HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Jamaal510 » Journal
Page: 1

Jamaal510

Profile Information

Gender: Male
Hometown: Oakland, CA
Member since: Thu Oct 6, 2011, 03:00 PM
Number of posts: 5,888

Journal Archives

O'Reilly to Beck: If Obamacare implodes, Democrats will be "banished for 10-15 years"

More: http://www.mediaite.com/tv/oreilly-to-glenn-beck-if-obamacare-implodes-democrats-will-be-banished-for-10-to-15-years/

Bill O’Reilly joined Glenn Beck on Monday to promote his book Killing Jesus and talk about the political drama over Obamacare and a possible government shutdown. O’Reilly lamented how little the American people care about these issues, said that the media would end up spinning a shutdown in President Obama‘s favor, and predicted that if Obamacare is implemented and it turns into a huge disaster, “the Democratic party will be banished for ten to fifteen years.”

O’Reilly told Beck he believes Ted Cruz‘s opposition to Obamacare is sincere, but at the same time he said compromise is essential for anything to get done and neither side can have the “my way or the highway” attitude.

O’Reilly also bemoaned how little people really care about this issue, tying technological distraction to political apathy that allows an “elite governing the country” doing whatever it wants without much public pushback, which Beck found to be a very “depressing,” “fascistic” painting of what’s to come.

O’Reilly said that about half of Americans simply have “no blanking clue what’s going on.” Beck asked him what he thinks is going to happen if Obamacare is implemented and turns into a massive disaster. O’Reilly responded, “Then the Democratic party will be banished for ten to fifteen years,” meaning the political fallout will be so great they’ll end up in the minority in both the House and Senate, and they won’t control the presidency in a long while.

Not that anybody has noticed...but...

Atlas Shrugged--a Review

It's not just Akin

More: http://itsnotjustakin.com

Rick Scott
Rick Scott Signed Legislation Forcing Women To Undergo An Ultrasound Before An Abortion. According to the Tampa Bay Times, “Gov. Rick Scott on Saturday hosted a celebration of the four new laws intended to limit access to abortion…Lawmakers passed five abortion-related bills in the 2011 session. One requires women to receive an ultrasound before undergoing an abortion and be offered the opportunity to have it described to her…Asked what his response it to those who say the laws limit choice for women, Gov. Scott referred to the ultrasound bill, passed by a previous Legislature but vetoed by then Gov. Charlie Crist. ‘You should have the opportunity to see an ultrasound of your child,’ Scott said. ‘It’s your choice. You don’t have to. This creates choice. I think it’s very positive.’”

Gary Miller
Miller Co-Sponsored Controversial Bill That Only Provided Abortion Funding For Victims Of “Forcible Rape,” Implying That Some Rapes Were Not “Forcible.” On January 20, 2011, Grimm signed on as a cosponsor to HR 3, a bill to prohibit the use of federal funds for abortion-related services. One provision of the bill altered the exception in federal law that allowed for Medicaid funds to pay for abortions resulting from rape. Instead, the bill redefined the exception by prohibiting the use of federal funds to pay for abortion services in all instances except cases of “forcible rape,” rather than simply rape. This altered language endangered federal assistance for abortion services in a number of rape situations, such as statutory rape, that might have failed to meet the threshold of “forcible rape.” According to Think Progress, “Last year, Akin joined with GOP vice presidential candidate Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) as two of the original co-sponsors of the ‘No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act,’ a bill which, among other things, introduced the country to the bizarre term ‘forcible rape.’ Federal law prevents federal Medicaid funds and similar programs from paying for abortions. Yet the law also contains an exception for women who are raped. The bill Akin and Ryan cosponsored would have narrowed this exception, providing that only pregnancies arising from ‘forcible rape’ may be terminated. Because the primary target of Akin and Ryan’s effort are Medicaid recipients — patients who are unlikely to be able to afford an abortion absent Medicaid funding — the likely impact of this bill would have been forcing many rape survivors to carry their rapist’s baby to term.” The bill was passed by the House of Representatives on May 4, 2011, with Bachmann voting in favor, but no subsequent action was taken in the Senate.


Michele Bachmann
Bachmann Co-Sponsored Controversial Bill That Only Provided Abortion Funding For Victims Of “Forcible Rape,” Implying That Some Rapes Were Not “Forcible.” On January 20, 2011, Bachmann signed on as a cosponsor to HR 3, a bill to prohibit the use of federal funds for abortion-related services. One provision of the bill altered the exception in federal law that allowed for Medicaid funds to pay for abortions resulting from rape. Instead, the bill redefined the exception by prohibiting the use of federal funds to pay for abortion services in all instances except cases of “forcible rape,” rather than simply rape. This altered language endangered federal assistance for abortion services in a number of rape situations, such as statutory rape, that might have failed to meet the threshold of “forcible rape.” According to Think Progress, “Last year, Akin joined with GOP vice presidential candidate Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) as two of the original co-sponsors of the ‘No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act,’ a bill which, among other things, introduced the country to the bizarre term ‘forcible rape.’ Federal law prevents federal Medicaid funds and similar programs from paying for abortions. Yet the law also contains an exception for women who are raped. The bill Akin and Ryan cosponsored would have narrowed this exception, providing that only pregnancies arising from ‘forcible rape’ may be terminated. Because the primary target of Akin and Ryan’s effort are Medicaid recipients — patients who are unlikely to be able to afford an abortion absent Medicaid funding — the likely impact of this bill would have been forcing many rape survivors to carry their rapist’s baby to term.” The bill was passed by the House of Representatives on May 4, 2011, with Bachmann voting in favor, but no subsequent action was taken in the Senate.

Old Bush ll gem regarding tribal sovereignty

Fireworks: MSNBC's Alex Wagner vs. Ron Paul On Syria, Liberty, Anti-Semitism

<script height="360px" width="640px" src="http://player.ooyala.com/iframe.js#pbid=b171980b65ae4996bffea4da902c7846&ec=RsdWo4ZTrRvoHWXM_HrAsHPbGGzVW8z_"></script>

Link: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2013/09/05/fireworks_msnbcs_alex_wagner_vs_ron_paul_on_syria_liberty_anti-semitism.html

Former Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) joins Alex Wagner to give his take on the situation in Syria, how Obama has handled the situation, and why he thinks the "grand deception" of the Syria debate is that this is a question of national security.

Alex Wagner: With your emphasis on liberty, I have to ask you about some of the folks that are in your coalition. And this weekend you are going to be giving an address at the Fatima Center, a conference in Canada for the Fatima Center, which has been called a hard-core anti-Semite group. Is this something that you would reconsider doing?

Ron Paul: No. As a Catholic…

Wagner: Go ahead.

Paul: I even talk to Republicans and they disagree with everything I say. When I’m on a Republican stage and I say we should have a foreign policy of the golden rule, they boo me. I’m trying to covert people. But I’m going to a conservative Catholic group that is pro-peace and wants to hear my foreign policy and my take on economy. If I go only — I wouldn’t be on this station if I had to have a litmus test. I mean, you have an opinion. … I’m on your station, why can’t I go there?

Wagner: We appreciate you coming on this station, but at the same time this station is not advocating, as the Fatima Center has, to “the duty incumbent upon Catholics of combating valiantly for the integral rights of Christ the King and opposing Jewish nationalism and preaching about Satan’s plans against the church, among which include the granting of full citizenship to the Jews.” Is your appearance at an event like this not some kind of endorsement of…

Paul: What I would say is, yes, there are disagreements within the Catholic Church, and they’re debating its theological — I have nothing to do with that. I am not even going to pretend I know anything about that. Sounds to me like you have me on here to bash Catholics.

Wagner: I was raised Catholic, so that’s the last thing I’d want to do.

Paul: Yeah, well you ought to be more courteous to them and give them a break. I mean, you know, why can’t we have discussions with people that might have a difference? And I’ve put up with a lot of this in the last 40 years because not too many people agree, but why I’m excited is the country is coming toward the way of peace and this coalition of libertarians and progressives. We’ve had too much war, too much spending, too much Federal Reserve printing of money. And that’s what’s important. For you to bring this stuff up about the infractions of some group that I have no idea what their theology’s all about…that just astounds me.

Wagner: You know, there have been a lot of folks that have been involved with your campaign — supporters. There’ve been newsletters that have been accredited to you that have strong anti-Semitic, racist undertones and I think the American public is curious about how you endorse or do not endorse or deny involvement with any of that. And that’s why it’s a relevant line of questioning.

Paul: You know, the first month after I was elected in 1976 … I was a practicing physician for all these years. And I run for office, I had no expectation of winning. … The first month they put my picture in a magazine with a swastika. So this is just horrible and it just goes on. When people disagree with you on ideas, they have to destroy your character. That’s what they do. The main reason I get attacked from anybody, like you, it’s because there’s disagreement on my foreign policy. I want peace and I don’t want to support the war-mongers. So you have to go after somebody’s character. That’s wrong.

Wagner: I don’t think that constitutes a character attack, Dr. Paul, but we really do appreciate you coming on the show. (transcript via Washington Post)
Go to Page: 1