Brokest Nation In History Fusses Instead About Sex

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 19, 2012 7:04 PM GMT
    For those on the outside looking in, it seems terribly bizarre considering how celebrated some of these recent economic numbers are relative to where they should otherwise be. And to be focused them on prophylactics as opposed to serious economic issues reeks of a pretty cynical play... but I hope Republicans also seize on this opportunity to talk about how it is regulations like this that is why smaller government is needed and why there needs to be a greater counter weight in both Houses and ultimately changing what I think history will regard as this failed Presidency.

    http://news.investors.com/article/601602/201202171814/obama-uses-birth-control-misdirection.htm

    At such a moment, it may seem odd to find the political class embroiled in a bitter argument about the Obama administration's determination to force Catholic institutions (and, indeed, my company and your company, if you're foolish enough still to be in business in the United States) to provide free prophylactics to its employees.

    The received wisdom among media cynics is that Obama has engaged in an ingenious bit of misdirection by seizing on a pop-culture caricature of Republicans and inviting them to live up to it: Those uptight squares with the hang-ups about fornication have decided to force you to lead the same cheerless sex lives as them.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 19, 2012 9:02 PM GMT
    Another glaring example of you not understanding American politics in the slightest.

    The American people are largely on Obama's side regarding birth control and it's the Republican who want to change the subject because the economy is steadily improving and, barring Greece going into default, there's no reason to expect it will not continue to improve through the year virtually ensuring an Obama victory.

    Even if the economy sputters, it's clear that Romney will not be able to get a majority of Republicans - let alone a majority of Americans - to support him.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 19, 2012 9:04 PM GMT
    lol, this is nothing compared to the immense cost of honouring pledges to go investigate the gays.

  • nanidesukedo

    Posts: 1036

    Feb 19, 2012 9:10 PM GMT
    You must also realize that this article is from a website which has an article about how amazing Sarah Palin is as a speaker and how we should be in awe of her connection to those that attended CPAC...just saying.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 19, 2012 9:11 PM GMT
    nanidesukedo saidYou must also realize that this article is from a website which has an article about how amazing Sarah Palin is as a speaker and how we should be in awe of her connection to those that attended CPAC...just saying.


    LOL!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 19, 2012 9:59 PM GMT
    meninlove said
    nanidesukedo saidYou must also realize that this article is from a website which has an article about how amazing Sarah Palin is as a speaker and how we should be in awe of her connection to those that attended CPAC...just saying.


    LOL!




    MAJOR "SMACK DOWN" ===== PRICELESS !!!



    This problem of spending time and money unecessarily clearly belongs to the repubs, not Obama.


    Why aren't the repubs spending their time on job creation ? they've had nearly a year and a half back in power after all. WHERE THE HELL ARE THE JOBS ?


    I can tell you one thing and I'll bet I'm right. The repubs don't want to spend time on creating jobs because they're more interested in Obama looking like a failure to bring about his 'Waterloo', so since job creating would only help obama, they'll spend time on contriving religious problems over contraceptives.


    God's chosen party will do anything to win.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 20, 2012 12:26 AM GMT
    JPtheBITCH saidAlso, despite the squeaking of GOP rats, we are not broke. Far from it. We also do not have a debt crisis.

    We have a party determined to scare the hell out of their aging, angry, and rather stupid constituents. Then we have another party which for some reason hasn't been able to locate its backbone in 40 years.


    Lol - no debt crisis at all icon_rolleyes.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 20, 2012 12:28 AM GMT
    nanidesukedo saidYou must also realize that this article is from a website which has an article about how amazing Sarah Palin is as a speaker and how we should be in awe of her connection to those that attended CPAC...just saying.


    From a site focused primarily on investing and fairly well regarded for it? Yes. But hey - you're right - let's ignore bigger more important things like the economy and focus on prophylactics - because that's what the American people want apparently? icon_rolleyes.gif
  • nanidesukedo

    Posts: 1036

    Feb 20, 2012 12:41 AM GMT
    riddler78 said
    nanidesukedo saidYou must also realize that this article is from a website which has an article about how amazing Sarah Palin is as a speaker and how we should be in awe of her connection to those that attended CPAC...just saying.


    From a site focused primarily on investing and fairly well regarded for it? Yes. But hey - you're right - let's ignore bigger more important things like the economy and focus on prophylactics - because that's what the American people want apparently? icon_rolleyes.gif


    I ain't slamming it for investing...I'm slamming it for its politics...where it is obviously one sided with more than a conservative bias - far moreso than Fox news...You wanna post a political post from a heavily slanted website as "fact," then you should be prepared when someone tells you that there is more than a little bias.

    It doesn't take a genius to read through the political section of that website and see exactly the type of journalism that the website practices. There isn't a thing on there that isn't so far right that it's about to fall off the cliff. The Palin thing was just a funny example.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 20, 2012 12:48 AM GMT
    nanidesukedo said
    riddler78 said
    nanidesukedo saidYou must also realize that this article is from a website which has an article about how amazing Sarah Palin is as a speaker and how we should be in awe of her connection to those that attended CPAC...just saying.


    From a site focused primarily on investing and fairly well regarded for it? Yes. But hey - you're right - let's ignore bigger more important things like the economy and focus on prophylactics - because that's what the American people want apparently? icon_rolleyes.gif


    I ain't slamming it for investing...I'm slamming it for its politics...where it is obviously one sided with more than a conservative bias - far moreso than Fox news...You wanna post a political post from a heavily slanted website as "fact," then you should be prepared when someone tells you that there is more than a little bias.

    It doesn't take a genius to read through the political section of that website and see exactly the type of journalism that the website practices. There isn't a thing on there that isn't so far right that it's about to fall off the cliff. The Palin thing was just a funny example.


    Oh I don't mind - just as you should be prepared to be accused of ignoring the point and skipping straight to the ad hominem attacks icon_rolleyes.gif
  • nanidesukedo

    Posts: 1036

    Feb 20, 2012 12:50 AM GMT
    riddler78 said
    nanidesukedo said
    riddler78 said
    nanidesukedo saidYou must also realize that this article is from a website which has an article about how amazing Sarah Palin is as a speaker and how we should be in awe of her connection to those that attended CPAC...just saying.


    From a site focused primarily on investing and fairly well regarded for it? Yes. But hey - you're right - let's ignore bigger more important things like the economy and focus on prophylactics - because that's what the American people want apparently? icon_rolleyes.gif


    I ain't slamming it for investing...I'm slamming it for its politics...where it is obviously one sided with more than a conservative bias - far moreso than Fox news...You wanna post a political post from a heavily slanted website as "fact," then you should be prepared when someone tells you that there is more than a little bias.

    It doesn't take a genius to read through the political section of that website and see exactly the type of journalism that the website practices. There isn't a thing on there that isn't so far right that it's about to fall off the cliff. The Palin thing was just a funny example.


    Oh I don't mind - just as you should be prepared to be accused of ignoring the point and skipping straight to the ad hominem attacks icon_rolleyes.gif


    Ad hominem? I haven't said a word about you...I insulted the website, over and over and over...It seems you like to scream ad hominem whenever your source gets holes in it instead of facing the point that the website has a particular slant and goal.
  • nanidesukedo

    Posts: 1036

    Feb 20, 2012 12:55 AM GMT
    From the amazingly unbiased website with no agenda that we should all follow closely (because, it's well respected in investing, making it a great source for politics by default), I bring you two great news articles:

    Sarah Palin is an awesome speaker, let's all bow and be amazed:
    http://news.investors.com/article/600932/201202130822/sarah-palin-cpac.htm

    And Conservatives have better Sex!!
    http://news.investors.com/article/600162/201202060818/republicans-enjoy-a-better-sex-life-than-liberals.htm
  • nanidesukedo

    Posts: 1036

    Feb 20, 2012 12:58 AM GMT
    Also, if you want to talk about political diversion, what's up with all these GOP run states passing anti-abortion laws? What about laws that limit Gay adoption? Or GOP run states passing laws that would allow for discrimination based on sexual orientation?

    Wait...wait...wait...shhhhhhhhhh...
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 20, 2012 12:59 AM GMT
    nanidesukedo said
    riddler78 said
    nanidesukedo said
    riddler78 said
    nanidesukedo saidYou must also realize that this article is from a website which has an article about how amazing Sarah Palin is as a speaker and how we should be in awe of her connection to those that attended CPAC...just saying.


    From a site focused primarily on investing and fairly well regarded for it? Yes. But hey - you're right - let's ignore bigger more important things like the economy and focus on prophylactics - because that's what the American people want apparently? icon_rolleyes.gif


    I ain't slamming it for investing...I'm slamming it for its politics...where it is obviously one sided with more than a conservative bias - far moreso than Fox news...You wanna post a political post from a heavily slanted website as "fact," then you should be prepared when someone tells you that there is more than a little bias.

    It doesn't take a genius to read through the political section of that website and see exactly the type of journalism that the website practices. There isn't a thing on there that isn't so far right that it's about to fall off the cliff. The Palin thing was just a funny example.


    Oh I don't mind - just as you should be prepared to be accused of ignoring the point and skipping straight to the ad hominem attacks icon_rolleyes.gif


    Ad hominem? I haven't said a word about you...I insulted the website, over and over and over...It seems you like to scream ad hominem whenever your source gets holes in it instead of facing the point that the website has a particular slant and goal.


    Um you're not familiar with what ad hominem means do you?

    Yes - you've made a personal attack against the site rather than its arguments. The argument here they have made quite clearly is that this appears to be cynical ploy by the White House to distract others away from the underlying issues with respect to the economy - many of which they are directly responsible for.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 20, 2012 12:59 AM GMT
    nanidesukedo saidAlso, if you want to talk about political diversion, what's up with all these GOP run states passing anti-abortion laws? What about laws that limit Gay adoption? Or GOP run states passing laws that would allow for discrimination based on sexual orientation?

    Wait...wait...wait...shhhhhhhhhh...


    That's stupid and idiotic as well, but I'm willing to call them on it.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 20, 2012 1:00 AM GMT
    JPtheBITCH saidAlso, despite the squeaking of GOP rats, we are not broke. Far from it. We also do not have a debt crisis.

    We have a party determined to scare the hell out of their aging, angry, and rather stupid constituents. Then we have another party which for some reason hasn't been able to locate its backbone in 40 years.

    Truly amazing, but not surprising given you mentioned the problem with Greece is not with their history of spending and other policies leading to an enormous debt, but with the current austerity measures.
  • nanidesukedo

    Posts: 1036

    Feb 20, 2012 1:00 AM GMT
    riddler78 said
    nanidesukedo said
    riddler78 said
    nanidesukedo said
    riddler78 said
    nanidesukedo saidYou must also realize that this article is from a website which has an article about how amazing Sarah Palin is as a speaker and how we should be in awe of her connection to those that attended CPAC...just saying.


    From a site focused primarily on investing and fairly well regarded for it? Yes. But hey - you're right - let's ignore bigger more important things like the economy and focus on prophylactics - because that's what the American people want apparently? icon_rolleyes.gif


    I ain't slamming it for investing...I'm slamming it for its politics...where it is obviously one sided with more than a conservative bias - far moreso than Fox news...You wanna post a political post from a heavily slanted website as "fact," then you should be prepared when someone tells you that there is more than a little bias.

    It doesn't take a genius to read through the political section of that website and see exactly the type of journalism that the website practices. There isn't a thing on there that isn't so far right that it's about to fall off the cliff. The Palin thing was just a funny example.


    Oh I don't mind - just as you should be prepared to be accused of ignoring the point and skipping straight to the ad hominem attacks icon_rolleyes.gif


    Ad hominem? I haven't said a word about you...I insulted the website, over and over and over...It seems you like to scream ad hominem whenever your source gets holes in it instead of facing the point that the website has a particular slant and goal.


    Um you're not familiar with what ad hominem means do you?

    Yes - you've made a personal attack against the site rather than its arguments. The argument here they have made quite clearly is that this appears to be cynical ploy by the White House to distract others away from the underlying issues with respect to the economy - many of which they are directly responsible for.


    Oh, you mean ad hominem against the website and not yourself...? I see...icon_rolleyes.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 20, 2012 1:03 AM GMT
    nanidesukedo said
    riddler78 said
    nanidesukedo said
    riddler78 said
    nanidesukedo said
    riddler78 said
    nanidesukedo saidYou must also realize that this article is from a website which has an article about how amazing Sarah Palin is as a speaker and how we should be in awe of her connection to those that attended CPAC...just saying.


    From a site focused primarily on investing and fairly well regarded for it? Yes. But hey - you're right - let's ignore bigger more important things like the economy and focus on prophylactics - because that's what the American people want apparently? icon_rolleyes.gif


    I ain't slamming it for investing...I'm slamming it for its politics...where it is obviously one sided with more than a conservative bias - far moreso than Fox news...You wanna post a political post from a heavily slanted website as "fact," then you should be prepared when someone tells you that there is more than a little bias.

    It doesn't take a genius to read through the political section of that website and see exactly the type of journalism that the website practices. There isn't a thing on there that isn't so far right that it's about to fall off the cliff. The Palin thing was just a funny example.


    Oh I don't mind - just as you should be prepared to be accused of ignoring the point and skipping straight to the ad hominem attacks icon_rolleyes.gif


    Ad hominem? I haven't said a word about you...I insulted the website, over and over and over...It seems you like to scream ad hominem whenever your source gets holes in it instead of facing the point that the website has a particular slant and goal.


    Um you're not familiar with what ad hominem means do you?

    Yes - you've made a personal attack against the site rather than its arguments. The argument here they have made quite clearly is that this appears to be cynical ploy by the White House to distract others away from the underlying issues with respect to the economy - many of which they are directly responsible for.


    Oh, you mean ad hominem against the website and not yourself...? I see...icon_rolleyes.gif


    Look up ad hominem. I wasn't saying you were directing it at me. In fact, I explicitly stated that you were attacking them for other things they had said but ignoring the underlying issue that they bring up here. That's what ad hominem is - and it's a logical fallacy - and by definition a weak argument.

    It is however indicative I think of how problematic it is for this Administration and its supporters that they can't respond on the basis of facts but instead have to create side issues on which to rally support.
  • nanidesukedo

    Posts: 1036

    Feb 20, 2012 1:08 AM GMT
    riddler78 said
    nanidesukedo said
    riddler78 said
    nanidesukedo said
    riddler78 said
    nanidesukedo said
    riddler78 said
    nanidesukedo saidYou must also realize that this article is from a website which has an article about how amazing Sarah Palin is as a speaker and how we should be in awe of her connection to those that attended CPAC...just saying.


    From a site focused primarily on investing and fairly well regarded for it? Yes. But hey - you're right - let's ignore bigger more important things like the economy and focus on prophylactics - because that's what the American people want apparently? icon_rolleyes.gif


    I ain't slamming it for investing...I'm slamming it for its politics...where it is obviously one sided with more than a conservative bias - far moreso than Fox news...You wanna post a political post from a heavily slanted website as "fact," then you should be prepared when someone tells you that there is more than a little bias.

    It doesn't take a genius to read through the political section of that website and see exactly the type of journalism that the website practices. There isn't a thing on there that isn't so far right that it's about to fall off the cliff. The Palin thing was just a funny example.


    Oh I don't mind - just as you should be prepared to be accused of ignoring the point and skipping straight to the ad hominem attacks icon_rolleyes.gif


    Ad hominem? I haven't said a word about you...I insulted the website, over and over and over...It seems you like to scream ad hominem whenever your source gets holes in it instead of facing the point that the website has a particular slant and goal.


    Um you're not familiar with what ad hominem means do you?

    Yes - you've made a personal attack against the site rather than its arguments. The argument here they have made quite clearly is that this appears to be cynical ploy by the White House to distract others away from the underlying issues with respect to the economy - many of which they are directly responsible for.


    Oh, you mean ad hominem against the website and not yourself...? I see...icon_rolleyes.gif


    Look up ad hominem. I wasn't saying you were directing it at me. In fact, I explicitly stated that you were attacking them for other things they had said but ignoring the underlying issue that they bring up here. That's what ad hominem is - and it's a logical fallacy - and by definition a weak argument.

    It is however indicative I think of how problematic it is for this Administration and its supporters that they can't respond on the basis of facts but instead have to create side issues on which to rally support.


    I know what ad hominem means, child. I pointed out rampant bias...something that you can't deny on that particular website.

    Anyways:
    It's not a ploy or a diversion for this reason: Obama came in saying that one of his top goals was healthcare reform, did he not? He promised sweeping healthcare reform with a large promise that included birth control. This was something that he promised way before taking the presidency. This isn't something that he just pulled out of thin air...This has been a long time coming and was mentioned as part of his healthcare reform plan during the election process (Universal healthcare with insurances covering birth control).
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 20, 2012 1:14 AM GMT
    nanidesukedo saidI know what ad hominem means, child. I pointed out rampant bias...something that you can't deny on that particular website.

    Anyways:
    It's not a ploy or a diversion for this reason: Obama came in saying that one of his top goals was healthcare reform, did he not? He promised sweeping healthcare reform with a large promise that included birth control. This was something that he promised way before taking the presidency. This isn't something that he just pulled out of thin air...This has been a long time coming and was mentioned as part of his healthcare reform plan during the election process (Universal healthcare with insurances covering birth control).


    No - you apparently don't understand what ad hominem means because then you would have understood the context. Why is it when those like you are called on your ignorance you have to resort to personal attacks on age or something else?

    Sorry, but this speaks to your lack of character and inability to string together a coherent argument.

    Besides - when you finally even bother to trot out something that resembles an argument, you miss the point that this is something that was deliberately done and that they even partially backed down from especially given the highly unpopular healthcare reform act.

    You may call me young, but apparently you're the one who needs to grow up. icon_rolleyes.gif
  • nanidesukedo

    Posts: 1036

    Feb 20, 2012 1:19 AM GMT
    riddler78 said
    nanidesukedo saidI know what ad hominem means, child. I pointed out rampant bias...something that you can't deny on that particular website.

    Anyways:
    It's not a ploy or a diversion for this reason: Obama came in saying that one of his top goals was healthcare reform, did he not? He promised sweeping healthcare reform with a large promise that included birth control. This was something that he promised way before taking the presidency. This isn't something that he just pulled out of thin air...This has been a long time coming and was mentioned as part of his healthcare reform plan during the election process (Universal healthcare with insurances covering birth control).


    No - you apparently don't understand what ad hominem means because then you would have understood the context. Why is it when those like you are called on your ignorance you have to resort to personal attacks on age or something else?

    Sorry, but this speaks to your lack of character and inability to string together a coherent argument.

    Besides - when you finally even bother to trot out something that resembles an argument, you miss the point that this is something that was deliberately done and that they even partially backed down from especially given the highly unpopular healthcare reform act.

    You may call me young, but apparently you're the one who needs to grow up. icon_rolleyes.gif


    Riddle me this...if I posted an article attacking conservatives from the Onion and played it off as something worthwhile and "real," would it not be a valid retort to point out that the Onion is a parody of news and that it shouldn't be taken seriously and at its word? Or would that be an ad hominem attack?

    Also, I am pissed that he backed down - he needs a backbone. Doesn't make it a ploy - it makes him weak on social stances. He needs to grow a backbone and carry through. Religious exemption is not a valid reason for not providing certain healthcare benefits to one's employees. By that argument, a business run by the Jehovah's Witness church or whatever the hell they call themselves could deny providing insurance that would apply to blood transfusions.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 20, 2012 1:22 AM GMT
    nanidesukedo said
    riddler78 said
    nanidesukedo saidI know what ad hominem means, child. I pointed out rampant bias...something that you can't deny on that particular website.

    Anyways:
    It's not a ploy or a diversion for this reason: Obama came in saying that one of his top goals was healthcare reform, did he not? He promised sweeping healthcare reform with a large promise that included birth control. This was something that he promised way before taking the presidency. This isn't something that he just pulled out of thin air...This has been a long time coming and was mentioned as part of his healthcare reform plan during the election process (Universal healthcare with insurances covering birth control).


    No - you apparently don't understand what ad hominem means because then you would have understood the context. Why is it when those like you are called on your ignorance you have to resort to personal attacks on age or something else?

    Sorry, but this speaks to your lack of character and inability to string together a coherent argument.

    Besides - when you finally even bother to trot out something that resembles an argument, you miss the point that this is something that was deliberately done and that they even partially backed down from especially given the highly unpopular healthcare reform act.

    You may call me young, but apparently you're the one who needs to grow up. icon_rolleyes.gif


    Riddle me this...if I posted an article attacking conservatives from the Onion and played it off as something worthwhile and "real," would it not be a valid retort to point out that the Onion is a parody of news and that it shouldn't be taken seriously and at its word? Or would that be an ad hominem attack?


    If it were the onion and it were a parody, it wouldn't be worthy of a response. If however you posted the Huffington Post, I would point out that it was probably biased - but I would point out why the argument they made was problematic or why I agreed with it. I however know what an ad hominem is and means icon_wink.gif
  • nanidesukedo

    Posts: 1036

    Feb 20, 2012 1:27 AM GMT
    riddler78 said
    nanidesukedo said
    riddler78 said
    nanidesukedo saidI know what ad hominem means, child. I pointed out rampant bias...something that you can't deny on that particular website.

    Anyways:
    It's not a ploy or a diversion for this reason: Obama came in saying that one of his top goals was healthcare reform, did he not? He promised sweeping healthcare reform with a large promise that included birth control. This was something that he promised way before taking the presidency. This isn't something that he just pulled out of thin air...This has been a long time coming and was mentioned as part of his healthcare reform plan during the election process (Universal healthcare with insurances covering birth control).


    No - you apparently don't understand what ad hominem means because then you would have understood the context. Why is it when those like you are called on your ignorance you have to resort to personal attacks on age or something else?

    Sorry, but this speaks to your lack of character and inability to string together a coherent argument.

    Besides - when you finally even bother to trot out something that resembles an argument, you miss the point that this is something that was deliberately done and that they even partially backed down from especially given the highly unpopular healthcare reform act.

    You may call me young, but apparently you're the one who needs to grow up. icon_rolleyes.gif


    Riddle me this...if I posted an article attacking conservatives from the Onion and played it off as something worthwhile and "real," would it not be a valid retort to point out that the Onion is a parody of news and that it shouldn't be taken seriously and at its word? Or would that be an ad hominem attack?


    If it were the onion and it were a parody, it wouldn't be worthy of a response. If however you posted the Huffington Post, I would point out that it was probably biased - but I would point out why the argument they made was problematic or why I agreed with it. I however know what an ad hominem is and means icon_wink.gif


    You danced around my question: Would pointing out that the Onion is a parody considered an ad hominem attack?

    Also, it's typical in scientific literature to look for sources of bias and conflicts of interest when evaluating articles.

    PS - I have no problem admitting Huffington is biased...which is why I don't read it lol.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 20, 2012 1:58 AM GMT
    Nevermind that the author of the ridiculous editorial is a lunatic right-winger who claims that America is facing Armageddon because of brown people and Europe is the new Caliphate.

    Good source, riddler. icon_lol.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 20, 2012 2:00 AM GMT
    riddler78 said
    nanidesukedo saidAlso, if you want to talk about political diversion, what's up with all these GOP run states passing anti-abortion laws? What about laws that limit Gay adoption? Or GOP run states passing laws that would allow for discrimination based on sexual orientation?

    Wait...wait...wait...shhhhhhhhhh...


    That's stupid and idiotic as well, but I'm willing to call them on it.



    Except that you never have.