BBO Discussion Forums: Rick Perry vs. Barack Obama - BBO Discussion Forums

awm, on 2012-March-11, 09:56, said:

I agree entirely with this. The issue is not how rude or whatever the comments were, the issue is pols who have to consult their campaign advisers before they know what they think. And then they get bad advice.

awm, on 2012-March-11, 09:56, said:

the same can be sad for the dems when asked about maher

luke warm, on 2012-March-12, 07:52, said:

Please point out an example of this.

And what relevance is Bill Maher in this situation? He is a comic/satirist, not a proxy of the party like Limbaugh.

I see that Romney picked up nine more delegates in American Samoa. The man is on a roll.

kenberg, on 2012-March-14, 06:07, said:

The really sad part is that Limbaugh picked up two in Mississippi.

Winstonm, on 2012-March-14, 11:36, said:

Two what?

ArtK78, on 2012-March-12, 07:57, said:

hey, it wasn't me who called for more civil discourse so my daughters could comment on anything they want without being called names - it was obama... civil discourse isn't limited to comics and proxies... his weekly hbo show has less than a tenth of limbaugh's audience... 1.1 million viewers (that was the season premier, likely lower now) to 20+ million for limbaugh daily... so yeah, you're right - maher isn't very relevant

PassedOut, on 2012-March-14, 11:51, said:

Precisely.

And the hits just keep on coming...

Quote

How bright can this guy be in the first place to go into a Spanish-speaking country, to a Spanish-language paper - El Vocero - and tell them they have to speak English if they want statehood? That he is full of hooey is just icing on the stupid cake.

First, Romney.

Quote

Then Santorum:

Quote

On the other hand, the Obama campaign strategy is to try to talk the Republicans into continuing their campaign an extra six months, at which point there would be no electable Republicans left.

luke warm, on 2012-March-14, 15:44, said:

I presume everyone has seen Stewart's appearance on crossfire where he tears strips off the presenters by making the comparison that his is a comedy show, and the lead in is fart jokes, but CNN is a real news network. Trying to hold him to account is ridiculous, and at the same time if you're trying to pretend to be a real news show you must be accountable even to a satirist.

Rush explicitly bills his show as real political commentary. Maher bills himself as a comedy. The difference is clear.

Ann Coulter got away with far more hateful and disturbing comments for years. Rush's comments weren't funny or clever, but they weren't particularly offensive either. And his underlying point that women should pay for their own birth control pills is perfectly reasonable.

The amount of $ that men spend on sex probably dwarfs by a factor of 10 or more the amount of money that women do. None of it should be covered by 'health insurance.'

Cthulhu D, on 2012-March-16, 05:59, said:

ok then, obama doesn't mind his daughters being called c)nt$ and bitches as long as it's a *comic* that does it, but doesn't want a talk show host calling them "sluts"... got it

What I wonder now is, "Where does he look for information?"

Euthanasia in the Netherlands: Rick Santorum’s bogus statistics

Quote

This guy is second to Mitt Romney in the running for a presidential nomination. Argh!

Quote

I think he watched a Dutch subtitled remake of Soylent Green when he was in high school.

Quote

I don't know which is the more chilling thought: that Santorum is second, or that it is Romney who is first.

Actually, I think I have this part figured out. With the economy doing much better than expected, and unemployment dropping, the GOP has decided Obama is untouchable and is now concentrating its efforts on finding the most ridiculous and unelectable Republican candidate possible to act as a sacrificial lamb tossed onto the alter of GOP Presidential Campaign loser, and hopefully one too full of himself (Gingrich) or simply too stupid (Santorum) or too arrogant (Romney) to see what is being done to him.

I'd say they have narrowed it down to the three stooges, which is exactly what they wanted to do. I'm thinking Moe will get the nod, at which point he will gouge Curly in the eyes. Whoo, whoo, whoo! Mmmmmmm! Nyuh, nyuh, nyuh!

jonottawa, on 2012-March-16, 14:21, said:

The thing is, birth control pills aren't necessarily just "money spent on sex". There are PLENTY of women who are on birth control pills due to health (non-pregnancy related) reasons. Also, some women experience pregnancy-induced medical issues (like gestational diabetes or pre-eclampsia, among others), and I would say that for them, birth control in general is a medical necessity. But even if you say that those who have uterine problems or would experience pregnancy-induced medical distress can have birth control pills paid for, but others can't, I would still argue that there is a good reason for health insurance companies to cover birth control pills.

Preventive care is usually cheaper for health insurance companies than treating people after something happens, and that is why many of them are strong promoters of preventive care. The same for pregnancy. It is much cheaper for companies to pay for birth control than it is to pay for pregnancies

I thought there were studies out there that say preventive care does not reduce overall health care costs.

I mean testing the whole population for various illnesses will save some lives, granted, but it is very expensive.

In any event I dont think Insurance companies are against covering birth control.

Also I thought the govt through Title Ten gives out birth control for free.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Title_X

Even with low cost or even free birth control, out of wedlock births are skyrocketing.


--


As for reducing costs I still think that high tech/cheap imaging that can be scaled is one way to help reduce costs.

mike777, on 2012-March-16, 21:27, said:

Not once President Romney is in charge - corporations don't use birth control.

Quote

Winstonm, on 2012-March-16, 19:25, said:

I thought along these same lines when the Dems put up Mondale to run against Reagan. But really I am not so sure that a capable Dem could not have beaten Reagan and I am far from sure that a capable Rep could not beat Obama. I may not be the only one who finds it weird to require health insurers to supply condoms. Suppose I am partial to purple with ridges and a smiley face on them. Do they have to supply that, or will it be government standard dull? Not that this is an issue to shake the foundations of government, but you don't have to be a Randite to wonder just when it was that we decided this was a government function.

The thing is, the Limbaugh wing of the party both scares and offends people like me. I am definitely not a raging liberal, but I would prefer that my president not be certifiably nuts.

Which brings me back to humor and satire. I read yesterday that there is a website "Dogs Against Romney". Unlike either Limbaugh or Maher, that's funny. Also a bit apt. As a mathematician I am used to people assuming that I let logic trump common sense. But never have I known a mathematician, or anyone else, who tied his dog to the top of a car to take him on a trip. One can imagine Romney coming up with a perfectly good plan on entitlement reform, providing that you don't mind tying grandma down on the roof of the car (metaphorically speaking).

Quote

I was thinking more on the lines of taking grandpa out to piss on the fire hydrant. (unless your grandpa happens to be a corporation)