PDA

View Full Version : Bush Shooting Blanks?



Cancel7
11-17-2006, 06:05 AM
Let's just forget the back and forth over whether the radical Christians are out of their minds on birth control. It doesn't matter. Let's get to something else that I'd like to see the MSM have the balls to pick up.

The President appoints a man who considers contraceptives to be demeaning to women and harmful to "human happiness". And his spokes person says that though he will work with dems when there is room for agreement, he will not "compromise his principals".

So Bush's "principals" are that family planning programs should be adminstered by men who are against contraception. How has Bush lived up to these "principals"?

President Bush and his wife have exactly two children. They are twins. That means he impregnanted his wife exactly ONE time.

The question is, after that one succesful impregnation, did the first couple stop having sex for the rest of their marriage? Or, was President Bush shooting blanks for most of his life?

And those are the only two possibilities, if, we are to take the President on his word that he will not "compromise his prinicipals." The only other possibility is that this guy has no principals, is a big fat lying hypocrite, who plays to what he calls the "whackos".

What a guy.

By Christopher Lee
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, November 17, 2006; A01



The Bush administration has appointed a new chief of family-planning programs at the Department of Health and Human Services who worked at a Christian pregnancy-counseling organization that regards the distribution of contraceptives as "demeaning to women."

Eric Keroack, medical director for A Woman's Concern, a nonprofit group based in Dorchester, Mass., will become deputy assistant secretary for population affairs in the next two weeks, department spokeswoman Christina Pearson said yesterday.

Keroack, an obstetrician-gynecologist, will advise Secretary Mike Leavitt on matters such as reproductive health and adolescent pregnancy. He will oversee $283 million in annual family-planning grants that, according to HHS, are "designed to provide access to contraceptive supplies and information to all who want and need them with priority given to low-income persons."

The appointment, which does not require Senate confirmation, was the latest provocative personnel move by the White House since Democrats won control of Congress in this month's midterm elections. President Bush last week pushed the Senate to confirm John R. Bolton as ambassador to the United Nations and this week renominated six candidates for appellate court judgeships who have previously been blocked by lawmakers. Democrats said the moves belie Bush's post-election promises of bipartisanship.

The Keroack appointment angered many family-planning advocates, who noted that A Woman's Concern supports sexual abstinence until marriage, opposes contraception and does not distribute information promoting birth control at its six centers in eastern Massachusetts.

"A Woman's Concern is persuaded that the crass commercialization and distribution of birth control is demeaning to women, degrading of human sexuality and adverse to human health and happiness," the group's Web site says.

Keroack was traveling and could not be reached for comment. John O. Agwunobi, assistant secretary for health, said Keroack "is highly qualified and a well-respected physician . . . working primarily with women and girls in crisis."

Mark Conrad, president of A Woman's Concern, said Keroack would be able to make the transition to leading a federal program in which provision of birth control is an integral part. "I don't think it's going to be an issue for him," he said.

The group helps women in unplanned pregnancies but discourages abortions, Conrad said. He said the decision is the woman's but "we do want to give her the opportunity to have all the information and the support necessary to choose life."

Marilyn Keefe, interim president of the National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association, which represents 4,000 family-planning clinics, said Keroack's work "seems to really be geared toward furthering anti-choice, anti-contraception policies." She added that despite the congressional election results, the appointment "goes to show you the importance of controlling the White House and how important federal agencies are in the delivery of health services."

The federal family-planning program, created in 1970, supports a network of 4,600 family-planning clinics that provide information and counseling to 5 million people each year. Services include patient education and counseling, breast and pelvic exams, pregnancy diagnosis and counseling, and screenings for cervical cancer, sexually transmitted diseases and HIV.

Cecile Richards, president of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, called Keroack's appointment "striking proof that the Bush administration remains dramatically out of step with the nation's priorities."

Taken together, Keroack's appointment, the Bolton push and the judicial renominations suggest that although Bush may work for consensus with Democrats on selected issues, he does not plan to avoid decisions simply because lawmakers will disagree, and he may in fact seek fights in some instances when he feels they may be useful politically.

Confirmation of Bolton and the judicial nominees are popular causes with Bush's conservative base, and a family-planning chief from an organization that opposes contraceptives may appeal to disaffected social conservatives.

White House spokeswoman Dana M. Perino cautioned against reading a larger pattern into the recent moves, saying, "You have to look at these things in isolation."

She added: "The president has said we will look to reach common ground where we can find it. However, he's not going to compromise on his principles."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/16/AR2006111601929.html

Jarod
11-17-2006, 07:40 AM
This is what I cant stand about Republicans@

Cypress
11-17-2006, 07:44 AM
The President appoints a man who considers contraceptives to be demeaning to women and harmful to "human happiness".


WTF is this? The United States, or theocratic Iran?

Damocles
11-17-2006, 07:48 AM
The President appoints a man who considers contraceptives to be demeaning to women and harmful to "human happiness".


WTF is this? The United States, or theocratic Iran?
LOL. Yeah, just by this appointment and opinion of one guy it magically makes it into law! Clearly we are living by Sharia law now! Get your woman covered!

Just a little fearmongering there, Chicken Little?

Thorn
11-17-2006, 12:02 PM
What year is this again? 1850? How on earth do this guy and his pals justify that notion that contraception is demeaning to women when nearly all women of childbearing age choose to use some form of contraception? The rest of it is also sheer horsepuckey.

Clearly the prez is talking out of both sides of his mouth. Cooperation and bipartisanship on the one hand to appease probably the voters, who spoke loud and clear last week, and his unfathomable theocratic agenda on the other.

OrnotBitwise
11-17-2006, 03:05 PM
The President appoints a man who considers contraceptives to be demeaning to women and harmful to "human happiness".


WTF is this? The United States, or theocratic Iran?This is business as usual at BushCo, Inc.. Appoint an unqualified or, better yet, actively hostile administrator to those agencies of which the CEO doesn't approve.

OrnotBitwise
11-17-2006, 03:11 PM
LOL. Yeah, just by this appointment and opinion of one guy it magically makes it into law! Clearly we are living by Sharia law now! Get your woman covered!

Just a little fearmongering there, Chicken Little?Damo, would you nominate a committed believer in non-violence to head the DoD? I'm talking about someone who truly believes that violence is never justified, even in self defense: a Jayne, say? I doubt it. Not even I would do that. Such a person, while undoubtedly of stronger stuff than I, would be totally unsuitable to run Defense. He or she would be actively hostile to the function of the department.

Same principle here.

The place to honestly contest these programs is in Congress. The Executive Branch has the responsibility to implement the policies approved and mandated by Congress. It does not have the right to sabotage such programs by infiltration, simply because a particular president doesn't happen to care for some of them very much.

BRUTALITOPS
11-17-2006, 06:05 PM
It does not have the right to sabotage such programs by infiltration, simply because a particular president doesn't happen to care for some of them very much."

He does have the right to appoint whomever he wants. I like sabotaging departments. Even if I don't agree with it in this case. It's one of the best ways to fight government, by making government useless and ineffective.

Why wouldn't conservatives want to do that?

OrnotBitwise
11-17-2006, 06:22 PM
It does not have the right to sabotage such programs by infiltration, simply because a particular president doesn't happen to care for some of them very much."

He does have the right to appoint whomever he wants. I like sabotaging departments. Even if I don't agree with it in this case. It's one of the best ways to fight government, by making government useless and ineffective.

Why wouldn't conservatives want to do that?Why do you hate America, Grind?

:rolleyes:

BRUTALITOPS
11-17-2006, 06:30 PM
I hate bloated institutions that shouldn't exist that just suck up money.

Cypress
11-17-2006, 06:41 PM
It does not have the right to sabotage such programs by infiltration, simply because a particular president doesn't happen to care for some of them very much."

He does have the right to appoint whomever he wants. I like sabotaging departments. Even if I don't agree with it in this case. It's one of the best ways to fight government, by making government useless and ineffective.

Why wouldn't conservatives want to do that?

"Why wouldn't conservatives want to do that?


So they don't lose elections.

The american people might not like bureacracy. But they absolutly detest incompetence. And particulary incompetence that gets people killed.

Do the names "heck of a job" Brownie, and Rummy ring a bell?

OrnotBitwise
11-17-2006, 06:44 PM
"Why wouldn't conservatives want to do that?


So they don't lose elections.

The american people might not like bureacracy. But they absolutly detest incompetence. And particulary incompetence that gets people killed.

Do the names "heck of a job" Brownie, and Rummy ring a bell?One thing that many anti-government conservatives tend to forget is that, while it's true that Americans genuinely dislike bureaucracy and bureaucrats, they also genuinely *do* want the programs that these agencies administer.

Cypress
11-17-2006, 06:46 PM
One thing that many anti-government conservatives tend to forget is that, while it's true that Americans genuinely dislike bureaucracy and bureaucrats, they also genuinely *do* want the programs that these agencies administer.


there's no doubt that a general sense in the public's mind of sleaze, incompetence, and corruption helped throw the republicans out of power.

If they want to continue running government incompetently, fine. 2008 is right around the corner.

Cancel7
11-17-2006, 07:13 PM
LOL. Yeah, just by this appointment and opinion of one guy it magically makes it into law! Clearly we are living by Sharia law now! Get your woman covered!

Just a little fearmongering there, Chicken Little?

He's been appointing these freaks every chance he gets, so don't make it sound like one. It's only thanks to Patty Murray and Hillary Clinton that we got the morning after pill over the counter, because the freak he put in charge of that tried to block it, and in fact did block it, until they kicked his ass for him.

And, if I'm not mistaken, that's not the point of my post.

Did George and Laura stop all sex after their one pregnancy? Or is Bush shooting blanks? Or, is he a big fat phony liar?

Cancel7
11-17-2006, 07:17 PM
Damo, would you nominate a committed believer in non-violence to head the DoD? I'm talking about someone who truly believes that violence is never justified, even in self defense: a Jayne, say? I doubt it. Not even I would do that. Such a person, while undoubtedly of stronger stuff than I, would be totally unsuitable to run Defense. He or she would be actively hostile to the function of the department.

Same principle here.

The place to honestly contest these programs is in Congress. The Executive Branch has the responsibility to implement the policies approved and mandated by Congress. It does not have the right to sabotage such programs by infiltration, simply because a particular president doesn't happen to care for some of them very much.

The President has made his "principals" an issue in MY life. He has appointed a man who wants to take birth control away from ME, because those are the President's "principals".

So since the President is shoving his "principals" down MY throat, I want to know, WHEN DID HE AND LAURA STOP HAVING SEX???

Why did Laura only get pregnant once?

I demand to know. And I want the media to find out. That's their job. God knows they weren't delicate about who was putting what where when Clinton was President. And Clinton wasn't trying to tell ME what to do about my reproductive choices. Bush is. I want the answers.

Damocles
11-17-2006, 07:42 PM
Damo, would you nominate a committed believer in non-violence to head the DoD? I'm talking about someone who truly believes that violence is never justified, even in self defense: a Jayne, say? I doubt it. Not even I would do that. Such a person, while undoubtedly of stronger stuff than I, would be totally unsuitable to run Defense. He or she would be actively hostile to the function of the department.

Same principle here.

The place to honestly contest these programs is in Congress. The Executive Branch has the responsibility to implement the policies approved and mandated by Congress. It does not have the right to sabotage such programs by infiltration, simply because a particular president doesn't happen to care for some of them very much.
Except it isn't even close to the same thing. That is exaggeration, truly. The DOD is quite a bit more powerful than this guy will ever be.

OrnotBitwise
11-17-2006, 10:28 PM
Except it isn't even close to the same thing. That is exaggeration, truly. The DOD is quite a bit more powerful than this guy will ever be.In your opinion, perhaps. In my world, this "guy" is far more important than . . . what the hell's the name of that twat Bush is installing in "Defense"? Oh well, what the hell. He's undoubtedly a twat: consider the source.

Domestic policy trumps foreign policy, as far as I'm concerned. It also has far more real impact on real Americans than foreign policy does -- which is, in turn, why it's the trump suit. The Department of Defense is a money laundering operation, for the most part. As far as I'm concerned, you could cut it's budget by 80% and still be overspending.

You seem to be in favor of plutocratic creep here, Damo. That's exactly what the framers of the constitution feared most.

OrnotBitwise
11-17-2006, 10:32 PM
The President has made his "principals" an issue in MY life. He has appointed a man who wants to take birth control away from ME, because those are the President's "principals".

So since the President is shoving his "principals" down MY throat, I want to know, WHEN DID HE AND LAURA STOP HAVING SEX???

Why did Laura only get pregnant once?

I demand to know. And I want the media to find out. That's their job. God knows they weren't delicate about who was putting what where when Clinton was President. And Clinton wasn't trying to tell ME what to do about my reproductive choices. Bush is. I want the answers.I expect that Laura's been holding out. Wouldn't you? ;)

I thought that the Republicans were against all this "social engineering" stuff. They do seem to have lost that particular plank somewhere along thee line.

Cypress
11-17-2006, 10:58 PM
Except it isn't even close to the same thing. That is exaggeration, truly. The DOD is quite a bit more powerful than this guy will ever be.

You consider yourself a sociallly progressive, libertarian conservative, right?

So, instead of running interference for bush, don't take our word for it. Take the word of one of the most respected and prominent libertarian conservatives in the country, Andrew Sullivan:


"The theocon right absolutely believes that contraception is just as immoral as gay sex. If they could ban it, discourage it, prevent its availability, they would. And with the appointment of Eric Keroack at HHS, we have new evidence they are." -- ANDREW SULLIVAN

klaatu
11-18-2006, 07:04 AM
The strange thing is when Bush first got into office I felt one of his strengths will be to delegate responsibility.... great leaders know how to do this.... boy was a I wrong. Hey..maybe he'll appoint Matthew Lesko to run the IRS!

Damocles
11-18-2006, 09:52 AM
You consider yourself a sociallly progressive, libertarian conservative, right?

So, instead of running interference for bush, don't take our word for it. Take the word of one of the most respected and prominent libertarian conservatives in the country, Andrew Sullivan:


"The theocon right absolutely believes that contraception is just as immoral as gay sex. If they could ban it, discourage it, prevent its availability, they would. And with the appointment of Eric Keroack at HHS, we have new evidence they are." -- ANDREW SULLIVAN
Look. All I am saying and have said is that this guy doesn't make the law. It really doesn't change much at all. Honestly, you act like I was excited about the choice or something. It isn't that I like the choice, it is that I don't think he can make much of an impact.

BRUTALITOPS
11-18-2006, 11:59 AM
You consider yourself a sociallly progressive, libertarian conservative, right?

So, instead of running interference for bush, don't take our word for it. Take the word of one of the most respected and prominent libertarian conservatives in the country, Andrew Sullivan:


"The theocon right absolutely believes that contraception is just as immoral as gay sex. If they could ban it, discourage it, prevent its availability, they would. And with the appointment of Eric Keroack at HHS, we have new evidence they are." -- ANDREW SULLIVAN

my ass he's a libertarian conversative.

BRUTALITOPS
11-18-2006, 12:01 PM
The President has made his "principals" an issue in MY life.

Tough shit darla. You can't have it both ways, you either want to give the executive branch the power to make principles in an issue in your life (birth control, TAXES) or you can say hands off to EVERYTHING.

OrnotBitwise
11-18-2006, 12:10 PM
Look. All I am saying and have said is that this guy doesn't make the law. It really doesn't change much at all. Honestly, you act like I was excited about the choice or something. It isn't that I like the choice, it is that I don't think he can make much of an impact.Sorry, Damo, but this time you're flat wrong. There's more to government than the law. Much more. In fact, the law frequently has little to do with it.

An administrator in an agency like this can shape policy almost at his whim. Yes, the law sets general guidelines but there is an enormous amount of leeway within them. That policy effects the lives of millions of Americans, directly and with extreme prejudice.

This misogynistic freak will hold the purse strings on access to contraception for tens of millions of women, especially poor women. The potential for harm in this appointment is truly frightening.

:mad:

Cypress
11-18-2006, 01:10 PM
Look. All I am saying and have said is that this guy doesn't make the law. It really doesn't change much at all. Honestly, you act like I was excited about the choice or something. It isn't that I like the choice, it is that I don't think he can make much of an impact.

You can pretend that this guy is an isolated case, if you want.

The facts say otherwise. Bush is populating the mid-level bureacracy with freaks. This isn't an isolated case. Recall all the anti-science freaks bush is appointing, who are burying the conclusions of real scientists at NASA, etc.

and ornots right. Policy is implemented by mid-level bureacrats. This guy has authority over $200 dedicated to contraception. Its easy to put cabinet level officers in place who look and act semi-normal, and who can pass the smell test.

Populating the bureacracy with freaks, is another matter, and can be very insidious and dangerous.

Cancel7
11-18-2006, 01:16 PM
Tough shit darla. You can't have it both ways, you either want to give the executive branch the power to make principles in an issue in your life (birth control, TAXES) or you can say hands off to EVERYTHING.

Don't be silly Grind.

I can, and I have had it both ways...although I don't consider it as such.

Cancel7
11-18-2006, 01:19 PM
Sorry, Damo, but this time you're flat wrong. There's more to government than the law. Much more. In fact, the law frequently has little to do with it.

An administrator in an agency like this can shape policy almost at his whim. Yes, the law sets general guidelines but there is an enormous amount of leeway within them. That policy effects the lives of millions of Americans, directly and with extreme prejudice.

This misogynistic freak will hold the purse strings on access to contraception for tens of millions of women, especially poor women. The potential for harm in this appointment is truly frightening.

:mad:

That's the thing. He's not going to effect me. I live in NYS and I have money to buy birth control. No one is ever going to come into NYS and take away my reproductive choices.

But low-income women will be severely affected, and these kinds of creeps do effect all women. Witness their holding up the morning after pill.

The fact remains, women in this country are not under the rule of men. Sorry. If you want it different, move to Iran.

Damocles
11-18-2006, 01:58 PM
You can pretend that this guy is an isolated case, if you want.

The facts say otherwise. Bush is populating the mid-level bureacracy with freaks. This isn't an isolated case. Recall all the anti-science freaks bush is appointing, who are burying the conclusions of real scientists at NASA, etc.

and ornots right. Policy is implemented by mid-level bureacrats. This guy has authority over $200 dedicated to contraception. Its easy to put cabinet level officers in place who look and act semi-normal, and who can pass the smell test.

Populating the bureacracy with freaks, is another matter, and can be very insidious and dangerous.
***Strawman alert***

Point to where I said this was an "isolated case".

I said that I don't believe he'll have much impact. And I don't. I think this is silly fearmongering... "See, he'll take away contraceptives!"

He won't. He won't be able to, he hasn't the power to do that.

BRUTALITOPS
11-18-2006, 02:14 PM
Don't be silly Grind.

I can, and I have had it both ways...although I don't consider it as such.

They are both moral issues. They are both issues concerned with principle and .... subjective beliefs that are ended up being forced on everyone else. It is the same... it's exactly the same.

You deserve what you get when you allow such possibilities to exist.

OrnotBitwise
11-18-2006, 02:23 PM
They are both moral issues. They are both issues concerned with principle and .... subjective beliefs that are ended up being forced on everyone else. It is the same... it's exactly the same.

You deserve what you get when you allow such possibilities to exist.All beliefs are subjective beliefs, Grind. All legal issues are moral issues at the root. Your problem is that you want absolute, definitive answers to problems that have none.

It's all about balance and consensus. There is no other moral authority but that. I know you don't like it but, no offense intended, tough.

BRUTALITOPS
11-18-2006, 04:13 PM
Incorrect ornot.

I am FULLY aware that all beliefs are subjective. I argue that daily. What I want is for people to stop bitching and quit being hypocrites. Stop saying it is only the right legislating morality, when that is clearly BULLSHIT. Both sides do it and JUST as frequently.

If you are going to let government legislate morality in such a fashion, don't bitch when it comes back and bites you in the ass.

Which it SO often does.

- Grind

OrnotBitwise
11-18-2006, 06:14 PM
Incorrect ornot.

I am FULLY aware that all beliefs are subjective. I argue that daily. What I want is for people to stop bitching and quit being hypocrites. Stop saying it is only the right legislating morality, when that is clearly BULLSHIT. Both sides do it and JUST as frequently.

If you are going to let government legislate morality in such a fashion, don't bitch when it comes back and bites you in the ass.

Which it SO often does.

- Grind
LMAO! The only person around here saying that it's "only the right" legislating morality is you, doof. Getcher panties untwisted and calm down.

The point is that some legislation makes sense -- e.g. it regulates behavior that impacts people other than the actor -- and some legislation makes no sense -- e.g. it attempts to regulate behavior that only dipshits care about. Only dipshits care about who's shtupping who. Granted, there are a lot of dipshits in this country. It's just another cross to bear, however.

Cypress
11-18-2006, 06:27 PM
***Strawman alert***

Point to where I said this was an "isolated case".

I said that I don't believe he'll have much impact. And I don't. I think this is silly fearmongering... "See, he'll take away contraceptives!"

He won't. He won't be able to, he hasn't the power to do that.

One mid-level appointee isn't going to turn us into a theocracy.

Collectively Bush is appointing goose-stepping, anti-science christofascists throughout the bureacracy. From global warming, to contraception, to science, these people are influential in profound ways.

And if it weren't for progressives, and people who believe in science challenging it, these freaks would go unchalleged.

BRUTALITOPS
11-18-2006, 06:38 PM
and some legislation makes no sense


Fuck you, I think funding for the arts makes no sense. I think taxing people 30-50% for useless programs makes no sense.


Only dipshits care about who's shtupping who. Granted, there are a lot of dipshits in this country. It's just another cross to bear, however.

Again, fuck you... what a gross oversimplification. To a lot of people these are important issues, that they care deeply about. But I guess anyone that wants to legislate morality that YOU disagree with is a dipshit... but if it's the other way around it's a - o - k.

Give me a break.

Damocles
11-18-2006, 08:59 PM
One mid-level appointee isn't going to turn us into a theocracy.

Collectively Bush is appointing goose-stepping, anti-science christofascists throughout the bureacracy. From global warming, to contraception, to science, these people are influential in profound ways.

And if it weren't for progressives, and people who believe in science challenging it, these freaks would go unchalleged.
He specifically carefully places them strategically where they can really do no harm. It's part of his lip-service to the RR. I'll bet his side believes that the RR thinks they didn't do enough for them so they tossed them another bone...

uscitizen
11-19-2006, 09:24 AM
Bush is has the old tried and true ideal of if I can't do it no one can...
It could be based on his limp weenie syndrome.
Maybe by mid 2008 Bush will be running stiff weenie pill commercials like Dole ?
He might even become Bob's repalcement :D