Disqus - Latest Comments for Anna

Re: Orrin Hatch: Individual Mandate Does Not Tax or Spend; Therefore, It Is Unconstitutional

Anna — Mon, 04 Jan 2010 12:49:21 -0000

Watch out dduck...

For preferring a national regulator for insurance (or any regulation at all, for that matter), you're bound to be labeled an arugula-loving socialist and lose any rightie street cred you may have. ;-)

Re: Abortion Is Not Health Care, Redux

Anna — Tue, 22 Dec 2009 22:39:32 -0000

Of course, my "slippery slope" argument was in regards to medical procedures and not contraception but that was an interesting way of almost ignoring everything I said prior to talking about contraception.

When you say "no to abortion in almost all circumstances", what are those circumstances that are acceptable to you? Who gets to decide which circumstances are acceptable? You? Someone's church? You might even bring God into it but then...who's God...whose religion? Why should a conservative Christian's moral values be dictated onto others under the law, particularly since there is no state religion in this country and not everyone may subscribe to those beliefs (or even not believe in God at all)?

Personally, I believe that abortion should be legal but rare and that a woman's body is her own. I wouldn't dream of trying to dictate to you a medical procedure that you couldn't receive, why on earth would you want to dictate as such to me? What if someone (or many someones) who's beliefs follow the Jehovah's Witness' religion and they tried to dictate to you that you couldn't receive an organ transplant just because they believed it to be wrong...would you stand for that? Somehow, I don't think so.

Re: Abortion Is Not Health Care, Redux

Anna — Tue, 22 Dec 2009 15:22:16 -0000

Likewise, how many men not only did not want their unborn child but also funded the procedure to take care of it?

What really gets my goat is when a man seems to think that women look at abortion the same way that they look at getting a bikini wax or maybe even cosmetic surgery. Women who decide to get an abortion are normally not cavalier about it and know that they have to live with their decision for the rest of their lives. Again, I am no fan of elective abortions as a form of birth control (and I doubt that's all that common anymore) but once it's codified into law that a woman cannot get one kind of medical procedure, how long before there are any other number of medical procedures she can't have? Does "slippery slope" come to mind?

As a side note...isn't if funny that the most vocal opponents to abortion also tend to be anti-birth control (see the Catholic Church)? It seems to me that with proper birth control and sex education, elective abortions for non-medical reasons become unnecessary.

Re: Back to the “War” on Christmas

Anna — Mon, 21 Dec 2009 16:11:49 -0000

We in America (and really, human beings in general) have a horrible habit of pretending like the past was ideal and that the current generation is ruining it. When, in fact, reality is much more complicated than that."

I completely agree with this. For me it always brings to mind these lyrics of Billy Joel's"

You know the good old days weren't always good and tomorrow ain't as bad as it seems

Re: Abortion Is Not Health Care, Redux

Anna — Mon, 21 Dec 2009 13:33:46 -0000

Funny, I wonder how many of these "men of conviction" have in the past, had indiscretions and they personally funded a woman's abortion because they didn't want to be burdened with parenthood? Last I checked, a woman can't have a baby on her own (unless we see another star in the East) ;-) .

As to abortion not being health care, try telling that to the couple that finds out that if the woman carries her baby with a serious birth defect to term that the baby will be born dead and she still gets to go through all the risks involved with childbirth. While I'm no fan of elective abortions to rid the consequences of doing something stupid, it is reality that there are some cases where abortion is necessary on some level.

Regardless, the government has no business telling a woman what she can or can't do with her own body. Tell you what, let's have the government dictate that a man must get a vasectomy after a certain age or not have his Viagra prescription subsidized but he has to pay full retail for it on his prescription drug plan. Then you can complain about abortion all you like.

Re: Howard Dean’s Bombshell

Anna — Wed, 16 Dec 2009 13:59:48 -0000

DaMav said:
"Major legislation under the Bush Administration was sufficiently moderate to attract large numbers of Democrats in support."

That's because Bush figured he could bypass anything "moderate" in the legislation with a signing statement and do as he pleased. /snark

Re: This Little Light of Mine

Anna — Mon, 14 Dec 2009 14:18:38 -0000

I cannot believe that anyone should have to result to childish name calling all while accusing the person being called a name of ... wait for it... being a delusional or infantile adult (i.e. childish)

(Actually, I can but I needed to illustrate the irony)

Austin, you are the one that put the absolutes of "mostly pure and without guile" and "embodiment of evilness incarnate" into Kathy's mouth since she didn't say them. Neither side of this is pure by any means but in my opinion it comes down to which side attempts to act in good faith regardless of whether they're in the majority or the minority. Most of the current Republican congressional members are not acting in good faith on legislation because they are much more interested in attempting to score political points against Obama & the Democrats and lining their own pockets than legislating. Likewise, there are also some Democrats that are very much like that. The point is that when a Congressional member's priorities stop being about legislating for the good of the entire country and not just their base, they should get the hell out of government.

Re: Recovery Board Spokesperson: People ‘Make Mistakes’

Anna — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 13:35:40 -0000

Oh please...

If this had been a Republican administration the following would've happened:
a) The numbers would've never even been available on-line or in any other easy way to fact-check (the last administration, in particular, was allergic to sunshine in dark corners).
b) Even if the media had found this kind of thing in a Republican administration they would've either buried it (ala Fox) or bowed into submission to the administration.

Pete made some very valid points and in my opinion, I'd rather they flub the message but actually try to rectify the problem (which they appear to be doing) than the message be pitch-perfect but there's shenanigans behind the scenes. It's a refreshing change of pace...

Re: The GDP Number Is A Good Start, But…

Anna — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 10:58:55 -0000

That's quite a stretch for you to surmise that just because I only focused on your "damned if they do, damned if they don't" attitude towards the administration as my defense of mismanagement by the states...in fact, it's a logical fallacy.

I do think the stimulus was necessary to keep us from going over the cliff but maybe next time the states should check with you first to make sure they're spending their stimulus money in the way that you approve of. /snark

Re: The GDP Number Is A Good Start, But…

Anna — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 17:29:53 -0000

Yet, you would've also complained had the Federal government dictated to the states how to spend that money...yelling "State's Rights!" at the top of your voice along the way. I guess there's just no pleasing some people...

Re: Hundreds Mourn Fallen Georgia Soldier

Anna — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 11:57:35 -0000

Are you actually suggesting that had more troops been thrown in willy-nilly that SSgt. French would've been saved?! Give me deliberation and getting things right over "gut" leadership and possibly putting more of our troops in possibly unnecessary danger any day!

Re: President Bush: Graceful Invitation to President Obama

Anna — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 14:03:42 -0000

Not sure if you noticed, but the Bush that authored the letter was Bush the Elder (#41) and not the more recent former President Bush.

Re: Chicago Eliminated From 2016 Olympics

Anna — Fri, 02 Oct 2009 12:02:13 -0000

Obviously you've never been to Chicago, it's impolite to knock someone's hometown when you've never even visited it (and no, being in Detroit or St. Louis, while in somewhat close proximity doesn't count).

We even accept Republican passports to our "old Blue Nation". /snark

Re: Chicago Eliminated From 2016 Olympics

Anna — Fri, 02 Oct 2009 11:49:19 -0000

As a Chicagoan, I'm disappointed that the Olympics aren't coming here.

I'm wondering how long it will take Obama's critics to start gloating that even his personally making a pitch didn't help?

Re: Applebaum: I am not my husband’s keeper

Anna — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 14:07:16 -0000

JD: "If I were personally in front of a gentleman that had information that could save the lives of my wife and children, I don't think I would have the self-control to NOT beat him into submission."

As an individual, that is a perfectly understandable feeling. Torture is abhorrent and I agree that there is never a valid reason to torture. The main crux of the torture issue that did occur on Bush's watch was that it was institutionalized, for probably the first time in American history. Say you, as an individual, are in the situation you describe above and do get the information (if it's even valid, but that's another point) from the torture and even if you save not only your wife & children's lives, but thousands of others, while being a hero you would've also committed a crime that you'd have to answer for. For someone to commit the crime for the greater good, that's a choice they'd have to realize would also carry consequences to their actions (at least, their day in court). Institutionalized torture flaunts the rule of law because it carries no consequences and makes the abhorrent acceptable.

Re: Ahmadinejad on Holocaust

Anna — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 15:56:07 -0000

shannonlee:

Perhaps I interpreted it differently than you. I didn't see it as apologizing for Ahmadinejad (who I think is despicable) but as offering some of the reasons why Ahmadinejad plays the game that he plays. Would he like to see the Jews wiped out? It sure seems that way although then a convenient scapegoat (for the Arab world) would be lost. It seems to me that Ahmadinejad's Holocaust denial is more for manipulation of the masses and annoying Israel & the West all in one fell swoop. It doesn't make it less disgusting though.

Actually, Reza Aslan is the only author I read on the Daily Beast ever since Jon Stewart had him on the Daily Show during the height of the Iranian election protests. He has no love for Ahmadinejad (another reason I didn't interpret this as a defense of him) and he's often had some fascinating perspectives on Iran.

Re: Ahmadinejad on Holocaust

Anna — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 13:33:08 -0000

Actually, Reza Aslan has an interesting take on this here: http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/... and he's very knowledgeable about Iran.

Re: They’re all a bunch of hypocrites!

Anna — Wed, 23 Sep 2009 15:03:20 -0000

...Sincerly yours...The Breakfast Club :)

Re: Enough’s Enough America

Anna — Wed, 16 Sep 2009 16:05:28 -0000

"The rebuke was demanded by the Democratic black caucus because Wilson refused to apologize on the House floor although he did, upon instructions from Republican house leaders, relay his forgiveness to the White House which Obama accepted."

Jerry, just an FYI...in this paragraph it doesn't seem like "forgiveness" was the correct word to word since it's Obama doing the forgiving. :)

Re: Quote of the Day: The Republican Civility Meltdown

Anna — Fri, 11 Sep 2009 14:34:53 -0000

Thanks, on that we both agree. If I may nitpick for a moment, though. I went to the link you supplied on the "un-American" thing and have a small quibble. I'm no great fan of Pelosi but a direct quote from the article is "Drowning out opposing views is simply un-American." and, to me, it's a bit of a stretch to go from the quote to the conclusion that it means that protesting is un-American. I do, however, think that having un-American in the title, even in quotes, is stupid. I do think that drowning out opposing views is just another example of the deterioration of civility.

Re: Quote of the Day: The Republican Civility Meltdown

Anna — Fri, 11 Sep 2009 13:58:47 -0000

I completely agree that your quote from the article is over the top as far as the "un-American" bit is concerned (I think we can agree that it was undignified). Be that as it may, I don't recall anyone of consequence on the Democratic side claiming that protesting is "un-American" although I seem to recall references to people against the Iraq war as unpatriotic and un-American. Heck, America was founded on protesting!

As to the polarization, it's not so much that it's worse as it appears more visceral (seriously, how many people who despised George W Bush on the left showed up outside his speaking events carrying guns?! I'd bet dollars to donuts none.). What does it say about America when people who disagree can't at least be civil and respectful of each other? Aren't we ultimately all supposed to be in this together; united we stand, divided we fall and all that? Yes, there are those on both sides that are to blame for this so those that insist on acting like children should step out of the way to let those willing to act like adults work to get things done.

Re: Is There a Politician Lower Than Joe Wilson?

Anna — Fri, 11 Sep 2009 12:20:30 -0000

Funny how there is a similarity on 1 specific level between Congress and street gangs...factions in both tend to "protect their own".

Convicted crooks regardless of party should be subject to the law, kicked out of Congress and thrown in jail by a jury. One thing to recall though is that during an investigation, we do have such a thing as "innocent until proven guilty" in a court of law. The court of public opinion is a whole different enchilada, however.

Re: Obama’s Health Care Reset (Guest Voice)

Anna — Thu, 10 Sep 2009 13:55:07 -0000

It's my opinion. I just find it a tad rich when multiple Republicans, with Joe Wilson being the most egregious, show textbook examples of (unprecedented) disrespect to the President and then turn around and lecture on mutual respect (I do tire of using the "H" word).

As to Obama doing just that, no he isn't simply because he was also admonishing his own progressive supporters to also quit the nonsense. When both kids are misbehaving and you take them both to task for it, that's parenting...however, different degrees of misbehavior call for different levels of reprimand. Sad though that it comes to this when Congress is supposed to be composed of rational adults.

Re: Obama’s Health Care Reset (Guest Voice)

Anna — Thu, 10 Sep 2009 13:09:17 -0000

When Obama has to play the role of the adult that has to get into the middle of the kids fighting (i.e. "He touched me!", "Well, he touched me first!") and tell them to quit fighting, get back to work & do their jobs...as a parent I'm willing to cut him some slack for sounding a bit exasperated. It's also funny how it seems some Republicans are only interested in calling for mutual respect after they've slinged all sorts of ... stuff...and are called to the carpet for it. Color me skeptical when they start lecturing on "mutual respect".

Re: Obama’s Health Care Reform Will Decimate Our Population

Anna — Wed, 02 Sep 2009 13:42:09 -0000

Do you honestly think that talking about how the status quo will bankrupt us in the not-too-distant future is "fear-mongering" on par with "death panels" and "pull the plug on Grandma"? At least talking about the status quo bankrupting us is based on truth and the others are complete fabrications so there is a false equivalence there. Considering there really is no single "plan" yet (I assume you are referring to the House bill since there isn't really one out of the Senate yet), we can't know about what flaws might make it to the final bill until it exists.

I also think you have a false assumption about what happens if healthcare reform in general is stopped. You say that it "would give us a chance to possibly start over and get it right". Considering the loudest voices on the right (see Dorian's post) seem to have no interest in reform, do not want Obama to accomplish anything of note and have not (all) been honest brokers so far, I think the possibility of starting over is slim to when does hell freeze over?

I will add, however, that I think the current Congressional leadership of Reid & Pelosi has got to go. They are a a big part of the problem.