% of the black vote and in 2012 he received 93%. This means his 2012 percentage of the black vote was essentially the same as Gore’s (1% more) AND that Obama lost a percentage of the black vote from 2008. Are you really whining and building a racially divisive argument over a 1% increase in the black vote? Do you think black voters voted for Gore and Kerry in such high numbers because they thought they were black as well? It doesn’t seem as if your thoughts are subject to logic, reason or facts. So, enjoy the fantasy world you have built for yourself. Good day!

        • Greybeard

          I find it HIGHLY ridiculous that you can say with a straight face that Whites are not voting for Romney because of skin color. Forget percentages- Whites have been on the Republican Plantation Porch for decades voting 85% + for GOPs…..but for Romney MILLIONS MORE came out of the woodwork for Romney. Whites would have been decimated by Romney policies. But they fist bumped on Tuesday for Da Mitten. Whites voting for Romney ? Of course. 1%ers….old white dudes, CEO types looking for free loans or tax exemptions, rednecks, shall I go on ?

        • By that logic, Herman Cain should have been the GOP candidate. He’s more black than Obama.

        • Pandora

          You can try to explain this to Larry, but you can’t understand it for him. He can’t get past his own skin color, so there’s little chance he could understand those who of us who are wayyyyyy past skin pigment as our primary means for determining our own, and others, value.

          Some primitives do manage to survive. Evolution will get them in the end. 😉

        • RandyB


          What is the purpose of the xml tags sprinkled throughout your posts? They look foolish. Are you attempting to teach yourself HTML in the hope of igniting a new career?

          Give it up, it will never work.

          Oh, you’re an idiot as well – actually, more of a lemming.


    • Larry. I have a one word concept for you: PARAGRAPHS.

      Thanks. I can’t even read that. The part I did notice was when you were talking about gay marriage, where you said ‘change the law or obey it.’ That’s exactly what we’re trying to do–what the PEOPLE are trying to do–but the GOP and their puppet masters are preventing it as much as possible.

      Then you have your wonderful comments about ‘science’ that I managed to decrypt from this wall. You clearly don’t understand that, while all the people in the world could indeed fit into a space the size of Rhode Island, we use up a LOT MORE LAND than we take up. Overpopulation isn’t about how many people we have, it’s about how many people we can feed without completely destroying the ecosystem in the process. We’re well on our way to making Earth an inhospitable planet within a few hundred years. Anyway, read some science instead of just regurgitating what you hear on talk radio and Faux News.

      Oh, and to close: As a Union member – fuck you.

      Ahem, sorry for the language, Eric.

      • Larry

        Ignorant peasant- the US could feed the entire planet many times over if it unleashed it’s productive capabilities to even 1970’s levels. Never mind the silly paragraphs- I was typing at 100 MPH and it was 5am. You being a UNION member mooch have never been up at 5am- it’s really early, trust me. Actually- I dont mind Unions. I was a Teamster for 6 years. My beef is ….especially Public Unions. THERE IS NO COLLECTIVE BARGAINING. That is the PROBLEM. When you are swindling the Tax Payer with your outrageous contracts and Pensions- THE TAX PAYER IS NOT INVOLVED IN THE DECISION. Get it ? The Union puts a muppet in Office and then a contract with their sock puppet and the Tax Payer is fleeced. Do you think FOR A SECOND the Tax Payer would vote itself into BANKRUPTCY if it sat in on the negotiations that THEY GET STUCK PAYING ? Can you grasp any of this or do you need paragraphs ? Jackass.

        • Sick of Ignorant Republicans

          Amazingly ignorant. People accuse unions of the most outrageous things, but, seem to forget that it takes two sides to negotiate an agreement. Oh wait, most managements don’t bother to hold up to their agreements, and ditch pensions, lock out their workers, or “outsource” until there is nothing remotely resembling a job which could provide even a modicum of a quality of life.

        • teacher

          clearly you have never in your life even met a teacher, so please let me enlighten you: we are nearly all up daily at 5am, if not earlier, and We. Are. Union.

          • in some states it’s illegal for teachers to unionize, which sucks. And yeah, every teacher I knew (when I was a teacher) was up at 5 am.

        • Larry, beginning a response with “ignorant peasant” is neither smart nor useful, Bluntly, it marks you out as a jerk.

        • oldnyker


          #1) YOUR PARTY LOST

          #2) eric is actually trying to do you a favor here. he’s trying to give the republicans a head’s up. think of it like this….. your coach’s making you watch the replay of the big game you just blew to show you what you did wrong. do you argue with the guy? you lost didn’t you? do wanna know what you did wrong and how to fix it or do you defend what didn’t work? have any clue what an idiot you look like when you continue to defend the LOSING position?

          #3) there’s one reason the the republicans lost. and you’re it. look in the mirror, son because you are the poster boy for everything that LOST your party the election. you’re such a prototype you belong in a specimen jar. but please…don’t let us stop you. throw as many temper tantrums as you want. it’s cute when 2 year olds do this.. not so much with grown men. but know this…being demeaning, condescending and arrogant besides not winning you friends..will not attract anything to you or your party. not women and not voters. and in this case not women voters.
          in fact if you were 1/10th as bright as you think you are you would absorb all of this…take it back to the republicans and convince them that to get anything accomplished they might consider changing their tactics. as my grandma and probably yours too used to say…you can attract more flies with honey than you can with vinegar. think “ronald reagan” your demi-god. didn’t like the guy and half of what’s wrong with the state of the economy today started under him ( i can hear your gasp from across the country) with the deregulation put into effect during his administration…but damn…he knew how to win friends and influence people.

          #4) or stay just as you are..don’t change one thought..one iota. cause i have a feeling that that’s what you and the republicans will do. and then come 2014 when there are more of the dreaded non-whites and women and god knows what else roaming around this country voting…you’ll be even less relevant come election time than you are now.

        • Morri

          Perhaps you fail to realize why Unions formed to begin with?

        • I’ve never been up at 5am? Do you think that all union jobs start at 8am? I regularly was up before 6am for months during training, and I have worked an average of 50-55 hours per week for the entire year. Am I a lazy union moocher?

          Admittedly, I will agree with you that public-sector unions are a somewhat difficult and broken mess. But in the private-sector, unions are very important. As someone who was once a Teamster, you should be able to understand that.

          As for your comment about food; yes, we could feed the entire planet. But we would totally destroy the natural ecosystem of many parts of this country if we did so. And we wouldn’t do it anyway because it wouldn’t be profitable enough.

    • Frankly I think you are living in the bubble of “partial truth conclusion” re most everything you say Larry. But let me ask you one question. Whether you believe that mankind is contributing to global warming or not would you disagree with cutting back on the things that are poisoning our air and water (things that those who believe think are contributing to global warming) just for the sake of a planet less toxic to the health of those living on it?

      • Larry

        We are wasting $ Billions on ‘Green’ energy failures. The Federal Govt. is expanding under the guise of this MMGW Fraud. AlGore has made $100+ Million laughing all the way to the Bank. His great science ? It gets hot in July and cold in January. No shit. Poisoning the Planet ? Countries in dire poverty pollute the planet. Lets teach them a little Capitalism versus dragging the US to 3rd world status.

        • Me

          Oh nonsense…”drill baby drill” – was that consrvative USA republicans or a dire poverty third world country?

          1. – don’t label me or anyone else. I can label you right back, which you wouldn’t like either. I’m an american, not a dem or a liberal. For the record, I agreed with much of what you wrote, but much of what Eric wrote too.

          2. But you – You’re blinded by hate and anger. Try supporting your country and your president for a change instead, regardless of party. YOU try changing laws you don’t like. Don’t be surprised if this doesn’t work out – as seen last election day.

          3. The people spoke in the elections. Next time may be different, time will tell…but for now, if you don’t like it, I’m sorry. Accept it, think on it, practice some tolerance and learn from it. this may require that you grow up, something it’s never too late to do for any of us to do…

        • Morri

          The only people dragging the US to “3rd world status” are your favorite folks: the job-offshoring, company-busting, tax-evading privateering, tax-dollar-sucking billionaire corporations. Oh yeah – and those regressive, 13th-century American Taliban types.

    • gregoryth

      Regarding the “Party of Free Shit”…

      “The statistical reality is that the red-staters are, on average, less prone to pay income taxes, more prone
      to receive subsidies from the federal government, less physically fit, less responsible in their sexual behaviour, more prone to inflict harm on themselves and on others through smoking, drunk driving and misuse of firearms, and more prone to freeride on the healthcare system, compared to blue-staters.”


      • Morri

        ^ Hard cheese & undeniablly the truth (also the most porn consumption – those Moral Leaders.). So I guess what they are really doing is ranting at all of the rest of us, thinking we are like them or worse. We’re not. Go home and cleanup your own yard first. Or secede. Or move. Please.

    • Cathwithac

      Kudos Larry. My thoughts exactly!!!! Sounds like Eric didn’t even vote which gives him no reason to complain about anything.

    • Marianne PhD

      Thank you Eric for such an insightful post. As a liberal, democratic woman, I too would prefer to see us return to a functional two-party system where the parties work together to solve the problems of the country rather than work against each other to further their own party’s control.

      Larry, Your long hissy fit just supports what Eric was writing about – with your being out of touch with reality.

      As a scientist, I would like to address one aspect of your tirade. There is a world-wide scientific consensus on Climate change. Do you really think that it is possible for hundreds of independent researchers around the world across multiple decades to all decide to work together to make it look like the climate is changing? Perhaps if you read some of the actual research on global climate trends, weather models, and how the global climate shifts into and out of ice ages, then you would understand how obvious it is to the scientists that we are indeed affecting the natural climate cycles.

      I am also particularly offended my the ignorant remark about “The Party of Free Shit”. For all of the decades that I have been working, I have always paid my taxes. When I recently became unemployed, I was able to use the benefits that I Paid For to cover my basic needs while searching for a new job. I have had a difficult time finding a new job since because I have an advanced degreee and have been written off as “overqualified” for most of the hundreds of jobs for which I have applied. I have not just sat around during my time of unemployment bemoaning my state. In addition to searching and applying to jobs, I have used my time to take college courses to add to my job skills as well as spend many hours volunteering for my church and other organizations because I thrive on helping others. Instead of waiting for the economy to pick up so that companies will once again start hiring people above entry-level positions in my field, I have used my computer skills to pick up enough contract work to get by, so that I do not need to claim the remaining unemployment benefits for which I have been approved. It has been difficult getting by on such a smaller income than previously, but my parents taught me well how to use my money wisely and to know that I still have it better than so many others.

      The way I see it, it is the recent incarnation of the Republican party that is all about getting free stuff, such as tax loopholes and subsidies for old-fashioned energy companies that want the right to polute our world without someone looking over their shoulder to make them take responsibility for their actions. If people would do the responsible thing, then there would be no need for regulations. They are only created when individuals and corporations do not do the responsible thing on their own.

    • That Bitch Irene

      LARRY I WAS CALLING YOU! (PS, great read, Eric. Very well written, and very straight to the point, Agree with everything.)

    • This is priceless! How’s this “double down” strategy workin’ so far, Larry? If you want to get a Republican into the White House, you will have to put away your tin foil hat. At least TRY. These accusations didn’t work before, why should they work now that the election is over? These insults on our intelligence do not engender respect, in fact, create protest votes, as my business partner admitted to. A dear and very disappointed friend ominously warned me yesterday that “‘That man in the White House’ isn’t who we think he is, we we will find out soon.” When? Just ‘soon’, he said. Again with the repeating things – heard that ‘stuff’ four-five years ago, and still we haven’t arrived at ‘soon’. I await the truth. Really I do. I am anxiously hoping for a Republican candidate that will take my concerns as an educated female business owner seriously, not patronize me, call me ugly names (how soon we forget ‘slut’ and ‘victim’) and at least give me something to compare – 2016 is not that far away, and time’s a-wasting. With friends like Larry here, Republicans don’t need enemies. It will take a long time to get over these insults.

    • JMB

      Good idea, Larry – double-down on the crazy! THAT will certainly draw voters back into what has become the Republican pup-tent.

    • Richard Gadsden

      Tell you what, rewrite that in proper paragraphs and sentences instead of a wall of text, and I’ll read it.

  • This is the best opinion of this election I have read, and I have read quite a few from both sides of the “aisle”. Bravo!

  • Christina

    Brilliant…incredibly spot on! Now if only the right people would read it and take it to heart! Thank you!

  • P. Marcus

    Outstanding article Mr. Garland.

  • Bravo! Especially bravo for not begging off “they’re all crooks” and so abrogating any responsibility to think. To respond. To have an opinion. As we might say “Onya!”

    And thank god I didn’t come straight after the screed comment…

  • Forest

    While I agree with most of the ideas/sentiments in your essay, it fails to address one inexplicable element- why did the House stay overwhelmingly in Republican hands? It seems to me that that will encourage the Tea Party wack jobs to do more of the same. Why would the Republican Party listen if they still have that kind of success in Congress?

    • Bill D

      Gerrymandering in 2011 after the Republicans picked up a lot of state legislatures in 2010. More votes were actually cast for Democrats than Republicans in the 2012 House races.

  • Cole

    Garland 2016

  • This right here is genius.

  • Heidi

    Holy Shit! I love you! All of your reasons are why I switched parties about 8 years ago to become a Democrat. You’re fucking awesome!

  • Lisa Harris

    I’ve always been puzzled by campaigns, political operatives and candidates that say there’s something wrong with the voters when their campaign isn’t going or didn’t go well. I can understand them thinking it to make themselves feel better but you would think they would have better judgement than to make public statements about it. When I’m one of the voters that didn’t vote their way their disrespect hardens my opposition to them.

  • Karen Molenaar Terrell
  • AllenCA

    Wow! Eloquent and cutting to the bone! I couldn’t agree more! Though I’m a democrat, I’ve not always been. I am an upper-middle class, educated white male who comes from a dirt poor family; I have worked and paid taxes since I was 13. But I just cannot find it within myself to shut my brain off and become a replublican.

  • Bravo. Brilliant. Shared. With everybody I know.

  • I agree with everything but the boomer hate. The romantic “nuclear family,” for which there is so much nostalgia, actually began to disintegrate during the 1960s. Watch a Mad Men episode. Like a lot of boomers, I grew up in a “broken” home–one that was actually a lot healthier when broken than whole, actually. The boomers I grew up with on the west coast were more likely to be tolerant, creative, self-sufficient, and MUCH less wealthy than their parents–by the time Prop 13 passed when we were in our 20s, who could afford to buy a house? We were scraping by, not worrying our investments. Most of my cohort can’t afford to retire, or are struggling to find new employment now that they have been “downsized” out of the careers they devoted their lives to. One economic size does not fit all, sir. There were close to 80 million of us, and just as many stories. (And I haven’t even begun to address the social turmoil that formed our consciousness, or the impact of the draft and the Viet Nam war.) Romney and his ilk are outliers. American values have changed significantly since the Reagan era, but no one in my cohort supported him. . .

    • Please, it’s not Boomer “hate,” it’s Boomer description. I am married, so I know marriage is really freakin’ tough. But the Boomers inaugurated a disintegration of the institution in the statistical number of marriages ended in divorce – for good or for ill – that pre-dates the drive for gay marriage. Thus, it’s just that I don’t feel that older voters are justified in sermonizing on marriage. There is no hate on my part, though.

      • Robert

        I think that a significant enough portion of the divorces that occurred were a resultant of the law changing to make it easier to divorce, allowing many people who were far too lazy to fix their marital problems to simply drop it all and run. It’s obvious that many heterosexual couples still think this way, considering that divorce rates are still ridiculously high.

        • bsaunders

          I agree that lax divorce laws make it easier for people to be lazy about fixing their marriages. However, the counterargument (about the baby boomers in particular) is that in the past there was too much pressure to get married. A lot of those divorcing boomers got married too young, or would not have married at all had they come of age 20 years later.

        • Morri

          I disagree. I think the availability let people who were desperately unhappy to finally escape what had previously been a demanded role for them. Others wanted something other than Leave It To Beaver for themselves. It’s never been “easy” for a woman to divorce, and wasn’t then, either. Statistically, she hits poverty or near-poverty levels while the hubbies incomes increases by 40-70% – and remember, in the 50’s there was no welfare or assistance; and plenty of deadbeat dads, then, too. Lots of women stayed in situations that were not what they really wanted.

          There’s a lot more at work than just individuals when discussing trends.

        • Richard Gadsden

          Need to tighten up marriage laws. Make people live together for three years first, and then the ones who aren’t really committed will back out. Divorce rate would drop like a stone.

          • It should be harder to get married and easier to get divorced. If you want to put “sanctity” in it, make it so it’s a little harder to get than going through a drive-thru in Vegas to get married by Elvis.

      • Morri

        One silent reason for Boomer dysfunction is the Catholic Church and their theft of babies. If you became pregnant out of wedlock in the 50’s (and tons of girls did), chances are quite good that the Church (and parents) would have shamed you into a unwed mothers home, and then taken your baby from your unwilling arms, profiting mightily from it. This happened to thousands and thousands of women, many who suffered for years, decades and sometime their whole lives afterwards, leaving trails of dysfunctional relationships/marriages, etc. You should hear some of the accounts of the psych torture tht went on in these homes. Ugh.

  • Fellow Educated White Man

    So very on-point. Our health care system has been rated below Cuba’s. Come on, Republican!! (Said like Chris Carter’s “Come on, Man!”). And to deny climate change for the sake of not restricting a business from doing anything that it damn well chooses — even destroy the Earth. Come on, Republican!! Do you really believe the American public is that naive or stupid. That is why they do not want the poor to go to college. Every time another one becomes more educated, they see the fallacy (we reduce deficits, there is no global warming, etc.) and hypocrisy (divorce, extra-marital affairs, etc.) of the Republican Party platform. The Republican Party is a party by rich people for rich people. It is run by the Koch brothers (father played with strippers), Donald Trump (divorced), and others. They set the agenda. They set the platform. One changing demographic you left out is that the American public is becoming more educated. As that occurs, more folks see the fallacy and hypocrisy of the Republican platform.

  • Brilliant! Brilliant! Brilliant! Thank you, Eric.

  • Aksel

    Three of my ancestors fought in the American revolution, one answering the call to Lexington in 1775. I am so white, I sunburn easily and worry more about getting melanoma than any other possible affliction. My parents were Republicans, and whileI was still in high school, I campaigned for Goldwater (yes, I am baby boomer), primarily because Goldwater came out and stated exactly where he stood on the major issues. I had hoped that would set a precedent, but the usual BS rhetoric prevailed. My high school had no minorities. My position has evolved since then, as I have become more exposed to the world and “other” people’s cultures and points of view.

    I will second all of Eric’s points. I suspect most of the far right’s stance is based on fear of the unknown, and, based on their anti-intillectual, anti-science, anti-education attitudes, most of the world will continue to be unknowable to them, while the rest of the world passes them by. Sad in a way.

  • Dave

    In a word, this is brilliant in every way. Brilliant points said in a brilliant way. In a way that I should hope “they” understand. Then again, logic doesn’t seem to land well with the GOP. By the way, that is my registered party, although I am fiercely independent at this time and vote for the person that makes the most sense to me. Imagine that!

  • I’m with you, brother!

  • tcfuller

    Interesting read. As a Libertarian, I agree with some…disagree with some. See? I’m reasonable!

    One point…after reading this, I went and read a little about you on your “About” tab. For someone who says that something he will NOT do on his blog is “Pretend he knows the answer,” you sure spent a lot of time telling Republicans “the answer.”

    …and I didn’t see any typos!

    • “you sure spent a lot of time telling Republicans “the answer.”

      Ha! Busted.

      I didn’t say I wasn’t a hypocrite, I just said I was white.

      Thanks for the reasonable dialogue.

  • azlefty


  • molly

    Eric – thank you for articulating what i could not. you hit every point dead on for me and i really appreciate it. i have been struggling to find “myself” fitting in during this election and i simply couldn’t. i see no other choice going forward than to abandon ship. i tweeted and shared and will do so again because i’m tired of being embarrassed by these cavemen.

  • EXCELLENT Eric…thanks for posting this and I HOPE it goes viral throughout the world! I’m sharing it everywhere.

  • Louise

    Hi Eric

    Absolutely loved this piece.

    I am an English (white) woman married to an American man (white) who has a good job – we would consider ourselves middle class (although Mr. Romney and his household income of $250,000 / annum would not). Both of us have college degrees, mine manufacturing engineering, his aerospace engineering.

    We live in a RED white county of a Swing State – Florida. I found it hard walking the dog without tripping over a Romney Ryan sign each day.

    Registered independent my husband is not a ‘vote’ down the party lines type of man. He does his homework and has been disappointed in the last two elections where two moderate Republicans have been led down the far right path with their choice of running mates effectively pandering to the right of the party.

    I am a green card holder, unable to vote, however in England I would have always have voted Conservative (GOP) as my family owns businesses and property and the tax burden is substantially less.

    There are a few fundamental differences of course.

    1 UK politics is devoid of religious commentary. State and Church is separated irrespective of the religious beliefs of leaders or potential leaders. In consequence abortion, Gay rights etc are not issues that are even mentioned at election time.

    2. Reality of 21st Century Government: The Conservatives have also learnt that they needed to come more to the middle .. gone are the days of Thatcher politics that I grew up with… it’s a pretty liberal party in all respects
    now. Even the Labour party (Democrats) are far more centrist now). I don’t believe an educated person really wants extremes for their country whichever way you fall politically.

    3. We have a 3 main party, electoral vote (MPs are voted for – seats won determines government) However independents and smaller parties can and do win seats and then, if the numbers are close, you need to work together to secure their votes on issues (The past election was a hung parliament with Conservative having more MP’s but not enough to control Government.. they had to align with the centrist Liberal party to be able to make Government work. – working together…wow foreign concept I know!)

    4. With women voters higher in numbers than men, it was inconceivable to me that when we have the totally crass comments from Atkin and the like that a Presidential nominee would not stand up and say ‘ These are not my views and I do not condone them ..Silence is not golden in this case. Numbers show lots of ‘Conservative’ women turned around and voted against..And guess what they weren’t in that 47%.

    5. Political ads are limited to 1-2 / party per week in the UK. Imagine that!.The announcer says ‘ Here is a party political broadcast by the…… party 5 minutes later it’s done. They normally follow the 6 o’clock news in the evening or before the 9 o’clock news at night on the BBC.

    Ah yes also important to mentioned the BBC News.. In general it reports news and does not lean either way. It is government funded – we all pay a licence fee for our advertisement free channel but this doesn’t influence their reporting. Sky News (Rupert Murdoch who owns Fox of course) has no political agenda either.. Our printed press normally come out and picks the candidate they want to stand behind, but I can choose which newspaper to buy.

    By the way did you know that the rest of the world is breathing a sigh of relief.. ? Romney put his foot in his international mouth far too many times. My Father (voted Conservative all his life.. I think he secretly worshipped Margaret Thatcher) said to me last Monday.. Lets hope Obama holds..He was not in the
    minority in the Uk.

    I found it laughable when I heard people saying that they would leave for Australia if the Dems secured 4 more years?

    I work in Australia – liberal , no religion in politics, struggling manufacturing if not related to gas & oil industry.. selling their farmland to the Chinese, national healthcare, high taxation, you sell your $150,000 home in Alabama and enjoy the small 1 bedroom apartment you could afford in any of their major cities and their 100 km radius and oh, did I mention the reduced shop opening hours, crap internet and that you’ll have to have enough points to qualify for immigration… you do have enough points don’t you?

    Funding of campaigning in the UK is different too. This is through party membership subs, through donations; and for opposition members the third is through state funding (though only for administrative costs).

    Donations worth over £5,000 or more to national parties must be declared, as must donations worth £1,000 or more to local associations. Imagine that.. no Super Pacs ! IMHO $1/2 Billion dollars could have been better spent elsewhere, whichever side it was spent on.

    MP candidates still walk the streets and knock on doors ! Crazy I know (!) meeting the people in the flesh.

    The UK population is approx 62 million, a fifth of the USA… but we could be worlds apart in the political process.

    Anyone, i find little to disagree with in your piece. Your troll forgets to mention that Reagan started the downward debt spiral when he raided Social Security… conveniently I find Republicans do not like to talk about this.

    for posting!

    • Excellent! Thank you for your rational and balanced insight!

    • I love the commentary about Australia – the sudden threats to emigrate are very funny to me. I hear a lot of people threatening to move to Canada when they couldn’t name three of the provinces with a gun to their head.

      And when Thatcherites think the American right has gone off the rails…wow, we’re somewhere special.

      • And as a Canadian we don’t want them here either and they can take Harper the dictator with them when they find a patch of land that will take them!

        My family descendants may not have come on the Mayflower but they weren’t far behind them and rolled into Connecticut and NY state respectively and were in the US a few generations before coming to Canada. I’m a single self employed graphic designer who is also asthmatic. I used to dream of moving to the US then when I grew up knew I never could because of health care.

        Dad was a Conservative and Mom Liberal/NDP (we also have that 3 party thing here) and let me tell you growing up there were lots of debates on policy rolling around our house. No matter how you voted come election day, any election, you got off your ass and got out there to make your mark.

        OK I said that to say this. For the first time in my 52 years I got into a fight with an American friend on politics on election day. He mostly agreed with Obama and definitely didn’t support the Romney party line on the crazy point but he wouldn’t get off his ass to go vote. I begged and pleaded very passionately with him. Maybe because I’ve been raped and it wasn’t God’s will I’m pretty certain.

        Thankfully Obama did win, and human rights have not gone into the shitter, and I’m pretty much talking to my friend again but he sure lots a boat load of my respect.

    • Dana

      On the bright side, Australia also offers its lower-tier workers far higher wages than those in similar service jobs (making up an ever expanding fraction of the economy in the post-local-manufacturing era) in the US, subsidizes child care, has plenty of $10 meals at pubs for the budget-conscious, offers endless unemployment benefits that only small fraction of the population ever use because it’s that much of a better deal to work instead (see point 1 about wages – shopclerks making nearly $20/hr are not unusual), and the place has a bad-a$$ PM who publicly took on the spectre of unconscious bias in the form of misogyny on the part of some of her fellow public servants. (Not sure why any of the above would appeal to a Republican, though.)

      It’s a topsy turvy land where trade-school trained boilermakers and diesel mechanics far out-earn college educated white collar people in many parts of the country due to the mining boom, creating a uniquely Australian version of a yuppie, known as a “cashed up bogan” (think roughly: person whose tastes run to General Lee cars, tattoos, roll-your-own tobacco products, fast watercraft, expensive pickup trucks, any liquor you can mix with Coca-cola, t-shirts advertising all of the above, and so on…. with the ability to put down 50% when buying a house.)

      Oh, and once you get used to the trading hours in Australia, it actually seems STRANGE and wasteful to go back to America and find shops open until 9pm at night every night — what do you absolutely NEED to buy at Aeropostale on a Monday night that couldn’t wait for Thursday? (Oh, that’s right, shopclerks are paid so low in the US that it doesn’t take much in the way of sales to pay for opening the shop even during a very low-traffic time.)

      And as far as immigration goes, friends tell me that no matter how difficult it is to get into Australia (it is no picnic), it’s still far, far more difficult to get into the US.

      • Louise

        Spot on completely Dana.. I love the Bogan word.. like gypo in England ..although have not found a $10 dinner in anywhere I’d want to eat the last 7 times I’ve been in the past two years.

        As for the wages… yes they are paid more, but to compensate for the fact that everything is SO expensive. The $ to Aus $ is the same at present.. yet everything is twice as expensive and housing California and New York prices for 75km out of Melbourne… I cringe every time I get my restaurant bill, and am looked at strangely when I tip 20%.. my Australian friends told me to stop tipping as the waitresses were getting paid enough.(!) but I can’t bring myself not to.

        I have clients in Perth who can’t keep people employed in their manufacturing site at $100,000 / year…they keep disappearing to the mine areas to work in unskilled jobs to earn twice as much for 6 months of the year…It’s completely skewing all the prices of everything around Perth.

        The trading hours .. well I should have been more specific… I wanted a grocery item and the IGA was closed at 5.30… they’d be a riot here! but I know it’s not like that everywhere.

        And I don’t think Ms Gillard would appeal to any Republicans…she’s female for a start.. and certain Republican female commentators here think women need the vote removing from them as they all vote Democrat… tsk tsk.. a female leader…heavens what next!!!!

    • cicatricella

      are you joking? The Conservatives are selling off the Forests to the highest bidder, gutting the NHS and shutting all the Libraries. Amongst other things. Cameron is killing the country.

    • One of the best things about politics in Canada is that election campaigns are short. 36 days minimum and the longest was 74 days back in the 1920s. So no matter how odious the candidate(s), you don’t have to tolerate them for the two years they run in the US.

    • Wow.

      That almost makes me want to move to the U.K.

  • Joeymom33

    I always find it interesting that, according to my Republican friends, I ought to be a Republican- and just never am. Somehow, the fact that Republicans consistently overspend while slashing things like education keep my vote in the blue.

  • mari

    I was honestly afraid that if the Tea Party ideas won this time around, it’d be like rewarding a misbehaving brat. I had hope that people could see through all the rhetoric and understand that the Republican Party does not care about average people. As an educated Latina (Mexican and first generation immigrant) I was certain that the people to whom I’d offered citizenship classes and who would become new citizens, had nothing in common with Republicans. I have been seeing the writing on the wall for a while. I wasn’t certain WHEN it would happen, but I I felt certain it would happen. This may have been the last election in which the “typical white American” had ultimate say, but there is no reason for us to become a divided nation. I think that at our core, we all want the same things; a good future for us and our children. However, if the “traditional American” gets too worried about “them welfare queens, Mexican moochers, and unemployed slackers” they will fail to concentrate on THEIR own ambitions and dreams. It’s time for people to realize this is a changing world and adaptation is crucial…..of course, if you don’t believe in evolution, then that’ll make it even more difficult.

    • The new “tribal” models will no longer be built along racial, geographical, ethnic, or (hopefully) gender lines. They will be coalitions of open minded, intelligent, informed individuals from any and/or all backrounds

  • soniaf

    Spot on and beautifully written — I admire your professional talent. Thanks for expressing so well many of the things I’ve been feeling. I had a very reasonable (hard to believe, I know) conversation with a conservative friend the other night who genuinely wanted to understand how I could possibly vote for Obama. Interestingly, I began with your final point — meanness. Listening to the Republicans often leaves me with the same feeling I had when I was the subject of bullying in fifth grade, which makes it awfully hard to listen to anything else. Even then, I do try and then dismiss them for all the same reasons you make in your other points.

    Like you and your wife, I should be an easy target — white woman, grew up in a conservative suburb, college-educated, hard-working professional who pays a LOT of taxes and makes enough money that should make me run to the Republicans instead of running away from them. Thanks for confirming I’m not crazy for being willing to pay a little more to make our country a better place.

    • Bullying the weak is reprehensible, as I remember from my frequently bullied younger years. But these guys are picking on the people who are supposedly their target market – WHITE MEN LIKE YOURS TRULY. It’s an awesome strategy. I even think they are going to keep it up! Stay tuned.

  • Spot. On.

  • Kudos from another lilly-white science geek.

    • White science chicks are big around here – thanks for reading.

  • Ohio medstudent

    I am not a white man but this is incredibly well put. I really enjoyed the read.

  • entropychic

    To Eric – I am a heart worn on my sleeve liberal who would normally eschew your written contribution to the political arena based on your self imposed description – BUT – you have written a thoughtful, logic laden, mighty essay here that speaks to me and reminds me of the bipartisanship of my youth, of the 70s. Thank you thank you for taking the time to get it down in black and white! I will share this with my friends – both democratic and republican in an effort to open the dialogue and keep it diplomatic. All the best to you, your white family, and your gay friends :> Laura