Greg Sargent, on the new CBS poll numbers:

"Today's New York Times/CBS poll asks: "Do you support or oppose a recent federal requirement that private health insurance plans cover the full cost of birth control for their female patients?"

This is Obama's new accommodation policy, which the Blunt amendment would roll back completely and go considerably further in the process. Sixty six percent support this federal requirement; only 26 percent oppose it.

CBS's polling team sends over a partisan breakdown of the answers, and it's even more striking:

* Even Republicans support this policy, 50-44.

* Independents support it by 64-26.

* Moderates support it by 68-22.

* Women support it by 72-20.

* Catholics support it by 67-25.

* And even Catholics who attend church every week or almost every week support it by 48-43.

Obviously, Rep. Issa (R-Vatican) has a real winner of an issue on his schedule.

So, subby, are you saying that checks and balances is a horrible system?

cman: So, subby, are you saying that checks and balances is a horrible system?

And what exactly is this hearing supposed to be "checking" against?

cman: So, subby, are you saying that checks and balances is a horrible system?

That depends on how absolutely transparent the spin is.

Grand_Moff_Joseph: cman: So, subby, are you saying that checks and balances is a horrible system?

And what exactly is this hearing supposed to be "checking" against?

Especially since he'll only be talking to people he's already confirmed agree with him.

So I take the Republicans are going to suddenly start demanding the government enact the Social and Economic Justice policies of the Catholic Church?

Aarontology: So I take the Republicans are going to suddenly start demanding the government enact the Social and Economic Justice policies of the Catholic Church?

Only the ones that affect love, sex, and marriage. The rest are just there to make people think they care.

kingoomieiii: Grand_Moff_Joseph: cman: So, subby, are you saying that checks and balances is a horrible system?

And what exactly is this hearing supposed to be "checking" against?

Especially since he'll only be talking to people he's already confirmed agree with him.

1. Constitutional issues.
2. What?

cman: kingoomieiii: Grand_Moff_Joseph: cman: So, subby, are you saying that checks and balances is a horrible system?

And what exactly is this hearing supposed to be "checking" against?

Especially since he'll only be talking to people he's already confirmed agree with him.

1. Constitutional issues.
2. What?

He's stacked the hearing like it's a Fox News "forum".

This is the most important issue in America today! This really should be the central issue in the Republicans' campaign.

kingoomieiii: cman: kingoomieiii: Grand_Moff_Joseph: cman: So, subby, are you saying that checks and balances is a horrible system?

And what exactly is this hearing supposed to be "checking" against?

Especially since he'll only be talking to people he's already confirmed agree with him.

1. Constitutional issues.
2. What?

He's stacked the hearing like it's a Fox News "forum".

Thats the shiatty part of it. Open forum should be open.

tnpir: cman: 1. Constitutional issues.
2. What?


1. There is no Constitutional issue with respect to freedom of religion. This is a separate matter of health insurance coverage which all businesses (and churches are a business, make no mistake)must be in compliance with. Issa is, as is his modus operandi, wasting time and putting on a pandering dog and pony show.

2. Derp?

I would say its half dog and pony show. There are real constitutional issues that have to be addressed with Obama's ruling.

cman: tnpir: cman: 1. Constitutional issues.
2. What?


1. There is no Constitutional issue with respect to freedom of religion. This is a separate matter of health insurance coverage which all businesses (and churches are a business, make no mistake)must be in compliance with. Issa is, as is his modus operandi, wasting time and putting on a pandering dog and pony show.

2. Derp?

I would say its half dog and pony show. There are real constitutional issues that have to be addressed with Obama's ruling.

Such as? The announced compromise already exempts houses of worship, which is more than many state laws on the subject allow today.

cman: I would say its half dog and pony show. There are real constitutional issues that have to be addressed with Obama's ruling

If that were true you'd have listed them already.

cman: kingoomieiii: Grand_Moff_Joseph: cman: So, subby, are you saying that checks and balances is a horrible system?

And what exactly is this hearing supposed to be "checking" against?

Especially since he'll only be talking to people he's already confirmed agree with him.

1. Constitutional issues.
2. What?

Congress decides constitutional issues? Brand new information.

How are they coming along with those jobs bills?

kronicfeld: cman: kingoomieiii: Grand_Moff_Joseph: cman: So, subby, are you saying that checks and balances is a horrible system?

And what exactly is this hearing supposed to be "checking" against?

Especially since he'll only be talking to people he's already confirmed agree with him.

1. Constitutional issues.
2. What?

Congress decides constitutional issues? Brand new information.

How are they coming along with those jobs bills?

They're getting to them.

After this hearing.

And the one about Fast and Furious.

And after the votes on bills to let any institution bar insurance coverage for any medical assistance for any religious exception.

And after the road/infrastructure bill that was supposed to be voted on but got delayed by Republicans because ...

and after the Domestic violence bill re authorization which was also delayed by republicans because gays and mexicans.

The important point is that it's coming.

"We hope President Obama will now respect the will of the people, change course, and commit to making the changes they are demanding."

Why?!? Why won't Obama listen to the will of the American people?!?

Better yet, let's turn Issa's premise around on him:

Isn't the creation of secular law (which applies to all) based on specific religious beliefs (which apply to a few) a violation of the separation of church and state? Isn't mandating that all of society behave according to a set of rules contrived by one dogmatic group a violation of the 'freedom of conscience' of the rest of us?

The GOP controls the House, so A, B, and C are basically the exact same thing, because the talking points are the same.

Where jobs bill?
Where?

Is there any kind of real life word filter like on fark? I'd like to filter every single word any elected GOP member has to say and replace it with herpaderp.

Not that anyone would notice the difference!!

Elandriel: Is there any kind of real life word filter like on fark? I'd like to filter every single word any elected GOP member has to say and replace it with herpaderp.

Not that anyone would notice the difference!!

That would be redundant

I can't believe the GOP is going to make *contraception* an issue. What is this, 1972?

Really? Are they really that stupid?

vernonFL: I can't believe the GOP is going to make *contraception* an issue. What is this, 1972?

Really? Are they really that stupid?

No, but they think it's 1984.

Issa sounds familiar? Wasn't he one of the reasonable ones on the SOPA nonsense? That's depressing that that apparently doesn't carry over to other subjects.

Lets break this down to the fiscal facts of the matter.

To provide birth control for a woman for all of her fertile years: $12,000 (approx.)
Average cost of prenatal care and birth services for each low risk non-premature birth: $17,500 (this does not include post natal pediatric care)

It is significantly less expensive to provide family planning for each fertile woman in the nation than it is to provide obstetric services for each woman who becomes unexpectantly pregnant.

TheOmni: Issa sounds familiar? Wasn't he one of the reasonable ones on the SOPA nonsense? That's depressing that that apparently doesn't carry over to other subjects.

He was one of the first to turn against it when the writing was on the wall.

But he's also the nutcase who tried to make Solyndra into a big deal and is currently trying to make Fast and Furious a big deal.

kronicfeld: cman: kingoomieiii: Grand_Moff_Joseph: cman: So, subby, are you saying that checks and balances is a horrible system?

And what exactly is this hearing supposed to be "checking" against?

Especially since he'll only be talking to people he's already confirmed agree with him.

1. Constitutional issues.
2. What?

Congress decides constitutional issues? Brand new information.

How are they coming along with those jobs bills?

Yeah, I mean, all those CIA hearings in the 70s were nonsense as Congress cannot limit the commander in chief from assaulting 4th amendment rights

Code_Archeologist: Lets break this down to the fiscal facts of the matter.

To provide birth control for a woman for all of her fertile years: $12,000 (approx.)
Average cost of prenatal care and birth services for each low risk non-premature birth: $17,500 (this does not include post natal pediatric care)

It is significantly less expensive to provide family planning for each fertile woman in the nation than it is to provide obstetric services for each woman who becomes unexpectantly pregnant.

we cannot do that.. it would make sense

and and reduce our ability to shame women for having the audacity to enjoy sex, get out of the kitchen and have a life!

cman: ...

what constitutional issues are there with obama's policy ruling, since it doesn't go as far as many state's rules which were already deemed constitutional?


someone already asked you this, stop dodging it.

cman: kronicfeld: cman: kingoomieiii: Grand_Moff_Joseph: cman: So, subby, are you saying that checks and balances is a horrible system?

And what exactly is this hearing supposed to be "checking" against?

Especially since he'll only be talking to people he's already confirmed agree with him.

1. Constitutional issues.
2. What?

Congress decides constitutional issues? Brand new information.

How are they coming along with those jobs bills?

Yeah, I mean, all those CIA hearings in the 70s were nonsense as Congress cannot limit the commander in chief from assaulting 4th amendment rights

Okay, I'll bite.

What does your red herring about the amendment about illegal search and seizure have to do with this?

"...the chair recognizes the distinguished gentleman Pedobear..."

TofuTheAlmighty: Why does "conscience" only apply to lady parts?

It doesn't only apply to lady parts. It applies to old men thinking about lady parts.

I'd meet them half way. Submit to a hearing, on condition of eliminating the Office of Faith Based Initiatives.

FormlessOne: For a man that likes to fark a chicken that much, I'm surprised he's even worried about birth control.

Unless he's afraid of knocking up a chicken, I guess...

I don't know why. He's got one of those fancy talking alarms in his underwear.

"PLEASE, STEP AWAY FROM THE PENIS."

I'm so happy the GOP is all about religious freedom.

After all, it wasn't that long ago that they were upset about Muslims wanting to build a mosque. I'm sure we'll hear no more talk about "Sharia Law" anymore either, right?