(no subject)

[interstice]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D6IlGXhCUHo

Well, umm... the question is vague... You don't say what kind of birth control it is. Uhh... One thing is certain! I would not hurt the woman.

Comments

[hfwolfe.livejournal.com]

That was way not fair.

Fiorina's whole point was "Women are mad. They want a choice," and, while unsaid, from a Republican view they already have two: call the company and complain, or switch. Like it or not, this is how an economically liberal party views it. Whether the company provides viagra or contact lenses is irrelevant.

Then the reporter says: "Your rep said you want to make them provide birth control, but you voted against it." No, and No. She never promised, and voting against a mandate is not like voting against the thing itself. There's no "women's health" issue here. Of course he was reeling, poor bastard. Then you throw the viagra red herring into it, and you have an instant headline maker. Good job Johnnie, don't answer off the cuff.

Man, his age is showing. That was not graceful.

[random-walker.livejournal.com]

It was extremely ungraceful, that was the point of my linking to it: the sadness. It was maybe wrong of me to associate him with a cartoon Nixon.

Still, you must have meant "libertarian", not republican. I would like to switch to a phone system or airline which is not part of a government-complex. The truth is, the broken system of private insurance is funded by the gov't through employer tax games and thus should be regulated for the public benefit; birth control is for the public benefit.

An honest Republican would admit to this system; oppose it; but while it is in effect, run it correctly. It's remarkable that even though this would advance their middle-term goal of "starving the beast", they won't do it out of, presumably, instinctive loathing of the masses.

[hfwolfe.livejournal.com]

If people are so keen to associate Obama with Kennedy, then hey, why not? Where's our modern Goldwater when we need a laugh?

Libertarians might religiously oppose regulation, but McCain et al still oppose it in most circumstances. you know I'm not arguing for his stance, all I'm saying is he's self-consistent here and he should have stuck to his rhetoric.