Rhetorical question, eh?
Search
Archive Calendar
| M | T | W | T | F | S | S |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | ||||
| 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 |
| 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 |
| 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 |
| 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | |
Archives
Categories
- A Government That Can Force You to Buy Health Insurance Can Make You Do Anything (3)
- a protein wisdom philosophy primer (3)
- academics (25)
- armadillo (8)
- Friday Fiction 100 Word Challenge (51)
- from the protein wisdom conceptual series (136)
- identity politics (33)
- If Republicans Win the Senate in 2014 (1)
- in which celebraties comment on current events (67)
- language / intentionalism (88)
- legal (6)
- My brief conversations with inanimate objects (130)
- NSA / FISA (46)
- One Term to Serve, the 2012 Revival (6)
- Overheard in a Fallujah bunker (27)
- Poems from 196x, Revised by the Ghost of Richard Brauti (27)
- protein wisdom's DNC coverage (30)
- protein wisdom's RNC coverage (29)
- protein wisdom: the movie Lists (20)
- Provocateurism (16)
- real-time empirical observations (51)
- red pills found behind the sofa cushions (42)
- Scenes from my driveway (61)
- Talking back to 80s music (41)
- The Martha Stewart Chronicles (58)
- The protein wisdom interviews (10)
- The protein wisdom original poems (142)
- Uncategorized (20,046)
- Zen and the art of motorcycle maintenance, abridged (34)
Recent Comments
- In The Mailbox: 02.28.23 (Afternoon Edition) : The Other McCain on Hey, longtime pw readers…
- In The Mailbox: 12.23.22 : The Other McCain on Patrick J. Carroll truly IS a sad, embittered psychopath
- Danger on Patrick J. Carroll might be a psychopath
- Danger on Patrick J. Carroll might be a psychopath
- In The Mailbox: 07.18.22 : The Other McCain on Patrick J. Carroll might be a psychopath
That is a question I have posed to the office staffers of our local (freshman Democrat) Congressman.
“Why is the HHS mandate – that was NOT included in the law massed on that infamous party-line vote, with not a single Republican voting in favor of passage – one that involves birth control? Why isn’t it for cancer meds, or anti-seizure drugs? Why not acne medications to improve the self-esteem of our teenagers? Why must you choose the one thing that will punish those who merely wish to exercise their First Amendment rights, not to mention the right to be simply left alone?”
Actually, the Dems have declared war on anyone who takes his/her Christian beliefs seriously, as opposed to the Progs who, in Megan McArdle’s words, view Christian beliefs as a hobby.
Yes, not so rhetorical, save where it comes to a serious answer to “when?” — beyond the mere identification that the Democrat party now stands against Catholicism (and not just Roman Catholicism, either), a truism if there ever were one.
If we were to carefully trace the implications of Democrat (Socialist, to name names) political thought, driving each principle to its logical limit, we might find that “when?” lands at the adoption of the implicated principle(s) many score years ago, possibly even back to (or beyond!) the late years of the 18th century. But hokey-smoke, Bullwinkle, who in their right mind wants to go to that sort of trouble? It’s just too serious.
I had a twitterspat right after the Hobby Lobby decision wherein some guy argued the following, and I haven’t had time to verify whether it’s valid.
He said that there is “no HHS mandate” that is being enforced by fines. That a business has the option of (a) providing the full coverage package prescribed by the “mandate,” thereby qualifying for a new tax break (calculated per employee who is offered the package, even if the employee opts out); (b) not providing the full coverage package, thereby forgoing the new tax break.
Meaning that you’re NOT assessed a fine for non-compliance; you just don’t get the extra tax break. Which, admittedly, fits into the “smaller increase” = “cut” calculus of political accounting.
Ergo, HL would not take an additional financial hit for not providing the 4 suspected abortifacients.
I’d never heard that argument. All of the language is about fines being assessed for non-compliance, fines onerous enough to put small biz out of biz.
Where did that guy get the idea that a lack of tax break is at stake instead of a new fine?
Sen. Cruz, here at least, is speaking of fines in the context of novel legislation which seeks to over-ride the recent Court decision, or am I mistaken about that (I have not read this legislation at hand on the Senate floor a day ago)?
1971.
The pre-1972 blue-collar Democratic Party was liberal — big-government liberal, but liberal.
The post-1972 Gulfstream Democrats are Lenin-wannabes at best, and Che wannabes on average.
“Why must you choose the one thing that will punish those who merely wish to exercise their First Amendment rights, not to mention the right to be simply left alone?”
The question answers itself, no? Because providing “affordable care” was the excuse to get the power, but what Leftists actually do with power is always to benefit their friends and/or punish their enemies.
Much of what they claim is the reason for “gay marriage” (ability to visit your loved one in hospital, be able to make decisions for them if they’re unconscious, inherit property if they don’t make it without being taxed quite so much…) could be solved via private contracts and finding common cause with us on eliminating bad government policies like inheritance taxes, but they don’t want to alleviate the actual problems; they want to maintain those problems so that they can agitate for more “solutions” (that don’t actually solve the problem they pretend to solve).
This discussion of a cleavage point in the early 70s makes me wonder what Geoff might offer by way of the contemporaneous activities of the New Left during that period.
(Or anyone else, for that matter. Geoff is my go-to guy for these questions though.)
start with the Port Huron Statement
I was 10 at the time, and still leaning Democrat — though McGovern caused me to prefer Nixon that November.
It took Jerry Brown and Jimmy Carter to drive me off that ship altogether in time to cast my first vote for Reagan in the California presidential primary in 1980.
– In other news….
– Bumblefuck tries for a next day “reset”, but just manages to alert the entire country that Hillary has his tiny ballsack.
This discussion of a cleavage point in the early 70s makes me think of The Golddiggers.
http://www.originalgolddiggers.com/_media/_images/img_dms_30.jpg
Found a pic with my favorite one, Paula Cinko [she’s at the very top]:
http://www.tvacres.com/images/golddiggers3.jpg
When Men were Men and Women Danced for us.
was baracky behind hairplugs when he hit the reset button?
I am forbidden to view the Paula Cinko link. DAMN YOU GOOGLE YOU’RE NOT THE BOSS OF ME!
403 for the jpg
It comes up as the first result if you go to tvacres.com and search for “golddiggers.”
Eat it, Google.
Hehs for everyone.
– Because flying off to camp David is the “goto” PR move when you need to look like you give a flying fuck about the ME, (in ways other than helping your Islam buds that is).
That TVAcres site is funny that way.
Try this:
http://www.super-hair.net/cinko2.html
Of course His Cruzness was projecting a more important (implied) question:
Why do so many Catholics still vote Democratic?
PLEASE LET THIS FINE FELLOW FILET THE FAT ANKLE BEAST IN 2016!
Why do so many Catholics still vote Democratic?
For the same reasons so many Americans still vote Democrat, I reckon.
he’s quite the humorless fella huh
“Mr. Simas’ failure to appear, despite having been compelled to do so by a lawfully issued subpoena, was contumacious, and the Committee is prepared to enforce its subpoena,” wrote Issa…
– Now there’s a word you don’t see every day.
– Link.
“Now there’s a word you don’t see every day.”
Which one?
Contumacious
or
Enforce (in reference to a GOP action) ,
In answer to bh @ 5:13 pm I’ll point to a post which is no longer up but does exist in the Wayback Machine, here.
There were other things also going on. Some is very well covered in the Kurtz book on Obama.
That link was to the Pub post version and comments. I don’t know what the URL was for the main page version to look it up in the Wayback.
I’ll add a comment I had in the lost page to the 70s goings on.
Power, increasing it, is the principle.
– Which is just one of the many reasons that all totalitarians should be shot on sight.
– There are other voices that recognize the coming Apocalypse.
– Some think it will be a good thing that cleanses and renews.
– ….and I looked and beheld a fourth rider upon a white horse…
Same place that the notion of “spending in the tax code” came from. Up is down, etc.
Revelation, Chapter 20:7-9…
From the Authorized KJV: