Republican National Committee Health Plan Covers Abortion
The health plan offered to employees by the Republican National Committee covers elective abortion, even though the party platform calls the procedure “a fundamental assault on innocent human life.”
Federal Election Commission Records show the RNC purchases its insurance from Cigna. Two sales agents for the company said that the RNC’s policy covers elective abortion.
Informed of the coverage, RNC spokeswoman Gail Gitcho told POLITICO that the policy pre-dates the tenure of current RNC Chairman Michael Steele.
“The current policy has been in effect since 1991, and we are taking steps to address the issue,” Gitcho said.
Oh? Taking steps finally after 18 years?
According to several Cigna employees, the insurer offers its customers the opportunity to opt out of abortion coverage – and the RNC did not choose to opt out.
Maybe because the RNC wants to offer its employees the same kind of coverage almost every other employer does.
Considering the alternative health plan offered by the Republicans was Obamacare lite, this isn’t a big surprise. The beltway sees themselves as basically the party of “smarter government” and for some reason the liberals are the only ones who ever thought they believed in market principles. I bet most Republican officials are pro-choice and just do what they can because they aspire to higher office where that position would get you Giuliani’d. There’s no way John McCain is a committed anti-abortion advocate considering every woman in his family believes in it.
I think a smarter tact to avoid these pitfalls is to realistically debate on whether public funds should be used for abortion, which was the focus of the Stupak amendment. Obviously liberals disagree, and thats a reasonable enough difference of opinion. Without a constitutional amendment the posturing is solely to appeal for votes, and this little oversight is just further evidence of the way Washington really works.
burqa Reply:
November 12th, 2009 at 7:27 pm
We’re talking about the Republican National Committee insurance plan going back to 1991, piffle, not the Stupak amendment.
What do I keep saying when conservatives are faced with an issue they can’t handle?
They (everybody now)
1) Try to change the subject
2) Play shoot the messenger
piffle Reply:
November 12th, 2009 at 7:56 pm
You’re the one bringing up the Stupak amendment, douche. I said that was a proper way to resolve the abortion issue on a political clime. You missed the entire paragraph and a half where I said anyone shocked by this is self deceptive, or in the case of liberals just using schlock like Republicans actually want to shrink the government.
Again, most Republican politicians are personally pro-choice and this is evidence because they aren’t going to screw over thier employees who want them. They just say what they want to get people to vote for them who vote solely on that issue. And as to your later comment I’m sure plenty of Republicans have gotten midnight abortions, which isn’t anything new. Stephen Crane was writing about the number of Senators getting their maids secret abortions in the 1890s, its the nature of aristocracy.
flap Reply:
November 12th, 2009 at 10:01 pm
Liberals
1) Sidestep the issue at hand
2) Use dumb, enumerated talking points
Yawn, burqa. Big yawn.
crh3e Reply:
November 12th, 2009 at 10:03 pm
Well flap you know how to sidestep the issue of abortion with all your routine comparisons of it to slavery. Talk about yawn!
flap Reply:
November 12th, 2009 at 10:10 pm
Abortion and slavery are pretty analogous insofar as the moral implications and human property-zing go.
I can’t help if libs are immune to any sort of common sense on this one issue. Yawn!
crh3e Reply:
November 12th, 2009 at 10:22 pm
Abortion:Slavery=Apples:Oranges
crh3e Reply:
November 12th, 2009 at 10:25 pm
Flap, name me a country or empire that was built upon abortions and not slave labor zing-go
flap Reply:
November 12th, 2009 at 10:27 pm
I’m pro-choice on slavery, crh3e. I personally wouldn’t own slaves, because I think it’s wrong, but if other white people want to own black people, it’s none of my business. That’s between the slaveowner and their property, the slave.
Get the government out of our plantations. You would want to ban slavery and force plantation owners to economically suffer and possibly go under? Is that the crazy pro-freedom zealotry you want to try to push on other people?
crh3e Reply:
November 12th, 2009 at 10:31 pm
nice side-stepping and dodging my question flap, perhaps burqa had a point after all about conservatives.
Use regular vision not tunnel vision, other people “owning” others whether they be of a different race or not does not even come close to comparing to a woman and her decision not to or to abort her fetus……wanna try comparing removing cancerous tumors to slavery?
crh3e Reply:
November 12th, 2009 at 10:39 pm
plus since you’re pro-choice on slavery it’s nice to know you think it’s alright for overseas corporations to use children for labor……see flap slavery isn’t just the “whites owning the blacks” (you love to make it a racial thing). No slavery still exists in this world.
flap Reply:
November 12th, 2009 at 10:43 pm
A woman “owns” her fetus like a slaveholder “owns” a slave. And why can’t a mother kill her infant? Tell me, crh3e, since you know so much…what is the difference between a late-term fetus and a newly born infant? Position? Why does delivery confer human rights? Nonsense, crh3e.
You’re comparing a tumor to a fetus? Does a tumor contain organ systems, including a brain, and a unique genetic code?
crh3e Reply:
November 12th, 2009 at 10:44 pm
“You would want to ban slavery and force plantation owners to economically suffer and possibly go under?”
-go study a period in our history called the Industrial Revolution and get back to me on that question.
crh3e Reply:
November 12th, 2009 at 10:46 pm
“A woman “owns” her fetus like a slaveholder “owns” a slave.”
-pure bs. A woman owns a fetus, hahahahah! Yeah she “owns” it because it happens to be inside her body idiot! Does a slave exist inside the slaveowners body? You can’t be serious dude. LOL
crh3e Reply:
November 12th, 2009 at 10:48 pm
“And why can’t a mother kill her infant?”
-if you are serious about asking this question, then you need some help.
crh3e Reply:
November 12th, 2009 at 10:50 pm
“You’re comparing a tumor to a fetus? Does a tumor contain organ systems, including a brain, and a unique genetic code?”
-ok chief, follow me. A fetus can be mutated and terminal to the mother’s life, not all the time but sometimes. In the same way a cancerous tumor is a product of mutations and can pose a threat to a host’s life. Got me?
flap Reply:
November 12th, 2009 at 10:52 pm
“Yeah she “owns” it because it happens to be inside her body idiot!”
Just like I own my son and daughter because they are inside MY house, idiot! So I can kill them, right? It’s MY house. Keep the government out of MY house, dude.
“-if you are serious about asking this question, then you need some help.”
I’m the one who needs help when you condone infant killing as long as the infant is in the womb?
jazmine Reply:
November 12th, 2009 at 10:55 pm
No Flap, keep your stinkin’government out of my vagina.
crh3e Reply:
November 12th, 2009 at 10:55 pm
Just like I own my son and daughter because they are inside MY house, idiot! So I can kill them, right? It’s MY house. Keep the government out of MY house, dude.
-you must not keep up with current events, children have divorced themselves from parents in our society, idiot.
flap Reply:
November 12th, 2009 at 10:55 pm
“A fetus can be mutated and terminal to the mother’s life, not all the time but sometimes.”
Children can be terminal to a mother’s life, too…why can’t they be killed off? Number two, if a fetus is “mutated” to a point where it is not human then nothing is being killed. Strawman.
Let’s say a woman MEANS to have an abortion but doesn’t and the baby is born. Shouldn’t she be able to kill it? Why not? What’s the difference? It’s HER life. She’s forced to care for a child she meant to abort but didn’t. You would saddle her with the responsibility of raising a child when it could easily be hacked up as with a late-term abortion? That’s pretty uncaring of you.
crh3e Reply:
November 12th, 2009 at 10:56 pm
“I’m the one who needs help when you condone infant killing as long as the infant is in the womb?”
Abortions does not equal infanticide in the eyes of the law genius
flap Reply:
November 12th, 2009 at 10:57 pm
“you must not keep up with current events, children have divorced themselves from parents in our society, idiot.”
So as long as I can kill them before they can speak or have the ability to divorce me, then it’s okay? We’ll just call it a REEEEEALY late term abortion.
crh3e Reply:
November 12th, 2009 at 10:59 pm
“Children can be terminal to a mother’s life, too…”
-what are you talking about it? Nonsense flap
crh3e Reply:
November 12th, 2009 at 11:01 pm
“Number two, if a fetus is “mutated” to a point where it is not human then nothing is being killed.”
-it’s nice to know you know what a human being is and what isn’t. I take care of children born mutated, they are still human beings.
crh3e Reply:
November 12th, 2009 at 11:03 pm
“Let’s say a woman MEANS to have an abortion but doesn’t and the baby is born. Shouldn’t she be able to kill it? Why not? What’s the difference? It’s HER life. She’s forced to care for a child she meant to abort but didn’t. You would saddle her with the responsibility of raising a child when it could easily be hacked up as with a late-term abortion? That’s pretty uncaring of you.”
-more pointless rambling, give it a rest dude.
crh3e Reply:
November 12th, 2009 at 11:11 pm
“So as long as I can kill them before they can speak or have the ability to divorce me, then it’s okay? We’ll just call it a REEEEEALY late term abortion.”
-children have been removed from unfit homes before they can speak in recent times…..still not keeping up with current events. Ever heard of child protective services?
Lee Reply:
November 12th, 2009 at 11:25 pm
Flap,
Firstly to be clear as I’ve pointed out before, I haven’t personally made up my mind on abortion as I think it’s hard to identify the ‘tipping point’ in the moral arguments.
However, playing devils advocate a little:
“Tell me, crh3e, since you know so much…what is the difference between a late-term fetus and a newly born infant? ”
Physical Dependence on a persons body. Meaning, the only way the foetus can become a person is if that particular human being (the mother) voluntarily carries the child to term and makes the associated physical sacrifices.
Although a baby is still dependent after birth, anyone can take care of it and there is no longer the ethical question of forcing someone to ’save a life’ at a personal cost.
It’s similar to the question of whether one should be ‘forced’ to be a good Samaritan in a life or death scenario or if not is that person a ‘murderer’?
flap Reply:
November 13th, 2009 at 2:51 pm
“Physical Dependence on a persons body.”
That’s a weak argument. The only way an infant can become an adult is if the particular parents voluntarily decide to raise it. Mothers breastfeed a child. That’s biological dependence. Shouldn’t an abortion be allowed whilst the child is still able to breastfeed, since that is also biological dependence?
An abortion is not neglecting a child, Lee. It’s purposefully killing it.
The ONLY valid arguments which people who are pro-abortion can use is 1) physical ATTACHMENT and 2) physical location. Both are relatively arbitrar an
“It’s similar to the question of whether one should be ‘forced’ to be a good Samaritan in a life or death scenario or if not is that person a ‘murderer’?”
Wait a second…I’m not killing a life if I refuse to help someone. That’s way different. Even parental neglect is not quite as heinous as an abortion because an abortion is a specific targeted murder of your own child.
“more pointless rambling, give it a rest dude.”
Well, dude, or idiot, or whatever you wish to be called, you can’t handle the logic of the argument. Just continue living with blinders on.
flap Reply:
November 13th, 2009 at 3:00 pm
“Abortions does not equal infanticide in the eyes of the law genius”
Well there, genius, the whole damn point of the debate is whether it SHOULD or SHOULD NOT, and it clearly, logically, scientifically (mid-to-late term) is infanticide which is why the law should be changed. Would you have been a supporter of Dred Scott?
“Slavery doesn’t equal mistreating citizens because black people are property in the eyes of the law genius”
““Children can be terminal to a mother’s life, too…””-what are you talking about it? Nonsense flap”
Raising children does not cause some people to be driven batty or even suicidal? We must allow post-birth abortions! Let’s say 1 year old. We can call the baby a exofetus, get a caring abortionist to shoot it in the head, and rest easily at night with a clear conscience knowing that it was a “medical procedure” and is covered by “privacy rights.”
Lee Reply:
November 13th, 2009 at 4:50 pm
“That’s a weak argument. The only way an infant can become an adult is if the particular parents voluntarily decide to raise it. ”
Nonsense.. Ever heard of adoption or Orphanages?
“Mothers breastfeed a child. That’s biological dependence. ”
Again, a baby can be bottle-fed from birth. ONLY in the womb is the baby truly dependent on a particular person namely the mother.
“An abortion is not neglecting a child, Lee. It’s purposefully killing it.”
No this is just semantics.. If someone needed a bone-marrow/kidney transplant and I was the ONLY match but without my tissue, they would certainly die then I’m hardly ‘purposefully killing’ them if I didn’t feel comfortable with doing the procedure.
This is a good example of the type of ethical dilemma here.. A Mother has to sacrifice herself physically and/or mentally not just for 5 minutes but for months and even years if you take the ramifications of raising the child or even just knowing the child is out there somewhere (adoption etc).
We would not call someone who chose not to save someones life via a transplant, a ‘murderer’. Similarly, we should not call someone who decided they could not bear going through pregnancy, a ‘murderer’ either.
“Wait a second…I’m not killing a life if I refuse to help someone. That’s way different. ”
No it’s identical. If you are the only person in the world who could help someone live but you chose not to, it is the same. In both cases, you knowingly allow the other living human to die because you did not want to use your body to keep them alive until help/birth.
“Even parental neglect is not quite as heinous as an abortion because an abortion is a specific targeted murder of your own child.”
This seems to be a purely emotional argument versus a logical one. Whether I kill my child or Sam’s down the street, it would be equally heinous. If parental neglect caused death it would arguably be worse since the ‘child’ has more consciousness and thus would be capable of much more suffering.
flap Reply:
November 14th, 2009 at 12:11 am
Lee, why did you say you were on the fence when you’re clearly carrying a pro-choice position?
You talk about ethical dilemmas, etc., that end up supposedly justifying murder. The end result is too heinous.
It is society’s and humanity’s business when people are killed, I’m sorry.
Lee Reply:
November 14th, 2009 at 6:44 am
Flap,
As I stated, I’m playing Devil’s advocate to challenge the logic of your position since you hold a very strong pro-life position. As such, I’m deliberately being one-sided in my argument as I’m trying to challenge the strength of yours. But I do see another side, just not really presented well in your arguments yet.
Part of the problem in this whole debate as I see it is that like many other issues, emotions can easily cloud reason. Seeing pictures of an aborted foetus or even live ultrasounds can no doubt evoke a powerful sympathetic response from just about anyone who has a heart.
However, if we based laws on emotion then Drunk drivers, racism, animal cruelty, sex offenders, crimes against extremely vulnerable people etc would all face far stiffer penalties then our courts currently impose.
But back to the debate..
“You talk about ethical dilemmas, etc., that end up supposedly justifying murder. The end result is too heinous.”
Again, explain to me the difference between a mother choosing to not allow her body to support a baby until birth and in doing so causing its death versus a generic person required to use his or body only (noone else can help) in a debilitating physical and mental process in order that another person will live?
crh3e Reply:
November 14th, 2009 at 6:26 pm
Flap: “Raising children does not cause some people to be driven batty or even suicidal? We must allow post-birth abortions! Let’s say 1 year old. We can call the baby a exofetus, get a caring abortionist to shoot it in the head, and rest easily at night with a clear conscience knowing that it was a “medical procedure” and is covered by “privacy rights.”
-more pointless, insane rambling.
crh3e Reply:
November 14th, 2009 at 6:31 pm
crh:“Abortions does not equal infanticide in the eyes of the law genius”
flap: “Well there, genius, the whole damn point of the debate is whether it SHOULD or SHOULD NOT, and it clearly, logically, scientifically (mid-to-late term) is infanticide which is why the law should be changed. Would you have been a supporter of Dred Scott?”
yeah I was just giving you information about current laws since what you believe doesn’t equate to what’s written in law. It helps to have facts in a debate genius.
Flap:“Slavery doesn’t equal mistreating citizens because black people are property in the eyes of the law genius”
-more attempts to turn this into a race/slavery debate. Extrapolating and side-stepping do your argument no favors.
flap Reply:
November 14th, 2009 at 11:32 pm
“But I do see another side, just not really presented well in your arguments yet.”
Lee, I’m not buying your “moderate” position. If you don’t clearly see that a human life exists in the womb and needs to be protected, I’m not going to convince you, and no one else will. Same goes for the anti-slavery position. If you don’t see the moral depravity of things like slavery and abortion, how am I supposed to convince you? I can’t move mountains or try to prove relatively obvious things like a HUMAN is a HUMAN. “Well, flap, I see the idea that black people should be conferred certain rights and not enslaved, but, um, I’ll let the slaveholders make a choice on the issue.”
I mean, you say specious things like “we don’t base laws on emotion.” Well, sure, but just because strong emotions are invoked doesn’t mean that it is NOT a concomitant feeling with what the law SHOULD be. I see abused or dead children, I am emotional. I don’t like it. The law agrees with my emotion. So what? Abortion is killing a human being. Mid-to-late term, it’s factually, scientifically indisputable. The law doesn’t agree with it, unfortunately.
Now, if you want to debate whether or not we ALLOW murder of our own children, that’s a different issue. Maybe that’s what the pro-choice position is truly about, although everyone couches it in secret terms. Should pregnant women have a license to kill? I say murdering our own progeny, inside or outside the womb, is immoral and should be banned (with exceptions for first trimester when the baby is less human-looking and the “humanity” aspect could be reasonably debated). If you think it’s moral, I think that’s batcrap insane, but that’s your right to believe that. But all this “fetus” and “tissue” talk that marginalizes human beings in the womb into some sort of unhuman or protohuman biological growth is maddening and completely unscientific (as well as immoral).
“Again, explain to me the difference between a mother choosing to not allow her body to support a baby until birth and in doing so causing its death versus a generic person required to use his or body only (noone else can help) in a debilitating physical and mental process in order that another person will live?”
How is that any different than forcing a parent to raise a child after it’s born? Lee, if you can justify allowing a mother to kill her newly born infant that she forgot to abort, then maybe your argument would make some sense. If you can justify allowing a mother to kill her 1-year-old child because she doesn’t want to support it anymore, then maybe your argument would make sense. Once an innocent human life exists, society has a responsibility to protect it. Whether it’s “MY WOMB” or “MY HOUSE” or “MY LIFE” is irrelevant. Just as you can’t legally kill me, you shouldn’t be allowed kill your own child. In the womb or out of the womb. Biological dependence doesn’t have to be placental dependence.
Raising children once they are BORN is a physically and mentally debilitating process. So you’re saying that a parent can shut their kids up in a basement and not deal with them because it’s a physically and mentally debilitating process? Again, that’s treating human beings as property.
I know we all face tough issues in life, and people who become pregnant face difficult obstacles in many circumstances. I get that. I don’t have children, but if an “unwanted” pregnancy happened to my daughter, do you think I would feel good about it? But that should not EVER legally justify murder.
“more pointless, insane rambling.”
It’s insane to you because you don’t have a proper understanding of what human life is. But it’s okay, many libs don’t. What sort of bizarro world are you living in where human beings are property?
Are you one of those people that thinks you OWN your children just as pro-choice women think they OWN their children in the womb? Human beings aren’t property to be bartered or killed on a whim.
burqa Reply:
November 14th, 2009 at 11:42 pm
Do you plan on EVER addressing the topic at hand – the GOP abortion provision in their insurance plan?
My advice is to do a 180 on your child abuse admission, too. We’re watching to see how long it takes you to figure out what a bad mistake you made….
flap Reply:
November 15th, 2009 at 12:12 am
Burqa, when are you going to stop abusing your children? I’d love to hear about that.
I made a debating point about child abuse, noobcake. I don’t have any children, and if I did I would never abuse them or kill them inside or outside the womb.
Lee Reply:
November 15th, 2009 at 12:59 pm
Flap,
I’ll make you a deal.. Once you actually engage my arguments properly, if you want I’ll explain why I have sympathy for the anti-abortion position.
However, you have a tendency to sidestep debating on logic and using emotion e.g “can’t you see”, “it’s just wrong” etc which weaken your case considerably.
Physical dependency stops after birth. There are thousands/millions of people who would raise a child but noone can take the parents place while its in the womb. It’s that simple..
But please either answer my question or admit that you mainly base your position on your ‘feelings’ versus ethical logic.
TDro319 Reply:
November 13th, 2009 at 1:31 pm
“-children have been removed from unfit homes before they can speak in recent times…..”
What you fail to realize CRH3E, is that Flap isn’t interested in what happens to babies once they’re born. Whether they’re left in garbage cans in sub-zero weather or whether the mother beats the child to death is irrelevent to him because it is no longer a fetus and therefore not worth anything.
Once the mother delivers, Flap doesn’t care what happens to the baby. After all, his philosophy is, again, “save the fetus, kill the child”.
flap Reply:
November 13th, 2009 at 2:54 pm
“Whether they’re left in garbage cans in sub-zero weather…”
Wait a sec, TDro, you’re describing Dr. Tiller’s “practice of medicine” to a tee! Stacking those babies in trash cans. What a humanitarian!! Apparently you don’t understand what human life is. I’m the one who is out of line?
A fetus is a child, numbnuts, so your “save the fetus kill the child” is like saying “save the adult kill the human.” Idiotic claptrap.
Tell me that George W. Bush started a war, which in your mind validates legalized premediated killing of your own progeny.
flap Reply:
November 13th, 2009 at 3:08 pm
“that Flap isn’t interested in what happens to babies once they’re born.”
Are you implying that the way to prevent child abuse is to legally allow them to be killed before they can be abused or killed? That’s just pure nonsense.
TDro319 Reply:
November 13th, 2009 at 4:21 pm
“Apparently you don’t understand what human life is”
No. apparently YOU don’t understand what human life is. Maybe you should go on-line and see pictures of the “collateral damage” done in Iraq. But yet condone the killing.
“A fetus is a child, numbnuts”
You’d rather save the pre-born fetus than the post-born child. It’s obvious by your posts. Like I said, you belong to the “save the fetus, kill the child” crowd, numbnuts.
“Tell me that George W. Bush started a war, which in your mind validates legalized premediated killing of your own progeny.”
Well, look who’s lecturing me…. The same clown that CHEERLEADED Bush’s slaughter of innocence!
“Are you implying that the way to prevent child abuse is to legally allow them to be killed before they can be abused or killed? That’s just pure nonsense.”
What I’m saying is I have no desire to have children suffer. Apparently you don’t embrace the same logic as you seem to prefer the babies be born, hence able to feel pain, before they are killed.
TDro319 Reply:
November 13th, 2009 at 4:59 pm
“Apparently you don’t understand what human life is”
Apparently you don’t understand what human life is WORTH! Why don’t you look at the pictures of casualties caused by the Iraq war?
Do you want to know what a human life is worth? Ask Bush and Cheney. The Iraqi people and our soldiers were killed for PROFIT! Bush’s profit! Cheney’s profit! And just because Bush and Cheney didn’t ADMIT it was a war for profit doesn’t make it fact! Our jails are full of people who didn’t confess to their crimes.
flap Reply:
November 14th, 2009 at 12:09 am
“Apparently you don’t embrace the same logic as you seem to prefer the babies be born, hence able to feel pain, before they are killed.”
Are you ignorant enough to believe that babies don’t feel pain in the womb? Take some correspondence courses.
Fetuses feel pain 20 weeks or EARLIER, and you justify killing them? You should be ashamed of yourself…talking about how war is bad (which I agree with you about) but justifying this nonsense. You supported WWII, anyway, which slaughtered lots of innocents, you warmonger.
TDro319 Reply:
November 14th, 2009 at 3:34 pm
Are you ignorant to believe that people killed in war don’t feel pain? 4000+ of our soldiers were killed to profit Bush and Cheney. Talk about hating our troops!
People feel pain INSTANTLY and you justify killing them? You should be ashamed of yourself….talking about how abortions are bad but justify the nonsense of the Iraq war.
And true. I supported WWII. History tells us (if you were to read up on your history) that we were attacked by Japan – and we invaded Japan.
On 9/11, we were attacked by Saudis – and Bush invaded Iraq. And you LOVED it. You supported the slaughter of innocence for money, you warmonger!
flap Reply:
November 14th, 2009 at 11:37 pm
“And true. I supported WWII. History tells us (if you were to read up on your history) that we were attacked by Japan – and we invaded Japan.”
I’m not a very good historian, but I seem to recall that Germany didn’t attack us, so why did we attack them, you warmonger? Do you know how many German civilians, fetuses, and children we killed when we carpet-bombed Germany?
Do you think they didn’t feel pain instantly? You bash the Iraq War and you supported killing all those German civilians just because they had a bad leader? That’s hypocritical of you, TDro.
And, by the way, why do you still support a “war criminal” president like Obama and his “accomplice” Biden who are continuing the “war for profit” that you despise so much? That’s hypocritical of you as well.
burqa Reply:
November 14th, 2009 at 11:51 pm
“I’m not a very good historian, but I seem to recall that Germany didn’t attack us, so why did we attack them, you warmonger?”
You recall wrong.
Germany sank some of our ships in the months before Pearl Harbor, plus they were allied with Japan and Germany declared war on us.
Otherwise, it would have been difficult to get a declaration against Germany because even though the German had attacked us, the conservatives – that’s right – the conservatives – were supporting Germany in varying degrees.
The conservatives were bitching about FDR tilting toward Britain and France.
It’s late and I am tired, but later on I’ll post some dates with names of ships the Germans torpedoed before Pearl Harbor.
Always fun taking conservatives to school on history….
burqa Reply:
November 15th, 2009 at 3:36 pm
“…I’m not a very good historian, but I seem to recall that Germany didn’t attack us…”
I agree.
You are not a very good historian.
Go back and read FDR’s fireside chats for 1940 and 1941 and you’ll see him preparing us for war, talking about how the Nazis were bent on world domination, and how it was inevitable that we get into it against the axis powers because they were intent on bringing the war to us. You’ll see FDR implementing savings bonds and savings stamps to finance ramped up military spending as we rushed aid to our allies.
But more to the point, here are some historic facts for you which demolish your point:
May 21, 1941 – In the South Atlantic, a German submarine torpedoed and sank the American merchant ship Robin Moor.
May 27, 1941, President Roosevelt announced a national state of emergency
July 1941, An American battleship was stalked by a German submarine which was unable to get into firing position.
August 17, 1941, Near Greenland, the Panamanian-registered, American-owned merchant ship S.S. Sessa
September 4, 1941, Southeast of Greenland in the North Atlantic, the American destroyer Greer was twice attacked by torpedoes fired from a German submarine.
September 6, 1941, in the Red Sea, the American merchant ship Steel Seafarer was sunk by German aircraft
During President Roosevelt’s September 11, 1941 fireside chat, he announced we would sink any German or Italian ship or submarine we found
September 19, the American merchant ship Pink Star was sunk by a German submarine near Greenland.
October 17, A German submarine torpedoed the American destroyer U.S.S. Kearny
October 27, 1941 “We have wished to avoid shooting. But the shooting has started” – FDR
.
.
.
.
.
And who opposed us taking on the Nazis, Fascists and Japanese?
IT WAS THOSE PANTYWAIST CONSERVATIVES, THAT’S WHO!
burqa Reply:
November 14th, 2009 at 11:45 pm
it’s late and I’m tired and distacted – - – can someone else count the number of posts by flap so far where he ducks the issue of the GOP abortion insurance?
I think I counted about 10 quack-quack posts yesterday, but it’s about time for an updated count…..
jazmine Reply:
November 14th, 2009 at 11:54 pm
More than 10 I’m sure…
burqa Reply:
November 15th, 2009 at 12:01 am
Yeah, maybe if we wait a day he’ll get his total ducking posts to over 20.
Maybe we should have a Daffy Duck Prize here for the one who does the most ducking of an issue.
I think flap is the early favorite to seize and hold the title.
Piffle might give him a run for his money, but flap is immune to following the subject at hand.
What with the way he loves wheeling out his 17th century morality, how much fun you think this guy is at parties?
jazmine Reply:
November 15th, 2009 at 12:12 am
he’s just arrived…he’s be a drag at a party, no swinging from chandeliers for this dude, and for tables, well it be just fer plain eatin, thats all…:)
flap Reply:
November 15th, 2009 at 12:13 am
“17th century morality”
I’m not the one who agrees with legalized murder, bro. That’s you. Pretty medieval on your part.
jazmine Reply:
November 15th, 2009 at 12:16 am
I’m not quite following what WWII, Germans and Japanese have to do with fetuses, but it appears there it some sort of correlation.
burqa Reply:
November 15th, 2009 at 12:22 am
I think he’s thinking back to the good old days when conservatives in America had so much to admire with the Axis powers who were opposed by us Libruls, who led America to victory….
Plus,it’s just another dodge from talking about the 18 years of GOP abortions…….
flap Reply:
November 15th, 2009 at 12:33 am
“but it appears there it some sort of correlation”
TDro thinks that because George W. Bush started a war, abortion is moral.
flap Reply:
November 15th, 2009 at 12:34 am
“had so much to admire with the Axis powers who were opposed by us Libruls”
Congrats, burqa, on playing the Nazi card! You win!
November 12th, 2009 at 7:10 pm
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm, kinda makes you wonder how many Republicans got abortions…….
November 12th, 2009 at 7:21 pm
This quote is so juicy you gotta put a bowl under it:
“According to several Cigna employees, the insurer offers its customers the opportunity to opt out of abortion coverage – and the RNC did not choose to opt out.”
November 12th, 2009 at 7:32 pm
Oopsie, Daisy, Doodle………once again!
November 12th, 2009 at 9:52 pm
Flap: can you leave your government out of my V*g*na.
Thanks in advance.
flap Reply:
November 13th, 2009 at 3:01 pm
Jazmine, when I abuse my children, keep the government out of my house. None of their or your damn business. It’s MY HOUSE.
libpatriot Reply:
November 13th, 2009 at 3:08 pm
But those abused children will be sent out into the world to abuse others, as they have learned to see abuse as normal, replicating and perpetuating a pattern of suffering. And that makes it everybody’s business, Flap.
But a house isn’t a body, doesn’t have the responsibility to rear you or your children for 18 years, and has no risk of dying from you sending them out the front door into the world (unlike the risk a mother takes with her life by carrying a pregnancy to term). Your comparison is a strawman.
flap Reply:
November 14th, 2009 at 12:01 am
“doesn’t have the responsibility to rear you or your children for 18 years”
So you are implying that if a mother forgets to have an abortion, delivers a baby that she does not want, the baby should be allowed to be killed?
And if you say no, what is the difference? You would SADDLE a mother with rearing a child for 18 years or force her to give up a child for adoption? That’s very uncaring.
“And that makes it everybody’s business, Flap.”
Just as killing your own child in utero is morally depraved and makes it everybody’s business. Thank you for agreeing with me. My house, my womb. Murder/abuse is wrong. QED.
jazmine Reply:
November 13th, 2009 at 4:20 pm
Oh Flap, now you are really starting to show your true colors. So your saying you had children so you could abuse them? Reads like that to me! Ughhh!
Believe me, I have no interest in what goes on in your HOUSE. I do however feel sorry for its occupants, humans and animals alike.
flap Reply:
November 13th, 2009 at 11:58 pm
“So your saying you had children so you could abuse them?”
Jazmine, you’re the only person who supports child abuse…I was making a DEBATING point to show the idiocy of the “my body” argument. I DON’T HAVE ANY CHILDREN, AND I WOULD NEVER ABUSE CHILDREN.
You believe that a fetus is not a human being? Ughhh!
“Believe me, I have no interest in what goes on in your HOUSE.”
So if I’m abusing children, you agree that it’s none of your business and the government should stay out of my life, just like with your womb?
burqa Reply:
November 13th, 2009 at 9:36 pm
“Jazmine, when I abuse my children, keep the government out of my house. None of their or your damn business. It’s MY HOUSE.”
Sure you want to run with that one?
Does the same standard apply to spousal abuse?
This was tried in the early colonies and quickly abandoned. At first, those who had large enough plantations in Virginia could make their own law on their property. This had predictable consequences and was abandoned, I think about 1620.
So flap, you’re about 411 years behind the times…..
jazmine Reply:
November 13th, 2009 at 10:05 pm
Thanks Burqa…to flippantly talk about abuse in ones House as an entitlement, is beyond belief, so therefore I will no longer post things…towards Flap. Amen
burqa Reply:
November 13th, 2009 at 10:19 pm
I find it pretty sick of flap, but want to at least give him a chance to reconsider before being forever branded a self-admitted child-abuser.
Maybe he was on acid…..
jazmine Reply:
November 13th, 2009 at 10:31 pm
Mmm, it’s wrong all the way around on whatever drugs they’re on. I’m going back to reading my poetry, science and looking at great nature shots. Sometimes I prefer my solitude over non-ending debates…
burqa Reply:
November 13th, 2009 at 11:05 pm
I’m saving a link so I can go back and be able to not only point out what he said, but that he had a chance to correct the record.
We all occasionally go overboard with the hyperbole.
May I suggest a poem, jazmine?
Check out Pablo Neruda’s “Ode to Wine”
flap Reply:
November 13th, 2009 at 11:52 pm
“Sure you want to run with that one?
Does the same standard apply to spousal abuse?”
The same standard doesn’t apply to MY womb, why should it apply to MY house? It’s MY body. Well, it’s MY house! Right? I’m not the one who condones abortion…I’m just using the same bankrupt logic that you libs enjoy using to somehow justify murder in utero.
“I find it pretty sick of flap”
I find it pretty sick and disingenuous of you to try justify abortion based on the “MY BODY” argument, and then when I give a “MY HOUSE” argument that is perfectly analogous then I’m somehow out of line! You’re the one who supports killing, not me. Then you talk about spousal abuse. I wouldn’t abuse my children, my spouse, and I wouldn’t kill my children in the womb, either!
Like I always say about libs vis-a-vis the abortion argument (all together, now):
1) Try to change the subject
2) Play shoot the messenger
When are you libs gonna stop justifying the modern-day moral issue equivalent of slavery? How you boil human life down to pep-rally terms such as “choice” is something I’ll never understand. Do you know that a 14-week-old child in utero is human looking? Does it strike you as a little weird that we allow death of that human-looking lifeform on a WHIM?
It’s absolutely immoral, illogical, and bereft of any value whatsoever.
“science”
Jazmine, if you are a supposed lover of science, I suggest you crack open a biology book. Biology, as in the study of life. You might find out that human life exists in the womb. Might do you some good to wash away some of those pro-abortion politics.
karthiks030977 Reply:
November 13th, 2009 at 10:09 pm
I always knew every time Jared called me a pedophile, that it was a reflection thingy,more Republicans being pedophiles/child abusers. Finally someone confesses (Good job Flap, that’s half the job done,the tough half)…
Have to say here…I got vindicated…God is great…Om Muruga…Jesus saves…Allahu Akbar…Buddham charanam gachaami.
flap Reply:
November 13th, 2009 at 11:55 pm
“Finally someone confesses”
Another buffoon tells me I’m confessing when I’m using a logical extension of YOUR thought processes, not mine. I don’t have any children, noobcake, and I wouldn’t abuse children or women. That’s unlike people who condone abortion, the ultimate child abuse.
Like I say about libs:
1) Try to change the subject
2) Play shoot the messenger
I can’t help it if you people can’t see the clear moral depravity of killing a baby/fetus/human life/collection of tissue in utero.
So continue the namecalling, Karthik. It removes any logical arguments (if you have any) that you put forth.
TDro319 Reply:
November 14th, 2009 at 3:42 pm
Well lookee here! A buffoon accusing others of being buffoons. It seem you’re the one who has no logical argument. Perhaps that is why you resort to insulting others.
And do you really want to know what constitutes “moral depravity” Flap? KILLING PEOPLE FOR PROFIT! You condoned the invasion of Iraq, the slaughter of innocent people for profit, and you lecture us on morality? Give me a break!
Daddio Reply:
November 14th, 2009 at 5:00 pm
You know the old saying Tdro–It takes a buffoon to know a buffoon. You continue to insult others who don’t agree with you. It would seem, by your standard, that YOU have no logical arguments.
flap Reply:
November 14th, 2009 at 11:46 pm
“you lecture us on morality?”
I’m not lecturing you on “morality,” I’m lecturing you specifically on the gross immorality of abortion. You constantly conflate the issues of war and abortion. Big difference.
Yes, when someone takes a debating point that I made and says that I’m “admitting” to abusing children or women, then I take offense. But I mean nothing personal against Karthik because he probably wasn’t serious either.
But I am offended that you would call me a buffoon, you nooblet.
burqa Reply:
November 14th, 2009 at 11:57 pm
Of COURSE you admitted to beating your children and said the government should stay out of your house when you do it.
I fllowed with a history lesson.
By the way, I was referring to what was known as “particular plantations” which were their own law early on.
You’re 400 years behind in terms of civilization. You’re stuck in the days of drawing and quartering people for not taking the right oath, branding their faces, etc.
Waterboarding was big back then, too.
You got 400 years of progress to make to catch up to the rest of us, so spare us your 17th century “morality.”
flap Reply:
November 15th, 2009 at 12:05 am
“You got 400 years of progress to make to catch up to the rest of us”
I say, with regard to certain human beings, murder is bad, and I’ve got to catch up?
“Of COURSE you admitted to beating your children and said the government should stay out of your house when you do it.”
I’m was using your logic, burqa, to make a debating point. When are you going to stop beating your kids? Obviously they’re mere property to you, to do with as you please, just as kids in the womb are property to a pregnant woman.
Isn’t that being stuck 400 years ago? MY KIDS. MY PROPERTY. MY WOMB.
burqa Reply:
November 15th, 2009 at 12:17 am
400 years, that’s right, flap.
Your earlier “debating point” – the one where you said you beat your kids – was where you said the government had no business coming in and telling you what to do.
That legal concept went out of fashion in the Virginia colony about 400 years ago.
Back then, on “particular plantations” the law was what you wish, but was abolished circa 1620, maybe as late as 1640, so maybe you have only 369 years of civilizing to do….
You like waterboarding? It was big back then, too…
flap Reply:
November 15th, 2009 at 12:32 am
“legal concept went out of fashion”
So legal equals moral is what you’re saying? Then there’s no need for progressivity, because everything LEGAL is moral and everything ILLEGAL is immoral. Dred Scott was en vogue at a certain time, and Roe v. Wade is en vogue now. Doesn’t mean it’s correct or moral.
“Keep the government out of my womb” sounds very similar to “keep the government out of my house.” No substantive difference. “Keep the government away from MY fetus” sounds like “keep the government away from MY children.”
TDro319 Reply:
November 16th, 2009 at 2:01 pm
“But I am offended that you would call me a buffoon, you nooblet”
I didn’t call you a buffoon – I’m merely agreeing with the person who did.
November 12th, 2009 at 11:00 pm
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
And yeah, you damn women-killing abortion-outlawing rightwing neoFacist extremists, get your damn political agenda the F out of people’s v*g*nas!!!!
November 13th, 2009 at 1:52 am
who has time to look this kind of stuff up?
pierre Reply:
November 13th, 2009 at 12:29 pm
So WTF?
You think that the “so called conservative
women” only do the “solo Prejean”.
Nope
When you burn “woods”, you get charcoal.
If you don’t need charcoal, you burn it.
If you do you keep it.
Believe or not, more rich and conservative women have abortions; they are simply not reported- you know!!!a friend of your father does it just like in the film Dr.Zhivago.
GuidoVanHorn Reply:
November 13th, 2009 at 9:24 pm
and I really don’t understand the point of your post.
GuidoVanHorn Reply:
November 13th, 2009 at 9:24 pm
I was just wondering who takes the time to look through the RNC’s health plan and takes glee in reporting that their plan conflicts with their views.
I imagine that their plan is pretty standard for what that company covers in other like groups. I doubt they went line by line and negotiated for abortions to be covered.
burqa Reply:
November 13th, 2009 at 9:32 pm
Yeah, and it just got thicker with Michael Steele saying they would no longer have this as part of their coverage.
So the GOP insurance will not be as good as that offered by the Democratic Party…
TDro319 Reply:
November 14th, 2009 at 3:45 pm
Who DOESN’T take the time to read their insurance plans?
I think the RNC read the plan, but kept in the abortion clause for the sake of their republican women, hoping nobody would notice.
burqa Reply:
November 14th, 2009 at 3:55 pm
They not only read it, but the agents tell the what is in it. Obviously, they are only snot-flying mad about abortion in public.
In private they want it available….
…… can’t wait for the stats to leak on the number of GOP “partial birth” abortions….
GuidoVanHorn Reply:
November 15th, 2009 at 12:48 pm
I couldn’t tell you the particulars of my health plan, and certainly not if it covered an abortion or not.
but I definitely live a little differently than you I suppose.
TDro319 Reply:
November 16th, 2009 at 2:08 pm
“I couldn’t tell you the particulars of my health plan”
This will work out great for your insurance company if you ever need to collect for a (God forbid) major operation which requires long term care. The insurance company is actually COUNTING on your lack of policy knowledge. That way, when you desperately need for them to pay a claim, they can point to some obscure statement in your policy regarding some long forgotten childhood ailment (maybe you had zitz that were medically treated), and deny coverage because you forgot to mention it at the time of signing.
jasperjava Reply:
November 15th, 2009 at 1:01 am
I doubt they went line by line and negotiated for abortions to be covered.
That particular provision was optional. Somebody would have had to add it as an option, and kept it after 18 years of renewals and amendments. To suggest that nobody has noticed this in 18 years stretches credulity.
GuidoVanHorn Reply:
November 15th, 2009 at 12:51 pm
That particular provision was optional. Somebody would have had to add it as an option, and kept it after 18 years of renewals and amendments. To suggest that nobody has noticed this in 18 years stretches credulity.
—
was it tied to other benefits? I really haven’t researched this and I don’t have the time…but out of curiosity…was there a checkbox that said would you like abortions covered …yes…no….
or was it more like, would you like to sign up for the super bonus coverage that extends to additional coverage for a variety of optional surgeries? yes…no..
just wondering, personally I don’t care how the RNC runs it’s business, just wondering how insidious this really is.
November 13th, 2009 at 10:24 am
18 years, flap, …… 18 years years of hypocrisy,….. 18 years of betraying their “core values” …… and it would have gone on had a LIBRUL not found out their dirty little secret…
So far, I count at least 10 posts by flap in this thread, but not a single one of them is about the story of the GOP health insurance plan.
flap Reply:
November 14th, 2009 at 11:54 pm
Wait a second: aren’t you libs about “big tents”? There are some GOP members who are for the “right” to abortion.
But, honestly, why do I care about the GOP? There are political hypocrites everywhere, including…*gasp*…many DEMOCRATS!
I don’t know if the political leaders of the RNC even look at the health plan in detail. (Guido said something similar.) They probably should. But it also depends on the type of abortion: late-term, early-term? There’s a big difference. Early-term is scraping the uterus, and late-term is violent dismemberment.
flap Reply:
November 14th, 2009 at 11:57 pm
And I’ve said myself (grudgingly, I might add) that 1st trimester abortions should probably stay legal for a variety of reasons. So if the GOP plan covered that, fine. If it covered violent dismemberment as a “medical procedure” then I’m not in favor.
Quack quack.
burqa Reply:
November 15th, 2009 at 12:11 am
What about 1 day into the second trimester?
See, we can work the slippery slope both ways.
How about a comment on 18 years, 18 long years, 18 years of GOP approved and financed abortions and no one has said anything about this plan eliminating even – - – - – wait for it – - – - wait for it – - – - (cringe) PARTIAL BIRTH ABORTIONS!
Shoot, for all you know, those Bush twins may have each had 5 or 6 partial birth abortions and Republicans helped pay for it!
Actually, I’d rather see how many times you duck the OP, we need to set a standard for others and you’re giving a pretty good baseline here – don’t change, babe!
flap Reply:
November 15th, 2009 at 12:27 am
“What about 1 day into the second trimester? See, we can work the slippery slope both ways.”
Well, sure, and we can kill infants right after birth. That would fit with your 17th century idea of morality, right? So because it’s a cloudy issue, let’s ASSUME there’s no humanity and kill, kill, kill!
“How about a comment on 18 years, 18 long years, 18 years of GOP approved and financed abortions and no one has said anything about this plan eliminating even – – – – – wait for it – – – – wait for it – – – – (cringe) PARTIAL BIRTH ABORTIONS!”
I don’t expect Alan to spin it in a pro-GOP light, but it seems the GOP is wrong about this. Can you get off tonight, now, knowing that I admitted that?
Good grief, all you’re concerned about is hypocrisy so you can win some cheap political points. Fine and dandy. You have them.
“Actually, I’d rather see how many times you duck the OP”
Why do I care? I see an issue about abortion, I see mind-numbed liberals who think they’re so “with it” and “enlightened” to be pro-choice, and miss the forest for the trees. I’m not a GOP cheerleader. Never was and never will be. I am against abortion and vigorously so.
There are very few things I know for sure in this life. Here are two of them (which might be an all-inclusive list):
Flap’s metaphysical certitude list:
1) God exists
2) Abortion is immoral (with caveats)
burqa Reply:
November 15th, 2009 at 12:31 am
Nope.
Sorry, you’re stuck on a meathook and you can’t get off…..
jasperjava Reply:
November 15th, 2009 at 1:15 am
Flap’s metaphysical certitude list:
1) God exists
2) Abortion is immoral (with caveats)
I didn’t think it was possible in the modern post-Nietzschean world for anyone to assert with certainty the existence of God, except for people untouched by the modern world, like simple peasants or jihadist fanatics. I would think that even the Pope, in the recesses of his mind, has to harbor some doubts.
Personally, I think it’s still possible to believe in God; I actually do myself. But I’m not sure it’s possible to do it with certainty.
I’m comfortable with that, because I don’t think faith and doubt are polar opposites. I believe that doubt creates a searching, dynamic faith, while certainty tends to fossilize faith into a rigid dogma.
As for abortion with caveats, that also betrays a lack of metaphysical certitude, I’m afraid.
November 14th, 2009 at 12:03 am
I think the reason the Republicans stayed with this thing was they wanted to wait for that second Bush twin to get married off….
November 14th, 2009 at 12:05 am