The truth is neither sexist or impolite.

Sorry ’bout the early O/T, but you can call January 31, 2011 The Day ObamaCare Died.

W00t!

As a woman, this is pretty pathetic that this lady is saying that because Sarah Palin, Hillary Clinton and Michelle Bachmann are women they shouldn’t come under the same attacks as men.

We are women we are strong and powerful, there have been strong female world leaders. I wonder if Margaret Thatcher or Golda Meir complained about the sexist men in the media beating up on them. Or I wonder if Winnie Mandela or Indra Ghandi every went on Sean Hannity and complained about the sexist lamestream media.

If you are a woman running for political office you should expect everything to be thrown at you and as a woman you should have enough self respect not to complain about it and take it like a “woman”.

I don’t often agree with Jehmu Greene, but she’s got Matthews’ number.

I think Bachmann may at least know what the 3 branches of the Fed. Govt. are, unlike this Senator –

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fG0Jpu9geWY&feature=player_embedded

Just sayin’………………

Dsiscokid said:
I think Bachmann may at least know what the 3 branches of the Fed. Govt. are, unlike this Senator –

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fG0Jpu9geWY&feature=player_embedded

Just sayin’………………

Do you actually want to play the You Tube game with Michelle Bachmann on your team? I will give you a chance to back out now. Because you are going to lose big.

Color Me Badd said:
If you are a woman running for political office you should expect everything to be thrown at you and as a woman you should have enough self respect not to complain about it and take it like a “woman”.

As long as you are not conservative they media will support you. Before you bring up Hillary, remember the media had crowned her President back in ’05.

Uh….na?

Typo- “they”

Whether you agree or disagree with Bachmann, name calling is just plain rude, and does nothing to further your argument, or get anyone to change their mind.

Pablo said:
Sorry ’bout the early O/T, but you can call January 31, 2011 The Day ObamaCare Died.

W00t!

And you honestly doubt that this won’t go to the supreme court? You’re starting to become more and more like notsosmart.

sexist.

Is one of those words you have to be careful with.Some people play it as much as the race card.I agree with Kelly when she said Bachmanns words should be looked at instead of her looks.They might just find maybe she doesn’t belong on the intelligence committee.

Dsiscokid said:
As long as you are not conservative they media will support you. Before you bring up Hillary, remember the media had crowned her President back in ‘05.

Oh yeah they never say anything sexist about Nancy Pelosi or Barbara Boxer.

Dsiscokid said:
As long as you are not conservative they media will support you. Before you bring up Hillary, remember the media had crowned her President back in ‘05.

Sure, but that was before they went all Bros Before Hos. Or decided that being racist was worse than being sexist.

I will concede this, conservative politicos (male and female) need to know that they are never going to be liked by the main stream media, especially if they are pro-life. You don’t want to come across as whining, and conservatives need to work on that, IMHO

Dsiscokid said:
Typo- “they”

I wouldn’t worry about the “typo”, kid. I am about to unleash a flurry of You Tube Michelle Bachmann clips that are going to make you look pretty foolish, last chance to say you are sorry to the board or I will engage operation Bachmann Turner Epicfail

Courteous Commentary said:
Whether you agree or disagree with Bachmann, name calling is just plain rude, and does nothing to further your argument, or get anyone to change their mind.

Agreed

The_Reasonable_Lib said:
And you honestly doubt that this won’t go to the supreme court? You’re starting to become more and more like notsosmart.

Of course it will. But 26 states gives Kennedy (who will ultimately decide this) all the reason in the world to not even think about tossing out the Constitution on this one.

Color Me Badd said:
I wouldn’t worry about the “typo”, kid. I am about to unleash a flurry of You Tube Michelle Bachmann clips that are going to make you look pretty foolish, last chance to say you are sorry to the board or I will engage operation Bachmann Turner Epicfail

Bring in on, darling :)………..

I can also unleash a flurry of You Tube clips of male Fox commentators saying sexist stuff about Democrats. I will call that Operation Foxy Ladies, you can back out now by saying you are sorry for being a teabag. i will give you 10 minutes to think about it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WH4p1RUfF9A&feature=related

KABOOM!!!!

Color Me Badd said:
Oh yeah they never say anything sexist about Nancy Pelosi or Barbara Boxer

Not particularly, yet they are factually challenged on any number of issues

Color Me Badd said:
As a woman, this is pretty pathetic that this lady is saying that because Sarah Palin, Hillary Clinton and Michelle Bachmann are women they shouldn’t come under the same attacks as men.

We are women we are strong and powerful, there have been strong female world leaders. I wonder if Margaret Thatcher or Golda Meir complained about the sexist men in the media beating up on them. Or I wonder if Winnie Mandela or Indra Ghandi every went on Sean Hannity and complained about the sexist lamestream media.

If you are a woman running for political office you should expect everything to be thrown at you and as a woman you should have enough self respect not to complain about it and take it like a “woman”.

Exactly. This goes back to another point I made on another thread. I see Palin nor Bachmann demonstrating a lack of quality education. They are public figures BY CHOICE. If they can’t take the heat of politics and really aren’t the weak and meek, get the hell out and let real women of education and strength be the role models to our young women.

You will never see me knock Kelly for being either weak or uneducated. The only criticism I level at her is she is more a lawyer than a journalist, and that shows up frequently when she advocates for a side.

Her serious fumble last week over her screw up on the “Nazi references on Fox” wasn’t due to a lack of intellect. It was because she fell into her lawyer-stance and was defending her network.

I would hold up Megyn Kelly a much better role model than I would Palin or Bachmann.

AngelPeters said:
Exactly. This goes back to another point I made on another thread. I see Palin nor Bachmann demonstrating a lack of quality education. They are public figures BY CHOICE. If they can’t take the heat of politics and really aren’t the weak and meek, get the hell out and let real women of education and strength be the role models to our young women. You will never see me knock Kelly for being either weak or uneducated. The only criticism I level at her is she is more a lawyer than a journalist, and that shows up frequently when she advocates for a side. Her serious fumble last week over her screw up on the “Nazi references on Fox” wasn’t due to a lack of intellect. It was because she fell into her lawyer-stance and was defending her network. I would hold up Megyn Kelly a much better role model than I would Palin or Bachmann.

I will agree this

Pablo said:
Of course it will. But 26 states gives Kennedy (who will ultimately decide this) all the reason in the world to not even think about tossing out the Constitution on this one.

Point? Popularity has nothing to do with Constitutionality. By this definition it is also unconstitutional to force people to pay for auto insurance. That issue will be taken into account as well when the SOTUS makes their ruling. I’m also curious as to why the bill is unconstitutional and where that issue is taken care of in the Constitution.

Color Me Badd said:
you can back out now by saying you are sorry for being a teabag.

Stay classy, ma’am

Color Me Badd said:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WH4p1RUfF9A&feature=related KABOOM!!!!

This is for you, ma’am
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wEwNcnklcsk

AngelPeters said:
Her serious fumble last week over her screw up on the “Nazi references on Fox” wasn’t due to a lack of intellect.

She did not screw up. Jon Stewart twisting what she said is not a mistake on her part.

Color Me Badd said:
you can back out now by saying you are sorry for being a teabag. i will give you 10 minutes to think about it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=niJAkR_6tKQ

KABLOOEY!

The_Reasonable_Lib said:
By this definition it is also unconstitutional to force people to pay for auto insurance.

Who in this country is being forced to drive a car?

I put on my cheerleader outfit from high school and I am doing cheers as i watch this.

Not even Bill O’Reilly likes Michelle Bachmann.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QETOxVU0SEE

Dsiscokid said:
Who in this country is being forced to drive a car?

You’re not forced to live and go to the hospital either.

Color Me Badd said:
you can back out now by saying you are sorry for being a teabag. i will give you 10 minutes to think about it.

So I guess since we’re throwing out vulger slurs we are free to call you a cu^t??? I just want to be following your rules. ;) Stay classy.

Dsiscokid said:
Stay classy, ma’am

I never was classy, but thanks for the song love it.

Pablo said:
She did not screw up. Jon Stewart twisting what she said is not a mistake on her part.

How did he twist it? The Daily Show goes to great lengths NOT to twist things, so I’m curious. If your argument is that it doesn’t occur “nightly” that’s one thing, but that’s not the context that it was responded to in.

From the ruling:

It is difficult to imagine that a nation which began, at least in part, as the result of opposition to a British mandate giving the East India Company a monopoly and imposing a nominal tax on all tea sold in America would have set out to create a government with the power to force people to buy tea in the first place.

Bravo!

Pablo said:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=niJAkR_6tKQ

KABLOOEY!

Teabags are so cute and funny. Maxine Waters wanting to socialize the oil companies is supposed to win this contest???

Why bring the weaksauce when I demand you bring firepower bitch!

The_Reasonable_Lib said:
If your argument is that it doesn’t occur “nightly” that’s one thing

That’s what she said. How is that wrong?

Chrissy ‘Tingles & Thrills’ Matthews is a sissified girlieboy with small hands and a very small (tiny) penis. So Megyn & Michele, I wouldn’t worry about it too much. Besides both of you are beautiful women and Chrissy wishes she looked as good as you two. FOX Rocks…Go Conservative Americans!!!

Pablo said:
From the ruling:

Bravo!

And what does that actually achieve rationally?

Michelle Bachmann’s Crazy Eyes!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jAN7pAczSDQ

Color Me Dumbb said:
Teabags are so cute and funny. Maxine Waters wanting to socialize the oil companies is supposed to win this contest???

Why bring the weaksauce when I demand you bring firepower bitch!

Oh, I see I need to spoon feed you.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QYj0Zcw75s0&feature=related

Waters is clearly a graduate of the Porky Pig School of Oratory. And there is no contest to win.

Why are Chris Matthews and fat Ed Schultz so ANTI-woman??? Oh yeah, both are GAY as hell…

The_Reasonable_Lib said:
And what does that actually achieve rationally?

That line? It expresses the thinking behind his decision. Higher courts kinda want that in a decision.

Pablo said:
That’s what she said. How is that wrong?

I addressed that in the following sentence. Kelly said “I don’t know if you sit and watch our programming every night, but I watch it every day and you’re wrong.” That doesn’t donate that she’s denying that it happens on a nightly basis. Now if Ms. Kelly clarifies that she did mean that then perhaps its valid, but she has yet to clarify, so until then and even if she does the fact is Stewart still has a point; the same people who get offended at the usage of the word nazi are the ones who use it consistently.

The_Reasonable_Lib said:
Point? Popularity has nothing to do with Constitutionality. By this definition it is also unconstitutional to force people to pay for auto insurance. That issue will be taken into account as well when the SOTUS makes their ruling. I’m also curious as to why the bill is unconstitutional and where that issue is taken care of in the Constitution.

That is a false analogy. First off, auto insurance is mandated by the states not the feds, and it is well within their rights to do so since driving is a privilege not a right.

Second, the requirement that a person purchase a private product simply as a consequence of living is blatantly unconstitutional as is the application of a punitive tax.

Third, nowhere in the Constitution is this power granted to any branch of the government.

Fourth, try the 9th and 10th Amendments, which are very clear about undelegated powers.

Fifth, I believe that the mandate is severable and will be removed without killing the rest of it. For those who fancy repeal, make sure to tell your neighbor who can now insure their college age kid or the senior that now has affordable prescription meds.

And to those who keep citing “The will of the people,”on this, that phrase would have prevented Medicare, civil rights, women’s rights and veteran’s care. The Constitution is very clear about the rights of the people not being subjected to the popular vote.

Wow and with this video I just won and you wont be able to deny it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f13Dj2HaRWg&feature=related

Michele Bachmann calls Terri Schiavo “healthy”

yes that’s right she actually does.

Pablo said:
That line? It expresses the thinking behind his decision. Higher courts kinda want that in a decision.

So the logic behind his decision is a straw man? That seems a tad counterintuitive and very unbecoming of a judge to me.

The_Reasonable_Lib said:
“I don’t know if you sit and watch our programming every night, but I watch it every day and you’re wrong.”

Yes, and “you’re wrong” refers to the allegation of there being nightly Nazi references. She’s right that he’s wrong.

The_Reasonable_Lib said:
So the logic behind his decision is a straw man? That seems a tad counterintuitive and very unbecoming of a judge to me.

Well, I guess it’s a good thing for Judge Vinson (and the rest of America) that you’re not a Supreme Court Justice.

It’s because she is so pretty.

Obviously Megyn is not familiar with the expression, “balloon Head”, or “air head” to describe someone who is not that smart. It is not a sexist comment since both men and woman can be balloon heads.

Keeva said:
That is a false analogy. First off, auto insurance is mandated by the states not the feds, and it is well within their rights to do so since driving is a privilege not a right.

Second, the requirement that a person purchase a private product simply as a consequence of living is blatantly unconstitutional as is the application of a punitive tax.

Third, nowhere in the Constitution is this power granted to any branch of the government.

Fourth, try the 9th and 10th Amendments, which are very clear about undelegated powers.

Fifth, I believe that the mandate is severable and will be removed without killing the rest of it. For those who fancy repeal, make sure to tell your neighbor who can now insure their college age kid or the senior that now has affordable prescription meds.

And to those who keep citing “The will of the people,”on this, that phrase would have prevented Medicare, civil rights, women’s rights and veteran’s care. The Constitution is very clear about the rights of the people not being subjected to the popular vote.

Yes. Furthermore, in states that do require insurance, you are only required to have it if you’re driving on public roads and all the coverage you are required to carry is liability, which covers damage you might do to someone else. ObamaCare is like forcing you to buy collision, comprehensive, repair and maintenance coverage whether you drive a car or not.

Color Me Badd said:
Teabags are so cute and funny. Maxine Waters wanting to socialize the oil companies is supposed to win this contest??? Why bring the weaksauce when I demand you bring firepower bitch!

It’s hard to see things when your eyes are closed, ma’am

Keeva said:
That is a false analogy. First off, auto insurance is mandated by the states not the feds, and it is well within their rights to do so since driving is a privilege not a right.

Second, the requirement that a person purchase a private product simply as a consequence of living is blatantly unconstitutional as is the application of a punitive tax.

Third, nowhere in the Constitution is this power granted to any branch of the government.

Fourth, try the 9th and 10th Amendments, which are very clear about undelegated powers.

Fifth, I believe that the mandate is severable and will be removed without killing the rest of it. For those who fancy repeal, make sure to tell your neighbor who can now insure their college age kid or the senior that now has affordable prescription meds.

And to those who keep citing “The will of the people,”on this, that phrase would have prevented Medicare, civil rights, women’s rights and veteran’s care. The Constitution is very clear about the rights of the people not being subjected to the popular vote.

Aaaaahhhh, very good, sir, a logical, well constructed argument thank you very much for that.

Yes, auto is mandated by the states, but it does have the same principle. If you argue the constitutionality of one then you must argue the constitutionality of the other. In that same vein those who oppose health care say it is not a right, so if health care is a privilege and not a right then is it not subject to the same scrutiny based on their own arguments?

How so? I need an explanation, not just a statement.

Again I issue the same as above; I need an explanation. You go on to talk about undelegated powers. By that definition then if the federal gov’t turns over the power to the states then doesn’t that eliminate any question of Constitutionality?

The problem there is that if you guarantee these other things without a mandate then it will drive the cost of care up even higher. This unpopular provision takes care of the popular ones. You can’t have your cake and eat it too in this situation.

Pablo said:
Well, I guess it’s a good thing for Judge Vinson (and the rest of America) that you’re not a Supreme Court Justice.

\Nope, just a logical human being who desires a well constructed argument and not logical fallacies.

Pablo said:
Yes, and “you’re wrong” refers to the allegation of there being nightly Nazi references. She’s right that he’s wrong.

Pablo, seriously? She said that those references don’t occur on Fox. Period. It is okay if you admit she is wrong once in a while. The references are almost daily on all of the media…including FNC. She was simply incorrect. Not all nitpicking correct in this slender instance. Good Lord, man, you sound like Bill Clinton redefining “is.”

Defending Bachmann by saying the people talking about her are being sexist is a joke. Many don’t care for her apparently re-writing of history, or the oddity that was the response, which was explained, but that no one corrected her was odd.

Wait wait wait, Megyn is talking about not being personal? Have you seen half of FOX’s programming?

The_Reasonable_Lib said:
Aaaaahhhh, very good, sir, a logical, well constructed argument thank you very much for that. Yes, auto is mandated by the states, but it does have the same principle. If you argue the constitutionality of one then you must argue the constitutionality of the other. In that same vein those who oppose health care say it is not a right, so if health care is a privilege and not a right then is it not subject to the same scrutiny based on their own arguments? How so? I need an explanation, not just a statement. Again I issue the same as above; I need an explanation. You go on to talk about undelegated powers. By that definition then if the federal gov’t turns over the power to the states then doesn’t that eliminate any question of Constitutionality? The problem there is that if you guarantee these other things without a mandate then it will drive the cost of care up even higher. This unpopular provision takes care of the popular ones. You can’t have your cake and eat it too in this situation.

well sir for one, car insurance is only mandated to protect others from your actions, and the last statement about rising cost is true

WildMan said:
Chrissy ‘Tingles & Thrills’ Matthews is a sissified girlieboy with small hands and a very small (tiny) penis. So Megyn & Michele, I wouldn’t worry about it too much. Besides both of you are beautiful women and Chrissy wishes she looked as good as you two. FOX Rocks…Go Conservative Americans!!!

i know you guys hate homosexuals along with blacks and muslims, but attacking someone for showing his love for his country? i will never understand you.

Good analysis Keeva on the HC bit — logical and factual. PabloW is a serial distortionist. FNC and conservatives can do no wrong in his eyes.

cjd ohio 1 said:
well sir for one, car insurance is only mandated to protect others from your actions, and the last statement about rising cost is true

I would say that this is the same. If you have a small number of people covered and one person needs very expensive care that will be reflected in other people’s cost. However, if you have a large number covered then that cost can be cushioned. So in that manner it does protect others from your own actions.

Gasket said:
Good analysis Keeva on the HC bit — logical and factual. PabloW is a serial distortionist. FNC and conservatives can do no wrong in his eyes.

I’m starting to think him, notsofast and felixw are all one person to be honest.

ChiliPeppersFan said:
i know you guys hate homosexuals along with blacks and muslims, but attacking someone for showing his love for his country? i will never understand you.

It’s psychological projection.

if it weren’t for fox attacking msnbc, there wouldn’t be anything on.

Keeva said:
Pablo, seriously? She said that those references don’t occur on Fox.

He said:

“Every night on the very network that we’re on right now, the leading commenters on this network use this kind of language.”

She replied:

That’s just not true, Richard.

He says:

Well, people can be the judge of it.

She says:

“They can. I don’t know if you sit and watch our programming every night, but I watch it every day and you’re wrong.”

She’s right, period. Watch the clip. Read Mark Joyella’s write up. You’re wrong, period, no matter what Jon Stewart told you.

ChiliPeppersFan said:
if it weren’t for fox attacking msnbc, there wouldn’t be anything on.

if it weren’t for msnbc attacking fox, there wouldn’t be anything on.

The_Reasonable_Lib said:
I would say that this is the same. If you have a small number of people covered and one person needs very expensive care that will be reflected in other people’s cost. However, if you have a large number covered then that cost can be cushioned. So in that manner it does protect others from your own actions.

and i understand your point sir, but when you start to mandate things it can be a slippery slope, because what other actions do you do that effect others………smoking, eating bad, skydiving……etc see my point

Gasket said:
It’s psychological projection.

No, my friend, it’s an out and out lie. Projection from this individual on people who disagree with them

isn’t it ironic that a news journalist and author would call a tax litigation attorney and current Congress woman a ‘balloon head’ and question her abilities? I’d take a tax attorney over a ‘journalist/author’ any day of the week for intellectual aptitude.

No wonder the news media folks always lose badly on Jeopardy! I do think it shows how the media just likes to listen to each other rather than do hard work. Easier to read the NY Times to form your opinion than to figure it out yourself. I’m just glad there are exceptions like Meghan Kelly and Anderson Cooper who do real journalistic work!

cjd ohio 1 said:
and i understand your point sir, but when you start to mandate things it can be a slippery slope, because what other actions do you do that effect others………smoking, eating bad, skydiving……etc see my point

I also see your point, but the keyword is “can”. Elvis “can” still be alive. The Democrats and Republicans “can” legislative in a bipartisan manner, but that doesn’t mean that any of those things will happen. However, i do understand the principle of opening the door. But I would also make the argument that other countries have real socialized medicine but haven’t abridged the freedom of citizens.

lane said:
isn’t it ironic that a news journalist and author would call a tax litigation attorney and current Congress woman a ‘balloon head’ and question her abilities? I’d take a tax attorney over a ‘journalist/author’ any day of the week for intellectual aptitude. No wonder the news media folks always lose badly on Jeopardy! I do think it shows how the media just likes to listen to each other rather than do hard work. Easier to read the NY Times to form your opinion than to figure it out yourself. I’m just glad there are exceptions like Meghan Kelly and Anderson Cooper who do real journalistic work!

Agreed

Gasket said:
PabloW is a serial distortionist.

Oh, yeah. That’s me. Yup.

The_Reasonable_Lib said:
I also see your point, but the keyword is “can”. Elvis “can” still be alive. The Democrats and Republicans “can” legislative in a bipartisan manner, but that doesn’t mean that any of those things will happen. However, i do understand the principle of opening the door. But I would also make the argument that other countries have real socialized medicine but haven’t abridged the freedom of citizens.

if they called it and worded it as a tax, the constitutional issue might be void………but it still is a touchy area for government to get invovled in

lane said:
isn’t it ironic that a news journalist and author would call a tax litigation attorney and current Congress woman a ‘balloon head’ and question her abilities? I’d take a tax attorney over a ‘journalist/author’ any day of the week for intellectual aptitude.

No wonder the news media folks always lose badly on Jeopardy! I do think it shows how the media just likes to listen to each other rather than do hard work. Easier to read the NY Times to form your opinion than to figure it out yourself. I’m just glad there are exceptions like Meghan Kelly and Anderson Cooper who do real journalistic work!

You can do math and know the ins and outs of tax law but still be a f*cking lunatic. An attorney’s job is to lie, a journalists job is to exaggerate, there is a difference in the two; one is pure fabrication and the other is at least based in fact and can be easily disproved.

The_Reasonable_Lib said:
I also see your point, but the keyword is “can”. Elvis “can” still be alive. The Democrats and Republicans “can” legislative in a bipartisan manner, but that doesn’t mean that any of those things will happen. However, i do understand the principle of opening the door. But I would also make the argument that other countries have real socialized medicine but haven’t abridged the freedom of citizens.

I see both sides on this, yet the U.S. has a population of 306,000,000 (not including illegal aliens). What sounds good and reasonable on paper hardly ever works out in the real world. Why all the opt-outs and exemptions for certain companies if this bill is so wonderful?

Keeva said:
Pablo, seriously? She said that those references don’t occur on Fox. Period.

Really? I just linked the clip. At what point in the clip does she say that? What exactly does she say? Hell, they’re making Nazi references throughout the segment! She does not say that.

cjd ohio 1 said:
if they called it and worded it as a tax, the constitutional issue might be void………but it still is a touchy area for government to get invovled in

I understand that as well which is why I would have preferred regulation and that medicare and medicaid be converted to an opt-in public choice. But then you get cries of socialism and blah blah blah.

The_Reasonable_Lib said:
You can do math and know the ins and outs of tax law but still be a f*cking lunatic. An attorney’s job is to lie, a journalists job is to exaggerate, there is a difference in the two; one is pure fabrication and the other is at least based in fact and can be easily disproved.

a attorney’s job is not to lie, twist and distort maybe, discredit yes……but the cant wait(should not ) lie, they will get disbarred

Dsiscokid said:
I see both sides on this, yet the U.S. has a population of 306,000,000 (not including illegal aliens). What sounds good and reasonable on paper hardly ever works out in the real world. Why all the opt-outs and exemptions for certain companies if this bill is so wonderful?

Probably the same reason why we have to offer so many companies tax breaks if our country is so wonderful; they’re looking for the best deal.

The_Reasonable_Lib said:
I understand that as well which is why I would have preferred regulation and that medicare and medicaid be converted to an opt-in public choice. But then you get cries of socialism and blah blah blah.

The_Reasonable_Lib said:
Probably the same reason why we have to offer so many companies tax breaks if our country is so wonderful; they’re looking for the best deal.

disregard where I accidentally quote myself.

The_Reasonable_Lib said:
I understand that as well which is why I would have preferred regulation and that medicare and medicaid be converted to an opt-in public choice. But then you get cries of socialism and blah blah blah.

yeah, not trying to win a arguement with you, just putting a difference of opinion out there

cjd ohio 1 said:
a attorney’s job is not to lie, twist and distort maybe, discredit yes……but the cant wait(should not ) lie, they will get disbarred

Good point, I should have worded it differently. An attorney’s job is definitely to manipulate the jury.

cjd ohio 1 said:
yeah, not trying to win a arguement with you, just putting a difference of opinion out there

Me either, i just enjoy discussing things in a non-belligerent way. I’m open to other opinions, I just don’t like being called an anti-american commie socialist whose bringing down america and can’t keep their hands out of other people’s pockets.

The_Reasonable_Lib said:
Probably the same reason why we have to offer so many companies tax breaks if our country is so wonderful; they’re looking for the best deal.

Wouldn’t the best deal be to allow insurance companies to sell across state lines and actually compete for customers?

The_Reasonable_Lib said:
Me either, i just enjoy discussing things in a non-belligerent way. I’m open to other opinions, I just don’t like being called an anti-american commie socialist whose bringing down america and can’t keep their hands out of other people’s pockets.

well i will keep your secret lol

The_Reasonable_Lib said:
Me either, i just enjoy discussing things in a non-belligerent way. I’m open to other opinions, I just don’t like being called an anti-american commie socialist whose bringing down america and can’t keep their hands out of other people’s pockets.

True. Just like I (and others) don’t like to called rascist, homophobes, bigots, capitalist pigs, Christian wingnuts that want to force the Bible down people’s throats.

Let’s all meet and go to Applebee’s!

Matthews saying balloon-head is no worse than O’reilly saying pinhead and left-wing loons.
Where is Megyns story on that?

Also, isn’t Megyn’s show supposed to be part of Fox “”news” programming? I don’t think whoring yourself out for Palin and Bachmnn is “news”.
Unless you’re on Fox, of course.

Reasonable -

Thanks!

Access to Health Care is a right established under law many years age (FACE Act). Affordable health care is not a right. The primary difference is that owning/operating a vehicle is optional for each person.Many do neither and therefore are not subject to those regulations for those that CHOOSE to drive or own a vehicle.

Living/being alive is not an option. Placing a tax/penalty/requirement on simply living – as the individual mandate does – is wildly unconstitutional as we cannot CHOOSE to not be alive and yet remain living. The individual mandate and the corporate mandate as structured are unconstitutional on the federal level.

Note that I included the employer part here. By the same token that individuals cannot be required to carry insurance under penalty of law, neither can employers be forced to offer specific benefits beyond minimum wage and OSHA standard working conditions. If the employees are not happy, they can leave or work with management to get the benefit. Forcing companies to pay a tax penalty for not offering health insurance as specified by the Feds is a definite restriction on free enterprise.

In effect, the individual mandate would tax simply living. Not income, inheritance, investment gift, prize or other,. Just being alive would suddenly become taxable. Much like King George used to tax the Colonists for simply living there.

If the states were to create a mandate system (like Hawaii and Massachusetts) it would be perfectly Constitutional under the the US Constitution since it remains inside the state. Note that both HI and MA offer a state funded option to ameliorate the mandate. This is Constitutional since it does not affect interstate commerce or any other power delegated to the federal government. Note – going back to your automotive analogy – that there are no federal vehicle registration, driver’s license or auto insurance laws. All are at the state level where they belong. In fact, almost all insurance is state regulated since they tend to operate in a single state as separate business units (Blue Cross of Florida, Blue Cross of New York and so on).

As far as cost, that is the fault of corrupt state legislatures saying yes to their regulated insurance companies endlessly. It is also the fault of greedy, unscrupulous trial lawyers who prey on the sick and sad to file bogus malpractice suits forcing medical professionals and hospitals to retain ever increasing levels of insurance. However, the Constitution makes zero mention of cost at any level, That is the function of a truly free market, which health insurance is not.

I am self-employed and therefore have to seek an individual plan. I have a pre-existing condition that causes my poor suffering insurance agent to fight for me every year at renewal. I am ecstatic that I can at least get coverage of some kind. I know how bad the insurers are and how much they gouge when they can.

On the mandate itself, they got it backwards. If the goal was to maximize the pool of insured then why not offer an annual rebate for having insurance versus a penalty for not. Employees already have this in that their health insurance benefit is non-taxable and employers are able to deduct it completely. I find the carrot always superior to the stick.

There is a lot of good stuff in that law along with the bad. It just need to be sorted out and refined.

Pablo said:
Yes. Furthermore, in states that do require insurance, you are only required to have it if you’re driving on public roads and all the coverage you are required to carry is liability, which covers damage you might do to someone else. ObamaCare is like forcing you to buy collision, comprehensive, repair and maintenance coverage whether you drive a car or not.

Precisely.

BFD said:
Matthews saying balloon-head is no worse than O’reilly saying pinhead and left-wing loons.
Where is Megyns story on that?

Also, isn’t Megyn’s show supposed to be part of Fox “”news” programming? I don’t think whoring yourself out for Palin and Bachmnn is “news”.
Unless you’re on Fox, of course.

Dude, be fair. They all whore out on all news networks. It is the new media reality.

Pablo said:
Really? I just linked the clip. At what point in the clip does she say that? What exactly does she say? Hell, they’re making Nazi references throughout the segment! She does not say that.

Pablo, again slicing and dicing. This is not a court of law. Megyn said she watches all of Fox’s programming and it just doesn’t happen. She was eminently clear on this. It does not happen on Fox. Well, it does. A lot. She was wrong, It happens. She defended her employer. Wrong, but remarkably loyal these days. It is that simple. She got it wrong.

This is the problem with any discussion. Nobody can back off one inch on anything. And without any yielding on any point, then we have what we have. Stagnation.

And on MSNBC a lot, on CNN a lot, on all of them a lot and too much.

BFD said:
Also, isn’t Megyn’s show supposed to be part of Fox “”news” programming? I don’t think whoring yourself out for Palin and Bachmnn is “news”.
Unless you’re on Fox, of course.

Dave Noland said:
Who on the left has called out CHris. SIGHT SOME FREAKING SOURCES!!! Quit saying SOME SAY. That is a classic Fox source. Some say say ignorant douche bags watch Fox.

The two most ignorant monkeys of the day .

Keeva said:
Pablo, again slicing and dicing.

No, not slicing and dicing. This is what was said:

Socarides: “Every night on the very network that we’re on right now, the leading commenters on this network use this kind of language.”

Kelly: ” That’s just not true, Richard.”

Socarides: ” Well, people can be the judge of it.”

Kelly: “They can. I don’t know if you sit and watch our programming every night, but I watch it every day and you’re wrong.”

That’s it.

Megyn said she watches all of Fox’s programming and it just doesn’t happen. She was eminently clear on this.

Quote her. She does not say that. That’s not spin, that’s not slicing and dicing, that is an accurate representation of her remarks. You seem like a reasonable person to me, and yet you believe this verifiable falsehood. I wonder why that is.

Keeva said:
This is the problem with any discussion. Nobody can back off one inch on anything.

I don’t back off of verifiable facts. This is not a matter of opinion.

I think balloon head is not descriptive enough for Bachmann

Maybe:

Talking Points Bimbo
or
Crazy Eyes Barbi
or
God’s Little Motormouth

Best lines: “We have seen an orgy. The government has spent its wad”. LOL
“I may not always get my words right”. That is one of her few understatements. Most of the time she makes comments that are over the top, and purely hyperbolic. But damn, she is fun to watch as political follies. Let’s keep her for the entertainment value….

I am hoping the Republican party promotes her rapidly. Maybe she can run for senator…against Franken….Loony vs Loopy.

It is interesting that Bachmann, as a Tea Party leader, has previously had no problems being a recipient of Federal farm subsidies….

Dave Noland said:
strange obsession

Exactly.
And accusing Chris of a “strange obsession ” is editorializing as well.
Which is all fine and dandy, but like most of Matt’s stories it belongs under the “Columnist” banner.

Anyway, balloon-head isn’t sexist. Balloon-tits is sexist!

Calling an adult a name is one thing , but calling a baby , a living , breathing , innocent baby a bastard is inhuman .

Here ‘ s BFD , an inhuman pile of monkey vomit :

BFD says : ” I think it’s only fair Bristol get 20,000 for speaking as an unwed mother.

As a matter of fact she should have another bastard child and raise her price to double that. “

It’s neither – it just so happens to be the truth. Bachmann is a balloon head at the very least.

This is my favorite part of Matt’s story…

“First we noticed a strange obsession MSNBC’s Chris Matthews had with criticizing Congresswoman Michele Bachmann..” [link included]

The link is to another of his own stories about Matthews “bizarre obsession”.

I guess when Matt says “we” he means Matt and Matt. lolol

valkyrie101 said:
Obviously Megyn is not familiar with the expression, “balloon Head”, or “air head” to describe someone who is not that smart. It is not a sexist comment since both men and woman can be balloon heads.

…though in this case we have TWO balloon heads, both female.

Balloon head is just impolite

balloon tits would be sexist.

CosmosDan said:
Balloon head is just impolite

balloon tits would be sexist.

Bwahahaha…You owe me a new computer screen!

The Lantern of Truth said:
Calling an adult a name is one thing , but calling a baby , a living , breathing , innocent baby a bastard is inhuman .

Here ‘ s BFD , an inhuman pile of monkey vomit :

BFD says : ” I think it’s only fair Bristol get 20,000 for speaking as an unwed mother.

As a matter of fact she should have another bastard child and raise her price to double that. ”

What? The word was used correctly in it’s context.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bastard?show=1&t=1296518961

Quit your whining.

Gasket said:
Bwahahaha…You owe me a new computer screen!

That’ll come right off with a little club soda. ;-}

BFD said:
Anyway, balloon-head isn’t sexist. Balloon-tits is sexist!

That’s hilarious. You win because you posted it first, but clearly, great minds do think alike.

Megyn,
Liberals can’t be sexist, racist or homophobic – both Tawana Sharpton and THEIR mainstream media tell us that all the time.

Teabagger woman are just so stupid!
Us “Progressives” have super intelligent leaders like Nancy Pelosi and Maxine Waters.

It’s weird. She always appears on The O’Reilly Factor, a show where the host makes sexist remarks all the time especially when he attacks Pelosi or has a guest like Dennis Miller on who does so. Oh…and to clear it for PabloW — “all the time” in this context is a trope. I don’t really mean Bill literally does it “all the time.” I know reason, logic & semantics are big problems for some of you.

Pablo said:
No, not slicing and dicing. This is what was said:

Socarides: “Every night on the very network that we’re on right now, the leading commenters on this network use this kind of language.”

Kelly: ” That’s just not true, Richard.”

Socarides: ” Well, people can be the judge of it.”

Kelly: “They can. I don’t know if you sit and watch our programming every night, but I watch it every day and you’re wrong.”

That’s it.

Quote her. She does not say that. That’s not spin, that’s not slicing and dicing, that is an accurate representation of her remarks. You seem like a reasonable person to me, and yet you believe this verifiable falsehood. I wonder why that is.

I don’t back off of verifiable facts. This is not a matter of opinion.

You’re whole point here is you think she meant “every night” literally Really? Can’t get a whole lot more Clintonian than that. After all, it wasn’t really sex.

So we are precise on Megyn Kelly’s EXACT PRECISE words to defend her obvious errant belief, but “death panels” and “job-killing bill” still stand even though both have been disavowed. And, I assume we still believe that Jefferson ended slavery. Seeing Russia from Alaska lately? Just checking on today’s Pravda dictionary rules.

Can’t cut it both ways. Either you keep context and be fair or we slice and dice for precision and deniability. For the record, I HATE hypocrites who can’t admit when one of their paragons is wrong. And Kelly was flat out wrong. She knew it when she said it otherwise she would have been defending it the next day.

This is the core problem with current political debate. Errors are allowed to stand because admitting one might hurt in the next bogus poll. Everyone is oh, so worried about being right all the time they forgot that it is about governing, NOT keeping score.

Gasket said:
It’s weird. She always appears on The O’Reilly Factor, a show where the host makes sexist remarks all the time especially when he attacks Pelosi or has a guest like Dennis Miller on who does so. Oh…and to clear it for PabloW — “all the time” in this context is a trope. I don’t really mean Bill literally does it “all the time.” I know reason, logic & semantics are big problems for some of you.

That’s because it comes in handy to ignore common figures of speech and insist on a literal translation so you can be technically correct and ignore the larger point.

Fox news, thanks to Glenn Beck in particular, are by the the undisputed champions of ridiculous Nazi references.

Keeva said:
You’re whole point here is you think she meant “every night” literally Really? Can’t get a whole lot more Clintonian than that. After all, it wasn’t really sex.

So we are precise on Megyn Kelly’s EXACT PRECISE words to defend her obvious errant belief, but “death panels” and “job-killing bill” still stand even though both have been disavowed. And, I assume we still believe that Jefferson ended slavery. Seeing Russia from Alaska lately? Just checking on today’s Pravda dictionary rules.

Can’t cut it both ways. Either you keep context and be fair or we slice and dice for precision and deniability. For the record, I HATE hypocrites who can’t admit when one of their paragons is wrong. And Kelly was flat out wrong. She knew it when she said it otherwise she would have been defending it the next day.

This is the core problem with current political debate. Errors are allowed to stand because admitting one might hurt in the next bogus poll. Everyone is oh, so worried about being right all the time they forgot that it is about governing, NOT keeping score.

Yeah…she should have responded with, “Wait a minute sir, you are WRONG! We don’t use Nazi references “every night.” We only use Nazi references SOME of the time.”

**applause**

Keeva said:
So we are precise on Megyn Kelly’s EXACT PRECISE words to defend her obvious errant belief,

What obvious errant belief? Quote her saying something that isn’t accurate. You can’t. She didn’t. There’s no BJ half a loaf to be had here. Socarides was wrong and she told him so. She’s right, period.

Let’s try this in reverse. Does Fox News feature commentators who make Nazi references every night? That is Socarides claim. Defend it.

NORBIT Jr. said:
Megyn,Liberals can’t be sexist, racist or homophobic – both Tawana Sharpton and THEIR mainstream media tell us that all the time.

So you agree with Megyn that use of the term “balloonhead”, was sexist?

Pablo said:
Let’s try this in reverse. Does Fox News feature commentators who make Nazi references every night? That is Socarides claim. Defend it.

Clearly a figure of speech, like saying “liberals are racists” when you mean only “some liberals are racist”.

Has anybody advised(Chris Matthews) the smartest man in the media, since Obermann went off the deep end, that the Panama Canal is actually in Panama…not Egypt. For someone so brilliant maybe he needs to talk to Sarah Palin about a geography lesson.

Pablo said:
Let’s try this in reverse. Does Fox News feature commentators who make Nazi references every night? That is Socarides claim. Defend it.

Your premise is wrong, since, he never specifically said that anyway. It’s weird you want to be literal and precise in language in your argument(s) defending Megyn, but you don’t afford her guest the same courtesy. He said FNC uses the same “language” — which could mean many other things and not specifically limited to invoking Godwin’s law.

Also, “every night” is a colloquialism, you toad. If someone asks me whether I exercise and I say, “Yes, all the time.” Does that mean I exercise 24/7/365? That would be the literal interpretation. The use of that phrase or language in that context is meant to provide imagery by denoting the frequency of my exercising. Precision is not important. Just like any rational person can not take Megyn’s notion of watching the FNC programming “every day” literally to assert her knowledge of it’s programming every single second. We know she has to eat, sleep and attend to other duties other than watch FOX. The absurdity of your defense is not discerning literal and non-literal figures of speech. No wonder Megyn hasn’t challenged Stewart AFAIK. The obvious followup question to Megyn would be, was she disclaiming the occurrence of Nazi comparisons on FOX (at all) or was she just challenging the frequency of said comparisons? She would get creamed since either response would paint her or FNC or both in bad light by reinforcing her guest’s initial argument.

Pablo said:
Let’s try this in reverse. Does Fox News feature commentators who make Nazi references every night? That is Socarides claim. Defend it.

I never said he was correct, but both of them used “every night” as an exaggeration and you know it. I am weary of this literal when it works and generic when it doesn’t. By the way, she never said they didn’t say it every night. She said she watches every day. So, using your literal method, she never sees their night programming. She only watches every day. Oops.

Careful about playing with words. Sometimes they burn back.

Show me Death Panels in the Health Care mess. Until then you have zero standing to make this case and even Megyn Kelly knows it.

One more time – it is this precise type of blind ideological blather that is at the heart of our problems. Neither side cannot tolerate being wrong even once. They will pick and choose words and meanings, eviscerate context and sometimes just make it up to prevent being wrong.

ChiliPeppersFan said:
i know you guys hate homosexuals along with blacks and muslims, but attacking someone for showing his love for his country? i will never understand you.

Hot mouth, I gather you are around 9-10 years of age based on a couple of your posts I read. Something happens when you become an actual teenager. I will leave it for you to figure out in a couple years.

Now I can tell you watch neither FOX News or that horrible excuse for a cable news network. If you actually watched both you would know that PMSnbc does basically nothing but, call FOX News and their talking heads names on a daily basis. FOX News does not attack PMSnbc outside of once in a while make a single comment but, does not even name the network. They usually just say that other network that nobody watches and never say PMSnbc. Those who do on the right are the likes of Mark Levin, Rush Limbaugh, Michael Reagan and most of the other right leaning, conservative radio talk show hosts. And good for them to point out all the lies, half truths, falsehoods and other crap coming from PMSnbc. Chrissy, Edith, Randy, Andrea, Bathroom Sink, Joe Coffee, et al, make PMSnbc come across as a bad day of Kindegarten.

As for understanding me or other conservatives, I would not expect you to be able to do that. Some things are just over the heads of libbers.

And btw, CPF, I do not hate Blacks. I played football for 17 years with them as teammates and opponents. I also do not hate Muslims. I do have a big, terrible disdain towards Muslim jihadists and terrorists in general. I do not let race and religion get in my political arguments. There are plenty of other things to divide us politically.

Keeva said:
I never said he was correct, but both of them used “every night” as an exaggeration and you know it. I am weary of this literal when it works and generic when it doesn’t. By the way, she never said they didn’t say it every night. She said she watches every day. So, using your literal method, she never sees their night programming. She only watches every day. Oops.

Careful about playing with words. Sometimes they burn back.

Show me Death Panels in the Health Care mess. Until then you have zero standing to make this case and even Megyn Kelly knows it.

One more time – it is this precise type of blind ideological blather that is at the heart of our problems. Neither side cannot tolerate being wrong even once. They will pick and choose words and meanings, eviscerate context and sometimes just make it up to prevent being wrong.

Wait, I have to disprove “death panels” or Megyn Kelly is wrong? I take back what I said about you being reasonable. Bummer.

Gasket said:
Your premise is wrong, since, he never specifically said that anyway.

Yes he did.

“Every night on the very network that we’re on right now, the leading commenters on this network use this kind of language.”

You lie. Again.

No, it’s actually just stupid. Sexist. Racist. Chauvinistic. Really, really dumb and seriously childish by all! The uberleft progressives need to grow up and use grown up language.

Gasket said:
Also, “every night” is a colloquialism, you toad.

On what planet?

CosmosDan said:
Fox news, thanks to Glenn Beck in particular, are by the the undisputed champions of ridiculous Nazi references.

Whats the score, Dan? And do we count Olbermann now or not?

Gasket said:
It’s weird you want to be literal and precise in language in your argument(s) defending Megyn, but you don’t afford her guest the same courtesy.

If that’s your argument, how is she wrong? Let’s go back to Stewart. What clips did he play to “prove her wrong”?

Gasket said:
Yeah…she should have responded with, “Wait a minute sir, you are WRONG! We don’t use Nazi references “every night.” We only use Nazi references SOME of the time.”

Right, That’s wrong our commentators don’t use them every night, just more often than any other network. How DARE you slander us that way.

Besides , he’s a congressman so his one counts for at least 100 by commentators. Okay so we still have lots more than him, but , not every night. So, I WIN. Victory dance.

Pablo said:
Yes he did.

No, he did not. I’m responding to your specious statement below that you are attributing to Socarides..

Pablo said:
Let’s try this in reverse. Does Fox News feature commentators who make Nazi references every night? That is Socarides claim. Defend it.

You are making us defend something he did not SPECIFICALLY say.

He said this…

Every night on the very network that we’re on right now, the leading commenters on this network use this kind of language

Language! That could mean many other things, including Nazi comparisons. Again, you are being literal with Megyn’s defense and paraphrasing or inferring Socarides’ statement(s) with your bullshit comment above. .So, using your own literal interpretation, Megyn Kelly does not watch Fox News every night. Do you agree with that or not? If you agree with it, then technically — she has no grounds to dismiss Socarides because she doesn’t even watch the programming timeslot he referred to.

See how those foolish literal interpretations are making you look right now?

Like I said earlier, the correct factual rebuttal from Megyn in totality would have been embarrassing to her or FOX. She went half way with her response (to discredit Socarides) and didn’t say the rest which would have partly legitimized his argument. It’s misrepresentation, and one could even argue BIAS from an alleged “objective” anchor/journalist. Of course, this argument assumes she actually knew that Nazi comparisons had been made at one time or another on the network. It’s also likely she didn’t really know of these Nazi comparisons being made (highly unlikely since one was made right in front of her by another FNC employee) but had to defend her network ad hoc from a bombastic accusation. It’s understandable, but, doesn’t absolve her from being fallacious in her defense.

Megyn hasn’t said a word, has she? I wonder why!

Pablo said:
Wait, I have to disprove “death panels” or Megyn Kelly is wrong? I take back what I said about you being reasonable. Bummer.

I have no problem with reasonable, but look at your posts. You are citing a literal verbatim meaning to her words in order to defend what is obviously an errant statement. My reference to death panels is to make the point that so much of the debate on everything is derived and not literal. Plus, she said she watches in the day, not night. If literal is the method, then she is still wrong.

You don’t have to prove or disprove the death panels. It was an illustrative hyperbole meant to elicit the exact reaction it did. However, it would be nice if you showed a little reasonableness yourself by going with the intent of what she said, which was errant. Nazi references are an almost daily occurrence at Fox. And MSNBC. Sad, but true.

You know what is really sad here? I like Megyn Kelly. She was wrong about this, but generally, I like her.

At the end of the day, she was incorrect. So was her guest. So was Congressman Cohen. And Beck. And Hannity. And O’Reilly. And Olbermann. And Maddow. And Schultz. And the rest of the yammering heads.

Keeva said:
You are citing a literal verbatim meaning to her words in order to defend what is obviously an errant statement.

What errant statement? Quote her.

Jon Stewart is not TRVTH carved in stone. If she said something wrong, tell us what that was. It’s just that easy, and yet you won’t do it.

Keeva said:
Nazi references are an almost daily occurrence at Fox.

What did Media Matters find? Something like 20 references over how many years? And most from Beck, who when he talks about Nazis IS TALKING ABOUT THE NAZIS. If someone on Fox talks about Steve Cohen mentioning Goebbels, is there something wrong with that? Apparently so, IT’S A NAZI REFERENCE!!!!

Who needs nuance when you’ve got sophistry?

Gasket said:
Language! That could mean many other things, including Nazi comparisons.

Yes, let’s completely ignore the context of the conversation and pretend he could have meant anything, when it was perfectly clear what they were talking about. Or not.

You lie, Gasket.

CosmosDan said:
Right, That’s wrong our commentators don’t use them every night, just more often than any other network.

What’s the scoreboard say, Dan? What’s the count?

Keeva said:
You are citing a literal verbatim meaning to her words in order to defend what is obviously an errant statement.

That’s nuts, isn’t it? Holding her to what she actually said as opposed to what Jon Stewart says she said. Who does that? Not Mark Joyella does, but who reads him, amirite? He’s no Jon Stewart.

And thus my point. Incorrectly parsing words to defend an error:

Socarides: “Every night on the very network that we’re on right now, the leading commenters on this network use this kind of language.”

Kelly: ” That’s just not true, Richard.”

Socarides: ” Well, people can be the judge of it.”

Kelly: “They can. I don’t know if you sit and watch our programming every night, but I watch it every day and you’re wrong.”

Incorrect in that – being precise and exact – she watches every day. Not night. Socarides said night and she replied with day. And there you have the exact words. As provided by you.

Parsing in that we both know that she meant it doesn’t happen at Fox, and she was wrong.

Either way, she was incorrect. See how easy that is.

By the way, Jon Stewart was also incorrect in some of his uses since they predate her at Fox, but Stewart does not claim to be a beacon of truth.

It really is OK if she is wrong. She is still very good at what she does. She just missed one. It happens.

Incorrect in that – being precise and exact – she watches every day. Not night.

That still wouldn’t make her wrong. But it does make you a buillshit artist, reaching for the thinnest of reeds and coming up empty. A pity, that. You could do so much better if you weren’t such a sheep.

It really is OK if she is wrong. She is still very good at what she does. She just missed one. It happens.

I’m sure she does. This ain’t one of those times. Oh, and night is part of every day.

I don’t drink every day! I only drink at night!

Classic addict logic.

Michelle Bachmann has consistently slandered those who disagree with her as marxist, socialist, and unamerican. She has a view of history that is taken from somewhere in nevernever land where the militant secessionists, wannabeconfederates and neodixiecrats also get theirs. She is divisve and worthy of every criricism she earns-not because of race, gender or political affiliation, but the content of her public character. I say that until she begins to work for the freedom, justice and general welfare of us all, we slam her intellectually until she taps out.

Pablo said:
That still wouldn’t make her wrong. But it does make you a buillshit artist, reaching for the thinnest of reeds and coming up empty. A pity, that. You could do so much better if you weren’t such a sheep.

And there we have it foiks – the heart of the problem. It is okay for some to cite EXACT words and EXACT phrases to defend errors, but when someone else cites EXACT words and EXACT phrases, it is a thin reed. Or, as most reasonable folks call it, the old double standard.

Also, it is a shame you couldn’t resist the foul language. Another sign of a losing argument.

As far as the sheep thing, you have no idea who I am. Perhaps this might help: http://www.swissarmyjew.com. Not exactly a sheep, eh?

The balloon-head comment is not sexist at all. What is sexist is Megyn Kelly’s idea that women can’t be subject to the same public scrutiny as men. Bachman IS a balloon head. Her lack of knowledge about the country she serves and it’s history is appalling for a woman in her position.

And let’s not forget with the ruling – the only part under judicial scrutiny with the health care law is the part where it says everyone must buy coverage, or be covered under their employer. The whole law doesn’t get pulled down if SCOTUS agrees with the recent ruling – only that one part would need to be amended. This is hardly the beginning of the end of the Health Care law.