1 - 9
The libs scream and squirm when any fed funding has a breath or even hint of being turned over to a religious organization for social services, they assume it's being funneled to some conservative cause.They demand (and get) accurate accounting of just how the moneys are spent, but balk at a conservative expecting the same of the planned parenthoods, or the acorns and the actual PROOF of funneling funds to causes not intended.
Of course that route has some supervision and accountability, there are laws in place that don't allow medicare and medicaid to pay for abortions. The "services" provided by the Dr. must match up with billing, the mammogram actually must be a mammogram. The PP route allows them to get henky with the truth and rpovide "other" services.
O.K. I'll bite, even IF the "they fund them" ploy were totally correct. Why? Why must I fund the mammograms with my tax money? Why should some unelected, unaccountable organization, a so called "charity" (they turn a profit..were is the charity status rational) get huge chunks of money funneled through that "charity" via a robbing of me, government raking off thier "cut" then funneled through various "front charities" and their "cut"like PP to the affiliate health provide and their "cut" to finally provide the dubious "health care" to the indigent recipient.? There is such a thing called medicare and medicaid, a direct infusion of cash to service provider via my extorted taxes, that method only has one "rake off" for the Government.
A african-american coworker of mine accused me of racism because I wouldn't vote for Mr. Obama, I told him indeed I was racist, that as a self-loathing white liberal I hated Obama's white 1/2. His intellectual response? "Huh?" After puzzling it out (over 10 min., deep thinker he), I explained that I cared not one wit what his or BO's skin tone was, that I was CONSERVATIVE, that I disagreed with BO's IDEAS, that I thought they would be a disaster for the USA, that I was an adult and could use reason...that I encouraged others to do so, rather than throw out Racism! to defend the undefendable.
No, they SHOULD go on shows like the View, that very exchange is a fine example of exactly why. You have to brave uninformed and hostile groups on occasion to 'spread the word". If you never get outside your select circle of associates, you get exactly what whoopi is: uninformed and ignorant. think how the whoopi's of world get that way, they are insulated from the realities of the world and have a select cadre of yes-wo(men) telling them how great they are, over inflating their ego to the point of arrogance. Whoopi did the old equivelant of," I'm not racist....I have a black friend. " insert mormon for black and you have a laughable highlite to her insular "tolerance" that is really PC INTOLERANCE of the left.
Tell a lie often enough, and loud enough, and soon it becomes indistinguisable from the truth. Adolph Hitler Another humanitarian that cared about womens rights and the middle class :)
In response to:

Biden Strikes Again. And Again.

mstorey Wrote: Oct 19, 2012 6:24 AM
You misunderstand the power of Joe! He is 3 card monty for Barrack....every time good ol' Joe comes up with another of his "gaffs", it's good for at least a week of the media-talking-heads yammering on about it. Like 3 card monty, watch the card, watch the card, pick the lady out and WIN! Whats not noticed while your watching Joe/Queen card is the slight if hand..what is the other hand doing? It gives BO a week of not having to explain his failures..a week closer to the election...a week more attack ads trying to portray Romney as the devil incarnate.
In response to:

Candy Crowley Self-Destructs

mstorey Wrote: Oct 19, 2012 6:11 AM
Lost in the whole story is a simple little tidbit, the ambassidor didn't have 3 former navy seals turned contracted guards protecting him, he had 8! there were 9 people in the compound (1 being Chris), while the 4 died and have been documented, were are the others? What happened to them? Did they die and aren't mentioned? Did they escape? Did they turn traitor (Don't think so..just offering possibilites) OR are they under wraps somewere? This I find the most plausable, since any tale they had to tell would clearly conflict with the narrative comming from the Executive branch/ foreign service.
In response to:

Candy Crowley Self-Destructs

mstorey Wrote: Oct 19, 2012 6:02 AM
In the event anyone believes the tripe that BO called the murder of our ambassador and his guards terrorist in the rose garden, you need only to follow the time line to see its hogwash: Days 1-7 pres. spokeperson and UN ambassador insist its a video and "spontainious demonstration" to blame, during that time no correction from BO to the contrary. Day 8 BO addresses UN stating the "spontanious-video" story, day 12 appears on The View, continues with the "video-did-it" story, somewere in the Dave Letterman same story, Not until day 14 and FoxNews continues expose/ Congressional hearings and confessions there does he finally utter the words that it was "clearly a terrorist attack".
1 - 9