Lets see, less than $10,000 in the Bank Tuesday, now she has $1.9 Million+.

It doesn't hurt that Limbaugh has been urging his listeners to make contributions.

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/GuyBenson/2...t_rolls_on

I listen to Rush. It's wise to know one's adversaries. Here's my question for those in the know or have a better feel for the right. Why did Rush come out so heavily against Huckabee in 2008 after the Hawkeye Cauceye. Wouldn't you consider O'Donnel and Huck to be cut from the same cloth. Anti-establishment social conservative. Is Rush changing tact here?

(09-17-2010 06:49 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  I listen to Rush. It's wise to know one's adversaries. Here's my question for those in the know or have a better feel for the right. Why did Rush come out so heavily against Huckabee in 2008 after the Hawkeye Cauceye. Wouldn't you consider O'Donnel and Huck to be cut from the same cloth. Anti-establishment social conservative. Is Rush changing tact here?

No.

Huckabee as governor raised taxes over 47%. He raised taxes on income, sales, gas, (know you like that) and cigarettes. State spending increased 65% on his watch, the state debt went up by over $1 billion. He called global warming a "moral issue" and endorsed a cap-and-trade system. He was against vouchers. He's the antithesis of O'Donnel. The only thing that was really conservative about Huckabee was that he was against abortion.

Huckabee is a RINO. Always was. Just because he liked to tout that he was "evangelical" some just assumed he was a conservative. He's not.

Short answer, Hucksters a fraud.

(09-17-2010 06:49 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  I listen to Rush. It's wise to know one's adversaries. Here's my question for those in the know or have a better feel for the right. Why did Rush come out so heavily against Huckabee in 2008 after the Hawkeye Cauceye. Wouldn't you consider O'Donnel and Huck to be cut from the same cloth. Anti-establishment social conservative. Is Rush changing tact here?

Huckabee came after Limbaugh first- called him a "Beltway Insider".

Limbaugh turned the tables quick. As many have learned, you don't call out Rush Limbaugh.

(09-17-2010 06:49 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  I listen to Rush. It's wise to know one's adversaries. Here's my question for those in the know or have a better feel for the right. Why did Rush come out so heavily against Huckabee in 2008 after the Hawkeye Cauceye. Wouldn't you consider O'Donnel and Huck to be cut from the same cloth. Anti-establishment social conservative. Is Rush changing tact here?

Huckabee was my choice in the caucuses (Minnesota) but he is only 'sort of a social conservative'... He is more a populist and it's really hard to wrap him under any one banner

1) Pro-Life, Anti-Gay Marriage - Conservative
2) Not for kicking Illegals out - Liberal
3) Reluctantly supports the death penelty:

"I probably dislike the death penalty more than anybody on this stage, but for a very different reason. I’ve actually had to carry it out, more than any governor in my state’s history. I had to carry out the death penalty because that was my job. I did it because I believed, after reading every page of every transcript and everything in that file, it was the only conclusion we could come to. But I didn’t enjoy it. And God help the American who somehow has this cavalier attitude about the death penalty and says they support it and they can do it. Let me tell you something from the person whose name had to be put on the document that started the process: It’s a necessary part of our criminal justice system for those crimes for which there is no other alternative. But God help the person who ever does it without a conscience and feels the pain of it. "

--

I will say this for Huck, his proposal for stimulus was to repair every piece of aging infrastructure in the nation (Bridges, Electrical grid, ...)

No Bail outs of states or businesses. Jut put people to work for several years to replace old physical assets. You come out of it with smaller yearly maintenance costs and no ongoing government employment.

This alone is why I was for him..

what pisses me off is how people, like one of my co-workers, are calling O'Donnell bat sh*t crazy, yet those same people applaud pelosi and reid. I think the latter two are the crazies.

as for O'Donnell's social views, why is it so bad for someone to have some morals? Shouldn't people be more pissed off at irresponsible people who have 4 or 5 kids out of wedlock and can't afford them? What about people on medicaid who get abortions on my dime? shouldn't we be upset at their apparent lack of responsibility?

swoosh........ I don't see anyone with pom poms cheering on out of wedlock kids. I can see having medicaid pay for the abortions though. Much much cheaper. As I have said many times before, we should make it mandatory for someone getting govt. assistance to be on birth control. It's a win win. We cut down on abortions (conservatives like) and we don't have as many people sucking off social services.

(09-17-2010 11:15 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  swoosh........ I don't see anyone with pom poms cheering on out of wedlock kids. I can see having medicaid pay for the abortions though. Much much cheaper. As I have said many times before, we should make it mandatory for someone getting govt. assistance to be on birth control. It's a win win. We cut down on abortions (conservatives like) and we don't have as many people sucking off social services.

Murphy Brown... Yes a fictional character but you do see the impact of being a single parent (usually mothers) often softened, if not honored, in the media.

I think the point Swoosh was trying to make was this:

When a woman, in her 40's and unmarried, says that she things staying pure is important and that masturbation can destroy a relationship she is *instantly* labeled as bat s*it crazy by the left. Forget investigating weather or not she wants to push that, just the fact she thinks it is akin to a flat earth.

But when Obama's education Czar did not report a young man (a 15yo I think) was in a sexual relationship with an older man, in other words statuary rape, it's not seen in the same black and white frame, its 'complex'.. When kids are taken on a field trip to lean about the 'joys of fisting' by public schools its seen as 'intolerant' for a parent to object and sue.

Hell even when the left can bring themselves to comend an action committed by a lefty as 'wrong' they don't extend that action, quote, or personall position to the person as a whole.

At least the right does not try to pretend it's the most tolerant bunch of folks but the left, who's mantra is tolerance, is anything but. Hell the left does not even know what Tolerant means, at least the right know's it..

I can suffer an A-hole but not a hypocrite..

--

"As I have said many times before, we should make it mandatory for someone getting govt. assistance to be on birth control. "

And this, in one sentence sums up why the federal government has ten times the potential for evil as a corporation.

Why do I oppose 90% of what Washington is doing? It's because time and time again they have proven that *no* dollar comes to you without behavorial strings attached.

To offer somebody who is poor and desperate, perhaps so much so that they cant eat money but to demand that they behave a certain way is akin to extortion and when the federal government does it, with the force of law, is violent extortion..

It's one thing to say don't do anything illegal and you may have assistance, it's quite another to sanction them from legal behavior.

(09-17-2010 11:15 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  swoosh........ I don't see anyone with pom poms cheering on out of wedlock kids. I can see having medicaid pay for the abortions though. Much much cheaper. As I have said many times before, we should make it mandatory for someone getting govt. assistance to be on birth control. It's a win win. We cut down on abortions (conservatives like) and we don't have as many people sucking off social services.

How the f'uck do you know that abortions provided by Medicaid would be cheaper? You just pull this bs nonsense out of your a$$ all the time, it's crazy batsh!t. And mandatory birth control is so far off the deep end left cliff, I can't believe you even believe in such crap. How the hell are you gonna enforce that. Make it a crime to have a baby? What are you thinking. I thought you lefties were for the woman's right to make her own choices concerning her body? OH, that's right, there is so much gray area for the morally bankrupt.

(09-17-2010 12:38 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  

(09-17-2010 11:15 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  swoosh........ I don't see anyone with pom poms cheering on out of wedlock kids. I can see having medicaid pay for the abortions though. Much much cheaper. As I have said many times before, we should make it mandatory for someone getting govt. assistance to be on birth control. It's a win win. We cut down on abortions (conservatives like) and we don't have as many people sucking off social services.

How the f'uck do you know that abortions provided by Medicaid would be cheaper?

I think the scary ass point he is trying to make is that it's cheaper to abort a baby than raise it, pay to educate it, feed it (if the baby is in an impoverished home) ..., ....

Putting aside the just how scary looking at a human being as a liability is the assumption itself has one flaw, and one that's going to blow up in our faces in a Generation..

Who is going to pay for us when we get old? I am very afraid for my Daughters, afraid that they will be expected to either fork over half of their hard earned work or live in a nation overflowing with poor, homeless elderly people...

'Planned families' combined with ambitious social programs has created a demographic bomb. Mao, not a man I oft quote, said "Every mouth to feed comes with two hands to work" (or something to that effect)... Today's expensive kids are Tomorrows tax payers.

An these are the types of things Americans don't deal with until its a crisis that affects them in 12 hours, not 12 years..

(09-17-2010 11:15 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  swoosh........ I don't see anyone with pom poms cheering on out of wedlock kids. I can see having medicaid pay for the abortions though. Much much cheaper. As I have said many times before, we should make it mandatory for someone getting govt. assistance to be on birth control. It's a win win. We cut down on abortions (conservatives like) and we don't have as many people sucking off social services.

Wow, so you're openly admitting to being in favor of eugenics?

What you call eugenics I call smart family planning. I don't know guys. Just trying to find some middle ground. "Ya know that fact vs. feeling stuff".


Fact: The number one correlation of all people living in poverty. The age they have children and the converse is also true. The number one correlation of someone who is wealthy. The age they decide to have children.


Some of you get to caught up in this abortion mumbo jumbo. That's my humble opinion. I could give at rats ass if your brown purple pink or yellow. What I am against is poor ignorant people. If there was a poor ignorant race. You could label me a racist against them. I do have a problem with poor ignorant people and I sure in the hell don't think we should be subsidizing poor ignorant people to have more poor ignorant people. If I had my way I would give poor ignorant people subsidizes to be on birth control.


Why is that so outlandish??????????

If you want to have kids. Get a fckin job and support said kids. If you can't support them ok. I get it. Your on birth control until you no longer need govt. services. There's a price to be paid for the handout. If your in a hole. Quit fckin diggin the hole. Time to put some dirt in the hole.

"Family planning" is a choice made by individuals, not lining up at the government pharmacy for a pill. How can you force someone to be on birth control? The pill is not 100% effective. What are you going to do if it fails? Why not just get rid of the handouts and say if you decide to have a kid, either pay for it yourself or have a privately funded non-profit help you out?

(09-17-2010 01:48 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  What you call eugenics I call smart family planning.

Forced, or coerced family planning is eugenics!

Quote:I don't know guys. Just trying to find some middle ground. "Ya know that fact vs. feeling stuff".

Some compromises today are embarrassments tomorrow (3/5ths)

Quote:Fact: The number one correlation of all people living in poverty. The age they have children and the converse is also true. The number one correlation of someone who is wealthy. The age they decide to have children.

Opinion: Its better to be rich than poor. Growing up poor and bing 'comfortably' middle class now I can tell you my daughters are missing out on a lot. I do what I can but I regret I waited until my 30's. In my 20's I could go days without sleep (an hour here or there), I could physically take just about anything.

Today I get home from an 8-10 hour day and I am spent. I might get a run in, I may read a book to them but I just don't have the energy to be the kind of father to them that my father was to his kids. (coaching sports, cub scouts, multiple camping trips)...

Quote:Some of you get to caught up in this abortion mumbo jumbo. That's my humble opinion. I could give at rats ass if your brown purple pink or yellow.

Eugenics and race are not tied together, often you can be for breeding the best of each race, but continue...

Quote:What I am against is poor ignorant people. If there was a poor ignorant race.

Someone else said it better than you:

"More children from the fit, less from the unfit -- that is the chief aim of birth control." Birth Control Review, May 1919, p. 12 (Margaret Sanger)....

Weather or not you consider those you label ignorant a race is irrelevant, besides I dont think *anyone* in this thread has called you a racist.

Quote:I do have a problem with poor ignorant people and I sure in the hell don't think we should be subsidizing poor ignorant people to have more poor ignorant people.

I don't think we should be subsidizing *anybody* at the federal level but if I were to put in a compromise it would be young mothers (say under 25) would get free daycare, food stamps, and assistance.. (and no I would not need to see their tax returns or IQ results.

Quote:If I had my way I would give poor ignorant people subsidizes to be on birth control.

Poor, or undesriable people, should be subsidezed not to breed... Maybe you should jump all the way on ythe Eugenics train and realize that we need somebody to work at McDonalds.

Maybe we can pay them to have the first kid and then not to have any.. We do need an underclass to serve the bright, beautiful, prosperous people that should be encouraged to reproduce right?

Quote:Why is that so outlandish??????????

Why is it so outlandish to single out a group of Americans based on the checking account and encourage them not to breed? If you have to ask that question I fear your so far out on a limb (on this issue) that it may not be worth answering... I hope I am wrong..

i wish i could've responded earlier, but work has been pretty crazy today. Anyway Mach, i'm not saying peolpe were fans of kids being born out of wedlock, i'm saying that people criticize this woman for her (socially upstanding) views, yet they never even question the fact that two-thirds of all black children are born out of wedlock. I honestly believe that, that statistic represents the single biggest problem in this country. If you cut that number down and more black kids were raised in 2 parent families, you'd see far less crime and drug abuse and violence. I'm not blaming these kids, because they've got no shot. We just hand out money to these single mothers and it incentivizes them to have kids.

So all in all, here's a woman preaching a little self-responsibility, and people are labeling her as crazy. Do you not see a problem with that?

And i see where you're going with the forced birth control thing, but i just can't get on board. Everyone in this country should have the freedom to have kids when they want. We just need to stop paying for people's mistakes (or as i like to call it- poor judgement and lack of responsibility). People on the left continue to champion welfare, but never bother to look at the decade in which welfare became huge, the decade black families began to break down and compare the two.

Bull....... made some great points. Excellent points. I just want to stop the baby factories for an increase in a stipend. I do think once someone is born they should be helped out.

Mach's opinions show the duplicity of us all. I think we all have some form of his opinions... the problem is how to reconcile the problem with the solution. My mother (a retired RN) used to volunteer at the county family planning clinic... basically she gave well checks and pre-natal care to moms... plus handed out condoms by the boxload... and she said so many times the response was "my man won't wear one". Well, then get a new man, or cut him off!! Like it or not, you can't force people to take drugs or wear condoms.,.. you can't force them to be responsible, so you try and limit the benefits and increase the costs of their choices... and then some bleeding heart trots out the poor child.... which NOBODY can deny wanting to help.

It's a big problem. It seems to me that the way to solve it is to make the alternative hard for the parents... like incarceration/fines for child endangerment?? I don't know. Slippery slope.

How about we take the government out of it. You want it, you pay for it. Can't pay?? Find a "support" group who will. They won't?? Suffer the consequences. Sucks