Monthly Archives: August 2012

Liar, Liar, Pants on Fire

There have been a lot of cringe-worthy moments from both the left and the right in the current presidential race. Recently, Senator Akin’s misguided comments on pregnancy and rape have been getting a lot of attention and have received well-deserved condemnation, even from his own party. However, two wrongs don’t make a right, and President Obama and his party have abandoned their integrity to use Akin’s comments to their own advantage.

Recently, the Chairwoman of the Democratic National Convention, Debbie Wasserman-Shultz, sent out a fundraising letter deliberately misquoting the LA Times and falsely claiming that the RNC had embraced Akin’s position. Anderson Cooper interviewed her about it, citing exactly how she misquoted the LA Times, and she refused to acknowledge that she did it. When Anderson Cooper offered to read her the real quote, her response was “Anderson, what I’m saying is, it doesn’t matter” [1]

She also took the opportunity during the interview to refuse to acknowledge that Mitt Romney supports abortion for cases of rape, incest, or danger to the health of the mother, saying that Mitt only says it “out loud” and that he is being “disingenuous” about his stance on abortion. In other words, she says Romney lies about his stance on abortion. However, even if Mitt repeated the RNC plank on abortion [2] word for word, his beliefs still wouldn’t mesh with what Wasserman Shultz’s claims he believes.

Straight from the horse’s mouth, we hear that integrity doesn’t matter to the Chairwoman of the DNC, and since there hasn’t been any condemnation of her behavior from the left, we can assume that is also the stance of the rest of her party. Telling the truth does not matter to Ms. Wasserman Shultz. To her, the only thing that mattered was getting her misleading information out to as many voters as possible.

Leave a comment

Posted by on August 31, 2012 in Left vs. Right


Tags: , , , ,

I Know You Are But What Am I?

Emotions run hot when discussing politics. People of every political philosophy are guilty of getting carried away and saying reprehensible things to one another in defense of their beliefs. But even though heated discussions are nothing new when it comes to politics, serious accusations are now being thrown around recklessly in an attempt to discredit those with opposing political views.

Our current President is black, and I don’t think anyone can deny that this is a historic milestone for the nation. However, that doesn’t mean every policy coming from his office is going to be universally agreed upon. There has never been a president who hasn’t met with political opposition; even George Washington had detractors. So why are people now being branded as “racist” simply because they disagree with the President’s policies? Is he immune from making wrong choices because he’s black? Of course not! Are people that disagree with his choices all just bitter racists [1] as the President has claimed? Of course not! The very idea should be offensive to people of all races, as it implies that a black president should get different treatment than a white president.

Other terms that are being too freely thrown around are “bigot”, “misogynist”, and “hate”. According to liberals, if you don’t support same-sex marriage, you’re a bigot who hates homosexuals. If you don’t support abortion or government funding for birth control, you’re a misogynist who wants to control women. If you have a problem with immigrants who don’t follow immigration laws, you are, once again, racist. However, just because I disagree with you, it doesn’t logically follow that I hate you. Likewise, if I don’t want to give you everything you want, it doesn’t indicate hate. It’s just easier to dismiss people you don’t agree with as hateful rather than to try to understand their point of view.

And the moon is made of cheese.

Leave a comment

Posted by on August 15, 2012 in Political Divide


Tags: , , , ,

Affordable Health Care, My Sweet Aunt Fanny!

There are plenty of laws with misleading names, but the official name of Obamacare, The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, should win a prize for the law with the most inaccurate title. The name suggests that its purpose might be to protect patient’s privacy or treatment options and to do things to reduce the price of health care, such as initiate malpractice reform or create low-cost options for patients. However, it doesn’t do anything like that.

What Obamacare actually does is force debilitating regulations on private insurance companies and tax people for their personal insurance choices. Even though the name of the act includes the phrase “affordable care,” all it really does to aid Americans to get affordable care is to compel the uninsured to purchase health insurance.

Also, the writers of Obamacare have a questionable definition of “affordable,” even taking into account the huge subsidies on premiums. It’s unlikely that a family that can’t afford to pay for insurance now will be able to afford to pay 5-10% of their income [1] for insurance when the law goes into effect, or that they will be able to afford the $2,085 tax [2] when they don’t have the funds for insurance. Furthermore, health insurance is not health care, so don’t forget about co-pays in addition to premiums [3].

You may be wondering where the money for all the insurance subsidies is going to come from. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the cost of Obamacare over the next decade will come to a whopping 1.25 trillion dollars [4]. If they had been honest about naming Obamacare, it would have been The Drive Insurance Companies Out of Business and Do Nothing to Make Health Care Affordable While Increasing the National Debt Act, but I suppose that title was too long for them.

Leave a comment

Posted by on August 2, 2012 in National Finances, Social Programs


Tags: , , , ,