http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/...th-control-student/436581

This is too good not to share...

Eh he's just like the rest of them.

i'd like to bet large sums of money that she was planted there by the romney campaign to ask that question. his response was clearly rehearsed. puh - leeze.

He loses me when he starts talking about shared sacrifice and decries politicians promising something for nothing, all while proposing revenue reducing tax policy as a way to tackle the national debt.

Yes, this too.

It even seems TOO blatantly rehearsed to be real, then you remember its Romney. Am I just imagining the part where he says "watch this"?

I am guessing her agenda isn't based on decisions at the poll, but more her decisions on the pole.

people should vote for him purely on the fact that he looks identicle to fluff Tracy

Really? How much are we wagering? I would like to make money off of you.

His response was "You know, you know, let me tell you, no, look, look, let me tell you something, let me, if you're looking, if you're looking for free stuff, if you're looking for free stuff you don't have to pay for vote for the other guy that's what he's all about." From the time the girl stops speaking to when Romney finally arrives at his point (last line of the quote) is about 18 seconds. If you're rehearsing to deliver a one-liner in a campaign ad hit video, your audience's attention is 30 seconds at best. He spent almost 2/3 of a presumptive video audience's attention stuttering.

I may not have your legal or grammitcal expertise, but I do have plenty of political advertising experience. I'm thinking with your networth I could wager all of my debt off forever. If only I thought you would follow through with this bet.

And that, trumper, is why Romney comes off as wooden and inauthentic. Even when he is lobbed a soft-ball, he makes it appear as difficult and painful as possible.

As a side note, nobody is talking about "free" birth control. The issue is mandatory birth control coverage as a part of the health insurance that an individual is already paying for. "Free" birth control is a total misnomer for the debate.

The degenerate girl brought up free birth control Cougar, not Romney.

Agreed. Anyone who is advocating "free" birth control is on the fringe. That is not like classic Obama voters or any Obama voters I know, and most of my real life friends are Obama voters.

What makes her a degenerate? You do realize that birth control is medication beyond its uses as a contraceptive right?

I could obtain Viagra, covered by health insurance, and directly use it to commit acts frowned upon by probably any religion you could name. As Detmer mentions, there are concrete medical uses for the Pill aside from contraception. How is this an issue again?

This is the group that pretty much unanimously came out against cancer-preventing vaccinations. Science is not only liberal, but counter to God's plan.

Need I say more?

Fixed that for you. Viagra is *only* used for boning "fluffs". This is beyond a double standard because the two are not even equivalent. Viagra is only for allowing men to get pleasure. The pill is medication that has the side-effect of making someone unfertile temporarily. Since that is not always a bad side-effect it is a problem apparently.

Science is not counter to God's plan. It is only counter to narrow-minded, out-dated interpretations of holy texts. As a Christian I have found that the Bible is very clear that I should not be murdering, raping, stealing, or committing adultery. It turns out it actually does not mention anything against having non-marital sex and that is just something that a bunch of prudes made up. I have never found my life as a scientist to conflict with the teachings of the Bible, just bizarre extrapolations people try to make from it.

This is the point I was trying to make. Just without all the first hand experience you added ;)

I am doubtful that she wants free birth control for its medicinal uses. She is a degenerate because she is the embodiment of the entitlement mentality that has overrun so much oof our youth and is destroying our work ethic, the public morality, and eventually the economy. Its all about 'me me me'.

How do you get "entitlement mentality" from the idea that medical insurance should cover medicine?

first off, cougar's exactly right. how else do you explain romney's "watch this" remark?

secondly, "You're all for like 'yay freedom and all this stuff and yay pursuit of happiness,' You know what would make me happy? Free birth control." really? you know women in college that talk like that? granted, i didn't go to um, but that's such a caricature of ignorance that i find it very hard to believe that a woman in college would talk like that, much less eagerly announce it to the world as the first question at a political rally for someone that she supposedly opposes. particularly given that, as cougar again notes correctly, "free birth control" isn't even an issue - it's the republicans' straw man attempt at redefining the issue.

Honestly, I find the opposite to be true of conservatives. It seems for the GOP, the fault is always "them them them". Mexicans are ruining our economy. Or Homosexuals are ruining our family values. Or Muslims/Athiests (excuse the terrible pun, but what an unholy alliance) are running God out of our laws.

Its one boogeyman after another.

Hate to disagree with you, but yeah, it is highly possible. I had a roommate whose girlfriend was going to a nearby private college, her parents paying a good 40k per year for her to major in something Art related. I swear, she had no idea how to run the dishwasher (she'd had a nanny growing up), and she asked me once with a straight face if iPods were heavier when they were full of music.

I got about two minutes into a hypothetical about the miniscule extra weight for a fully charged/dead battery, before I just gave up.

So yeah. Lots of dumb people in college. Lots of dumb professors too. Just not any higher percentage than the country at large.

I had the exact same reaction as Assassin. My guess is she wasn't a Romney plant but more likely was a member of the Young Republicans or something like that phrasing the question in such a way so that it could purposefully be owned...

Pretty easily. Subway offers me free chips with my sandwich. Am I within my rights to go to Quizno's and demand the same thing? They are both food stores right?

People who purchase insurance and then complain about the limits to the insurance seem like the definition of entitlement mentality to me...

While this is still not a completely accurate comparison, we should still be able to have an honest debate about it. Instead, and as is frequent with the GOP the last few years, they are debating and vilifying something nobody is even talking about.

DEATH PANELS!

I found another strong Obama supporter form his home town even:


http://homelesspatriot.blogspot.com/...d-my-family-homeless.html

we can have an honest debate here right now if you want... and btw to preempt the people dont' buy insurance they are forced to have whatever insurance their company provides....well right you are, and what an excellent argument that is against employer based healthcare that is (and nothing more or less)

btw I've never completely understood the whole DEATH Panels thing. I think Death panels are a really really good idea. We currently spend an ungodly percentage of our health care dollars on the last 2 weeks of a persons life. Now much of this is b/c something terrible happens, someone gets rushed to ER and they don't make it and all those costs are in the last 2 weeks of a persons life. But still, there is a lot of stuff that we pay for that has some benefit but not enough to justify it. How else can we come to conclusions about cost/benefits than with things like death panels heh?

I do hate the repubs screaming "death panels" but not b/c I don't think Obamacare has some stuff that could be considered "death panelely" but b/c death panels are a really good idea heh...

I was talking debate more in the national sense than the personal.

Besides, DH is here. I make a point of leaving when he starts posting. If I wanted to read FoxNation, I would go there.

And who are these angels that can fairly, efficiently, and objectively serve on the death panels?

Shareholders!

Pluff you Cougar.

I don't know about that specific college, but if it were at my alumnus then I would not have been at all surprised. They hung 'condoms and candy' folders on the resident assistant's dorm room doors. SGA candidates provided rides on golf carts to try to win votes and still less than 15% of the student body would vote in the online elections. And notoriously our student body burned all sorts of crap while rioting over losing a basketball game.

your all idiots

Republican = democrat...

True conservatives are racist and homophobic. If that's the base the Republican party is courting, they're making themselves irrelevant. But hey, I'm just another fact-based voter, what do I care.

As for the ACA, aka Obamacare, the law is a mixed bag of items. Those downplaying the significance of the individual mandate probably aren't students of history to recognize the significance of such an action.

I tend to be of the belief that portions of the ACA can and will be shot down in court. For instance, portions of the law attempt to bind the hands of future Congresses such as IPAB. By and large, the courts have held that one Congress can't fully limit the power of a future Congress except through the amendment process. In the case of IPAB, by force of law, it meets the same threshhold of a Constitutional Amendment unless a fast-tracked Congressional process finds equal cuts within the same legal parameters (can't cut benefits, can't ration care, can't raise the eligibility age, can't touch hospitals or hospice care until 2020, etc). It's just bad policy.

Assassin would like to say the following:

*you're

no matter what is written, how can it bind a future Congress? They only need to pass a new law, and new laws overrule old ones...

Why does every American political debate need to descend into attacks along party lines? Just because someone else has a different idea of how America should be, doesn't make it wrong, just because it came from the other side of the fence.

In Canada, contraceptives are covered under provincial health care. As a result, the spread of HPV, among other health benefits, is down, even among males. For an unbiased list of other benefits, check out http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/std-mts/faq-eng.php

It's not about morality, it's about preventative health care. Stop cancer et al, before they form and the burden of health care costs to the nation will decline. It's a clear example of getting more while paying less over the span of a lifetime.

Well, that's sort of the subject of the debate. The court hasn't really definitively ruled on the subject.

In this case, the IPAB law basically says it comes into being on 1/1/14 and any attempt to stop the process requires a 3/5ths vote in both chambers of Congress presuming that the President does not veto the legislation.

Morever, it says IPAB must make recommendations (they're actually really force of law) if the target threshhold was met (for interpretive purposes, the threshhold would have been met in 20 of last 24 years). These recommendations cannot raise the eligibility age, change benefits to Medicare recipients, or 'ration care' (no definition of the latter provided). Once these recommendations are offered to Congress by a specified date then the committees of jursidiction then the committes have 2.5 months to come up with a competiting plan that follows the IPAB rules or they forfeit their right to stop IPAB (unless of course they have 3/5ths votes to stop the process) and IPAB's decision becomes law by default. If IPAB is required to offer recommendations and fails to offer them or the President fails to appoint members, then the Secretary of HHS must offer the recommendations. The decision of IPAB may not be judicially reviewed.

In other words, a future Conrgess can't stop IPAB without dismantling the process 3/5ths majority in both chambers and Presidential support or by following a series of parameters set out in the current law (fast-tracked timeline, same or more cuts w/o touching age, benefits, etc). If that's not binding the hands of future Congresses than I don't know what is.

The biggest plans to address Medicare spending today are really converting the program from defined benefit to defined contribution, aka switching to a premium support model. They also include provisions to increase eligibility age. These aren't even permissible options for the rebutall offering to IPAB post-2014.

So we're back to your question, is this even permissible? And then we have to wonder what the courts say even though they're technically forbidden by this very law from reviewing that question. It's a legal conundrum.

F U ASSMAN


<3 you Zen.

.

Frankly I think we should just vote in those we feel would do a better job, and whose philosopy matches our own. Why the hell do we still need two sides of the fence to rule one country? All they do is argue with each other and get nothing done.

I am sick of democrats/republicans bashing each other and their ideas just because of which party they represent.

BUDDY ROEMER 2012

free birth control is called abstinence. might also be called coitus interuptus. thought we paid teachers to teach this kinda stuff...

Nah; they've been cutting back on education to pay for their illegal wars for the past decade.

I'm genuinely thinking about burning my voters registration card in protest of the race to the bottom. The only thing that keeps me from doing it is that I think it would make both sides happy not to have to answer questions from somebody like me.

The problem we have is once they are in office they all represent themselves. No longer does either party try to do what is best for the people. They are all grabbing all they can for themselves and the people who gave the most money to elect them. Therefore, the pendulum keeps swing back in forth from one extreme to another. With both partys suxing and getting further and further from the center which is where American is.

Also, just my opinion. If insurance companies want to cover birth control it should be their choice. If they do not- no one is too poor to buy a condom. And there are many places you can get them for free. There should be no forcing of insurance companies to have birth control. Either wrap it up or buck up- its not that much.

you're not required to vote to use your right to free speech. just pay some taxes and you'll be contributing more to the nation than most people in it.