Have you heard about...? (Politics edition)

[mbw]

Maher is no sexist.

He will insult any fool in the public realm that (in his opinion) deserves it.

Palin is just a thin skinned little bitch.

I kinda think she's more of a cunt

lets compromise and just say she has thin cunt skin.

[kellerb]

Maher is no sexist.

He will insult any fool in the public realm that (in his opinion) deserves it.

Palin is just a thin skinned little bitch.

I kinda think she's more of a cunt

lets compromise and just say she has thin cunt skin.

It's thin cunt skin stretched over evil cunty bones.  It's like she built her alaska governor's mansion over a massive burial-ground of native american cunt spirits.

In harry potter, her patronus would be an dead oil-covered seal's cunt.

[sunrisevt]

Interestingly, "cunt" derives from a similar Old English word that's a cognate of "cunning" and probably "crone"--it was a reference to powerful femininity: think cunning artificer, wise woman, skilled manipulator.

"Vagina" derives directly from the Latin, meaning "sheath for a sword."

So the word we use in modern American English, that we consider a polite and clinical name for a cunt, is actually grossly insulting to femininity: it defines feminine sexuality as a receptacle for phallic power.

The word that we consider grossly insulting, on the other hand--"cunt"--is a much older English word that had no pejorative connotation at all.

[nab]

This man speaks the truth^

On another etymological note relevant to current politics, Occupy used to have a pretty exclusively sexual connotation. 

[runawayjimbo]

This whole thing is just another example to me of just how dumb the GOP / conservatives really are. First of all, Rush's whole premise was completely false: Fluke wasn't asking gov't to pay for her birth control, she wanted a private institution to cover it (at no cost to taxpayers). Now, I didn't find Rush's comments particularly offensive. Why? Because I don't listen to fucking Rush Limbaugh. But I also don't buy the fact that his words are somehow more powerful than Bill Maher's because he's the de facto leader of the party. Just because Romney's too much of a pussy to condemn his comments doesn't mean he'd appoint Rush to a high-ranking position.

I also don't see the difference between Rush and Maher's words because they are both entertainers and they should be free to say whatever they want. At the same time, people should be free to voice their objection to his comments and advertisers are free to drop him if they think he will hurt their brand. I even support the right of Media Matters to try to get him fired (although I wish they wouldn't prosecute people for words, especially when their job is to speak). The problem I have is that everything is so calculated and politicized and both sides are selective with their outrage. And it crowds out a real conversation about the fundamental issues. (random side note: Louis CK withdrew as the host of the WH Correspondents' Dinner because Greta van Susteren, after defending Rush, threatened to boycott because she didn't like his language. What a cunt.)

The worst part to me in all of this was that conservatives lost the opportunity to provide another clear example of the massive overreach of ObamaCare. It's not about a War on Religion or a War on Women; this whole contraception fiasco has proven how individual freedoms are restricted when gov't injects itself in decisions that should be left to free people. Even more than the mandate (which I also believe is unconstitutional), this illustrated how central planning ultimately decides against the interests and beliefs of someone.

As for the whole Super PAC thing, I agree with VDB that conservatives are looking foolish by trying to restrict Maher's donation. Instead of calling for Priorities USA to give the money back, they should be celebrating him exercising his free speech right to do what he wants with his money and using this opportunity to dispel the notion that all really rich people support the GOP and that Super PACs would exclusively benefit one party. There's a lot of really rich liberals out there too (Buffet, Eric Schmidt, Hollywood). Also, it often gets lost that Citizens United did NOT create unlimited individual donations; people were free to donate to "independent" organizations long before the decision (see Soros' $23M in 2004 to fight W's re-election). For all the lamenting of corporations buying elections, individual contributions to Super PACS outpace corporate donations by roughly 3-1 this year according to OpenSecrets.org.

Anyway, back to the cunt discussion. Also,

In harry potter, her patronus would be an dead oil-covered seal's cunt.

Funniest thing I've ever read anywhere.

[sls.stormyrider]

^^^
agree with much of what you say.
The GOP seems dumb, but they are very crafty at twisting words / policies etc (I keep using the death panels as an example) to their advantadge.

We disagree on ObamaCare, but regardless. Another question is does an employer have the right to deny someone access to something because they don't agree with it? For example, do I have the right to interfere with an employee of mine access to a ham sandwich? Can I prohibit them from working on Sabbath? I think not. My freedom of religion ends when I try to enforce my beliefs on you, and vica versa.

The other, more important fact, is that the Church interfered with this woman's medical care. Even though contraception is the main indication for hormonal therapy, many women require it for dysfunctional bleeding. The alternative to this, as Fluke pointed out, is surgery. So - the Church's policy steered one of their employees to having surgery (because the insurance paid for it) vs less expensive, less invasive medical therapy. You can argue that it was the woman's choice to have surgery, but prescription drugs aren't cheap, and her choice, in reality, wasn't much of a choice. Therefore, the employer, in effect, got themselves in between doctor and patient. In this case, the employer's actions were to the patient's detriment. No more or no less objectionable then an insurance company or the government doing the same thing, only in this case the government is NOT intervening in medical care. The govt is trying to prevent others from doing it. I would says that the health care bill is protecting this woman's freedom, not the other way around.

[runawayjimbo]

Agreed, but that gets to my point that ultimately central planning puts one person/group of people's priorities ahead of another's. And to your point about employer's preventing choice (which I agree with), that's why ObamaCare was not real reform. Real reform would have been severing the link between health insurance from employment. That would have been much harder, for sure, but that would have gotten to the root of these problems. Pushing for a single payer would have been another way to really change to the system (not change I would advocate for, but true change nonetheless). What we ended up with was a lukewarm version of reform that keeps all the bad things about employer-provided health insurance and incorporates the mandates of a gov't run program. It's the worst of both worlds.

[sls.stormyrider]

agree that continuation of an employer sponsored system was sub-optimal, at best.
I suspect the public fall out to everyone buying individual insurance would have been even greater, but we may never know. I don't buy that it would have been cheaper, but in theory it makes sense to get the employer out of it.
Either way, I think there does need to be some standardization by the govt - for example pre-existing conditions and certain minimum requirements. I don't think you get away without the govt involved; the private insurance industry has a very poor track record, imo

ETA - changing from employer sponsored insurance to individual gets even more complicated. Right now, the employer pays a significant portion, which is a tax free benefit. What the employee pays is also pre tax. To keep the same amount of $ in our pocket at the end of the day, lots of things have to happen. Let's say that the insurance costs 10K per year, the boss pays 80% and we pay 20%. Assuming you can get an equivalent policy for 10K, the govt has to let us take a deduction for the entire 10K, and the boss needs to pay us an additional 8K per year, otherwise we would be in the hole. Whether policies would be cheaper with mass marketing to the individual vs the deal a medium to large employer will get for delivering a large # of insurance clients is debatable, but there's certainly no guarantee that someone who works for a medium to large company will come out ahead. The "buying co-operatives" for small businesses would help out the rest. BTW, buying co-operatives was not original to this plan, W proposed it.

[VDB]

DOTHAN, Ala. -- There was an overflow crowd greeting Newt Gingrich when he arrived at the Wiregrass Museum of Art in lower Alabama on Saturday.

Looking over the hundreds of people packed into the gallery area and spilling down the steps in the main lobby, Gingrich enthused, "What a crowd. I'm really impressed. There must be no one left at Wal-Mart this afternoon."

Now that's pretty damn funny.

[emay]

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/03/01/435284/bush-appointed-federal-judge-sends-racist-anti-obama-email-comparing-interracial-sex-to-bestiality/?mobile=nc

:shakehead:

[sunrisevt]

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/03/01/435284/bush-appointed-federal-judge-sends-racist-anti-obama-email-comparing-interracial-sex-to-bestiality/?mobile=nc

:shakehead:

I know--isn't good judgment a fucking JOB REQUIREMENT for federal judges?

[nab]

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/03/01/435284/bush-appointed-federal-judge-sends-racist-anti-obama-email-comparing-interracial-sex-to-bestiality/?mobile=nc

:shakehead:

I know--isn't good judgment a fucking JOB REQUIREMENT for federal judges?

Montana's finest.   :x




Though I'm glad that one of the first things they told me in that story was that he was Bush appointed.  I hate racists, but I really hate Bush appointed racists.

[PIE-GUY]

On the Mahar/Rush controversy... Mahar kind of addressed it on Fridays show. Both are free to say whatever the fuck they choose. They are entertainers and first amendment protects both equally. That said, Rush has advertisers that are free to support or pull support as they wish for whatever reason they wish. Mahar has HBO who does not have to answer to anyone but HBO. It's pretty simple, really.

[runawayjimbo]

They hate us because of our freedoms.  :roll:  I wonder who will be the first Republican to call Obama a pussy for apologizing for this.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/12/world/asia/afghanistan-civilians-killed-american-soldier-held.html

American Is Held After Shooting of Civilians in Afghanistan

PANJWAI, Afghanistan — Stalking from home to home, a United States Army sergeant methodically killed at least 16 civilians, 9 of them children, in a rural stretch of southern Aghanistan early Sunday, igniting fears of a new wave of anti-American hostility, Afghan and American officials said.

Residents of three villages in the Panjwai district of Kandahar Province described a terrifying string of attacks in which the soldier, who had walked more than a mile from his base, tried door after door, eventually breaking in to kill within three separate houses. At the first, the man gathered 11 bodies, including those of four girls younger than 6, and set fire to them, villagers said.

Coming after a period of deepening public outrage, spurred by the Koran burning by American personnel last month and an earlier video showing American Marines urinating on dead militants, the apparently unprovoked killings added to a feeling of siege here among Western personnel. And officials described a growing sense of concern over a cascading series of missteps and offenses that has cast doubt on the ability of NATO personnel to carry out their mission and has left troops and trainers increasingly vulnerable to violence by Afghans seeking revenge.

President Hamid Karzai condemned the attack, calling it in a statement an "inhuman and intentional act" and demanding justice. Both President Obama and Defense Secretary Leon Panetta called Mr. Karzai, expressing condolences and promising thorough investigations. "This incident is tragic and shocking, and does not represent the exceptional character of our military and the respect that the United States has for the people of Afghanistan," Mr. Obama said in a statement.

American officials in Kabul were scrambling to understand what had happened, and appealed for calm. Officials gave no details about the suspected killer other than to describe him as an Army staff sergeant who was acting alone. "The initial reporting that we have at this time indicates there was one shooter, and we have one man in custody," said Lt. Col. Jimmie Cummings, a NATO spokesman.

In Panjwai, a reporter for The New York Times who inspected bodies that had been taken to the nearby American military base counted 16 dead, and saw burns on some of the children's legs and heads. "All the family members were killed, the dead put in a room, and blankets were put over the corpses and they were burned," said Anar Gul, an elderly neighbor who rushed to the house after the soldier had left. "We put out the fire."

The villagers also brought some of the burned blankets on motorbikes to display at the base, Camp Belambay, in Kandahar, and show that the bodies had been set alight. Soon, more than 300 people had gathered outside to protest.

At least five other Afghans were wounded in the attacks, officials said, some of them seriously, indicating the death toll could rise. NATO said several casualties were being treated at a military hospital.

...

[sls.stormyrider]

on ABC news they interviewed the general who is in command of the Koran burners. He was basically saying that our soldiers need to be more careful, etc. When asked if the US should apologize, his answer was "Why wouldn't we? Of course we should"

let Newt, Rush, and co pick a fight with that dude