NPR Ombudsman still getting flak from OReilly bit

[The Robfather 0]

Stop wasting tax payer dollars on NPR!

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Most people aren't commie hippies like you.

No, I mean, with the exception of RobJohnstone's ramblings about how the holocaust never happened because Pat Buchanan said so, someone trying to compare Roy Moore's ten commandments to gay rights, and TheMikeSC applying the wrong economics to an RIAA thread, I've at least understood the rightie view of things on here.

 

I understood PowerPlay and others' complaints about the filibuster in the judicial nominees thread.

 

I understood what Marney was talking saying in the gay school thread, though I didn't agree with her logic.

 

I still don't understand why Republicans aren't enraged with this guy. He said he didn't believe in using the military to nation-build. Look what's going on right now. He wants to be a uniter, yet he wants to bring his own military force into Britain and nominate abortion extremists to the supreme court. He's talked about assisting gay people even if he doesn't agree with their lifestyle, but had attorneys hammering out how to make a constitutional amendment to make sure they can't marry, taking away the states' rights that Republicans love so much.

 

The lies are so thick and overwhelming, I can't imagine why fair-minded Republicans aren't pissed off. Are you that in love with tax cuts that you're blind to the rest of it?

[Guest JMA]

Most people aren't commie hippies like you.

Commie hippies? WTF? That makes no sense. You CANNOT be both a hippie and a Communist. They have totally different beliefs. I.e., Communists believe everyone should have a job. This would not sit well with A LOT of hippies.

[Vern Gagne 0]

Most people aren't commie hippies like you.

Commie hippies? WTF? That makes no sense. You CANNOT be both a hippie and a Communist. They have totally different beliefs. I.e., Communists believe everyone should have a job. This would not sit well with A LOT of hippies.

Tongue was throughly planted in cheek with the commie hippy comment.

[Guest JMA]

Tongue was throughly planted in cheek with the commie hippy comment.

Ah. I see.

[Vern Gagne 0]

.

 

I still don't understand why Republicans aren't enraged with this guy. He said he didn't believe in using the military to nation-build. Look what's going on right now. He wants to be a uniter, yet he wants to bring his own military force into Britain and nominate abortion extremists to the supreme court. He's talked about assisting gay people even if he doesn't agree with their lifestyle, but had attorneys hammering out how to make a constitutional amendment to make sure they can't marry, taking away the states' rights that Republicans love so much.

Any so called nation building was done because of 9-11. President Bush may very well of not believed in using the U.S. military for nation building when took office, but 9-11 changed that.

 

 

What makes Estrada, Pickering and the other judges abortion extremists?

 

Why would Republicans be upset with President for being against gay marriage. Close 80% are opposed has well. I do agree that the federal gov't isn't needed.

 

Jobber the problem is most if not all the problems you have with the President, are things that Republicans and to a greater extent Conservatives don't have a problem with, and are predominatley conservative issues.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

What makes Estrada, Pickering and the other judges abortion extremists?

Because they are pro-life.

 

Personally, I think some of these pro-choice extremists are worse that the wacko lifers -- snipers excluded. Sometimes it sounds like these Planned Parenthood folks are working on an abortion commission or something...

[BX 0]

What makes Estrada, Pickering and the other judges abortion extremists?

Because they are pro-life.

 

Personally, I think some of these pro-choice extremists are worse that the wacko lifers -- snipers excluded. Sometimes it sounds like these Planned Parenthood folks are working on an abortion commission or something...

Why? Honestly, I'm curious to know.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

*shrugs*

 

There are times when I see/read a PP rep., or someone from a similar group, on TV/article and they seem have this zeal about giving the right to slaughter unborn fetuses and sometimes it bothers me. Nothing more.

 

I put them in the same camp as some of these separation of church and state people that run around screaming and threatening lawsuits because some hick school district wants to call a week-long December break *gasp!* "Christmas" vacation.

 

If you want to turn this into an abortion debate, go ahead but you're not going to get much out of me. 1) I'm a pro-lifer for the most part, 2) the procedure is legal, 3) I call it how I see it, 4) that's it -- no pro-life marches outside abortion clinics for me...

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Any so called nation building was done because of 9-11. President Bush may very well of not believed in using the U.S.  military for nation building when took office, but 9-11 changed that.

He didn't say he was against nation building as an idea, but he was against using our military to use it. If he really meant that, he wouldn't have basically pissed on the United Nations. Yes, he probably was going to have to anyway because the Security Council didn't have any teeth, but rather than offer to assist in that he went and did it his own way, to the cheers of those who like to foam at the mouth about how the UN is some evil anti-Semetic anti-American organization who exists to undercut US power.

 

What makes Estrada, Pickering and the other judges abortion extremists?

 

Well, I'll go ahead and admit that they're rather tame compared to W. David Hager, head of the FDA reproductive advisory comittee. After all, with best sellers under his belt like "As Jesus Cared for Women: Restoring Women Then and Now" and "The Reproduction Revolution: A Christian Appraisal of Sexuality, Reproductive Technologies and the Family" how could he possibly be slanted?

 

Why would Republicans be upset with President for being against gay marriage. Close 80% are opposed has well. I do agree that the federal gov't isn't needed.

 

Because Republicans are generally of the mindsets that the federal government should stay out of stuff that they aren't needed in. The 1996 "Defense Of Marriage Act" says that states have the right to choose whether to have gays marry or not and that and individual states can choose whether to recognize gay marriages or not.

 

By wanting to implement a constitutional amendment, Bush is steamrolling over the states' authority on this issue to please the evangelists. What a model conservative.

[Vern Gagne 0]

Jobber everything you don't like about the President is what Republicans do like about him.

 

Myself,and many Republicans I know are against a constituional amendment reguarding the definition of marriage.

 

That doesn't mean we have to hate President Bush because he would support an amendment. I'd be very shocked if this even gets off the ground.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Jobber everything you don't like about the President is what Republicans do like about him.

Aside from Jerry Falwell and the others trying to inch us ever-so-slightly into masquerading as a Christian theocracy, I don't know how a guy that writes about "A Christian Appraisal of Sexuality" being placed in the FDA's position of overseeing abortion is supposed to thrill a lot of people.

 

It's not like he's simply saying he's pro-life or even that he thinks abortion is murder. He has a religious interest in it. This makes it incredibly difficult to believe he'll be fair as people are a lot more hardnosed about their opinions when they bring Jesus into the picture. Looking at this, it's pretty hard to NOT find his view extremist.

 

And thank you for not being a hypocrite and supporting states' rights only when it suits you. That's one of those Republican concepts I've become a fan of after participating in enough arguements about gun control.

[Guest MikeSC]

Jobber everything you don't like about the President is what Republicans do like about him.

Aside from Jerry Falwell and the others trying to inch us ever-so-slightly into masquerading as a Christian theocracy, I don't know how a guy that writes about "A Christian Appraisal of Sexuality" being placed in the FDA's position of overseeing abortion is supposed to thrill a lot of people.

 

It's not like he's simply saying he's pro-life or even that he thinks abortion is murder. He has a religious interest in it. This makes it incredibly difficult to believe he'll be fair as people are a lot more hardnosed about their opinions when they bring Jesus into the picture. Looking at this, it's pretty hard to NOT find his view extremist.

 

And thank you for not being a hypocrite and supporting states' rights only when it suits you. That's one of those Republican concepts I've become a fan of after participating in enough arguements about gun control.

Pryor is highly religious. He STILL managed to toss Moore off of his seat in the Alabama Supreme Court.

 

Somebody can easily put one's personal convictions aside and rule on the law at the moment.

-=Mike

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Pryor is highly religious. He STILL managed to toss Moore off of his seat in the Alabama Supreme Court.

 

Somebody can easily put one's personal convictions aside and rule on the law at the moment.

                                -=Mike

In Pryor's case, the evidence was clearly against Moore since Moore fell on his own sword at that point.

 

Also, maybe Pryor is a good guy who didn't let his religion fog his view of what's right here. Doesn't mean this guy will do the same.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

More on this guy:

 

Jesus and the FDA

 

A quiet battle is raging over the Bush Administration's plan to appoint a scantily credentialed doctor, whose writings include a book titled  As Jesus Cared for Women: Restoring Women Then and Now, to head an influential Food and Drug Administration (FDA) panel on women's health policy. Sources tell Time that the agency's choice for the advisory panel is Dr. W. David Hager, an obstetrician-gynecologist who also wrote, with his wife Linda, Stress and the Woman's Body, which puts "an emphasis on the restorative power of Jesus Christ in one's life" and recommends specific Scripture readings and prayers for such ailments as headaches and premenstrual syndrome. Though his resume describes Hager as a University of Kentucky professor, a university official says Hager's appointment is part time and voluntary and involves working with interns at Lexington's Central Baptist Hospital, not the university itself. In his private practice, two sources familiar with it say, Hager refuses to prescribe contraceptives to unmarried women. Hager did not return several calls for comment.

 

FDA advisory panels often have near-final say over crucial health questions. If Hager becomes chairman of the 11-member Reproductive Health Drugs Advisory Committee, he will lead its study of hormone-replacement therapy for menopausal women, one of the biggest controversies in health care. Some conservatives are trying to use doubts about such therapy to discredit the use of birth-control pills, which contain similar compounds. The panel also made the key recommendation in 1996 that led to approval of the "abortion pill," RU-486—a decision that abortion foes are still fighting. Hager assisted the Christian Medical Association last August in a "citizens' petition" calling upon the FDA to reverse itself on RU-486, saying it has endangered the lives and health of women.

 

Hager was chosen for the post by FDA senior associate commissioner Linda Arey Skladany, a former drug-industry lobbyist with longstanding ties to the Bush family. Skladany rejected at least two nominees proposed by FDA staff members: Donald R. Mattison, former dean of the University of Pittsburgh School of Public Health, and Michael F. Greene, director of maternal- fetal medicine at Massachusetts General Hospital. Despite pressure from inside the FDA to make the appointment temporary, sources say, Skladany has insisted that Hager get a full four-year term. FDA spokesman Bill Pierce called Hager "well qualified."

 

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,...,361521,00.html

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

Dr. W. David Hager, an obstetrician-gynecologist who also wrote, with his wife Linda, Stress and the Woman's Body, which puts "an emphasis on the restorative power of Jesus Christ in one's life" and recommends specific Scripture readings and prayers for such ailments as headaches and premenstrual syndrome.

 

At first I was going to put this ---> as my response, but then I thought about the quote for more than 3 seconds. I think this is a bit strange myself, but if reading the Bible calms these people down and reduces a headache, then so what?

 

In his private practice, two sources familiar with it say, Hager refuses to prescribe contraceptives to unmarried women.

 

I have no problem with this -- it's his private practice. (Although I'm not sure if this is against the law. I doubt it is, but who knows.)

 

Funny enough, my biggest gripe was with something you didn't put in bold...

 

Though his resume describes Hager as a University of Kentucky professor, a university official says Hager's appointment is part time and voluntary and involves working with interns at Lexington's Central Baptist Hospital, not the university itself.

[Guest BDC]

The wording on that just depends on who you're talking to. Working with University interns can be claimed to be working with the university or not depending on how the wind blows.

 

Wanted to point out something on this:

 

Pryor is highly religious. He STILL managed to toss Moore off of his seat in the Alabama Supreme Court.

 

Somebody can easily put one's personal convictions aside and rule on the law at the moment.

                                -=Mike

In Pryor's case, the evidence was clearly against Moore since Moore fell on his own sword at that point.

 

Also, maybe Pryor is a good guy who didn't let his religion fog his view of what's right here. Doesn't mean this guy will do the same.

 

I find it amusing that those accusations are exactly why one judge was being blocked from appointment. He was strictly Catholic and the Dems were screaming that he couldn't put his beliefs aside while the Reps held up his record to prove that he had.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

The wording on that just depends on who you're talking to. Working with University interns can be claimed to be working with the university or not depending on how the wind blows.

 

Well then I'm going to go and polish my resume.

 

Communications Intern -- Goodbye.

 

DEPARTMENT HEAD/COORDINATOR/SUPERVISOR -- Hello.

 

I was the only intern at that place, after all, so all of this is true.

 

Oh, and the Pryor witch-hunt REALLY burns me up. Other judges got raked over the coals for being too vague in their answers to Uncle Ted and Leahy, but Pryor answered every question upfront and honestly. He was so upfront that a Dem Senator (I think it was Chuck S. from NY) complimented him.

 

Of course he still got screwed over because he had a problem taking his kids to Disney World on Gay Day.

 

OMG EXTREMIST...

[Guest MikeSC]

Pryor is highly religious. He STILL managed to toss Moore off of his seat in the Alabama Supreme Court.

 

Somebody can easily put one's personal convictions aside and rule on the law at the moment.

                                -=Mike

In Pryor's case, the evidence was clearly against Moore since Moore fell on his own sword at that point.

 

Also, maybe Pryor is a good guy who didn't let his religion fog his view of what's right here. Doesn't mean this guy will do the same.

But, doesn't the guy deserve the chance to prove you wrong?

-=Mike

...If not, seems REALLY prejudicial on your part

[Jobber of the Week 0]

But, doesn't the guy deserve the chance to prove you wrong?

-=Mike

Hey, maybe *I* should be appointed to the FDA board of reproduction!

 

 

What? So what if I've made posts here that make me sound rampantly pro-life? That doesn't mean anything. So what if this is an important position and my track record makes me sound exceptionally biased in the matter? Why don't I get a chance? What does history have to do with anything anyway?

 

...If not, seems REALLY prejudicial on your part

 

Nice straw man.

 

The guy perscribed scriptures for women with a medical condition.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

But, doesn't the guy deserve the chance to prove you wrong?

              -=Mike

Hey, maybe *I* should be appointed to the FDA board of reproduction!

I think Mike was talking about Pryor, not Hager...

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

The obvious problem of "giving him a chance" is that he's appointed for life, and thus, it's nearly impossible to take that chance away if he does, in fact, show his biases.

[Guest MikeSC]

But, doesn't the guy deserve the chance to prove you wrong?

              -=Mike

Hey, maybe *I* should be appointed to the FDA board of reproduction!

 

 

What? So what if I've made posts here that make me sound rampantly pro-life? That doesn't mean anything. So what if this is an important position and my track record makes me sound exceptionally biased in the matter? Why don't I get a chance? What does history have to do with anything anyway?

 

...If not, seems REALLY prejudicial on your part

 

Nice straw man.

 

The guy perscribed scriptures for women with a medical condition.

Sorry, but I definitely was misunderstood. I don't know squat about Hager (though if the post here about him lying about his job in college is true, he's real iffy). I think he deserves a hearing, but I don't know a thing about his qualifications (and, honestly, I don't care).

 

I was referring to this belief that ANYBODY with ANY convictions MUST be "too biased" to uphold the law. Pryor was my example as he was prevented from getting a chance to do a job he was qualified for.

-=Mike

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

I was referring to this belief that ANYBODY with ANY convictions MUST be "too biased" to uphold the law.

That's not true.

 

You just have to have the "correct" convictions...

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Actually, it's more about how flexible you are about them.

 

AFAIC, whether or not this move was political, Pryor should get his pass. His actions have spoken. Yes, you heard me right.