NPR's Nina Totenberg: ObamaCare In Trouble Because Bush Judges Are 'Very, Very, Very Conservative'
On Friday's Daily Rundown on MSNBC, anchor Chuck Todd asked about the sour outlook for ObamaCare: “There’s a lot of panic at the White House, to be frank. They really thought this wasn’t going to be that hard of a case....Now they’re biting their fingernails. Should they be biting their fingernails?”
NPR’s Nina Totenberg responded: “Yeah, they should be biting their fingernails." Totenberg insisted that everyone thought this was constitutional, a "piece of cake." But the Bush appointments were "very, very, very conservative." This is not the first time she's loaded the "very" boat:
"The White House was right not to worry about it way back when. The entire legal community, except for I would say the really hardcore," she told Todd. "Everybody, including conservatives, thought, ‘Oh, this case is a piece of cake.’...Because of the Bush appointments, which were very, very, very conservative, the Court has become so much more conservative. I would say on economic regulatory matters — and you are seeing a hint of this here — we haven’t seen a Court this conservative, perhaps, since the early, mid-1930s, the early New Deal era.”
Brent Baker lined up Totenberg's labels during the John Roberts confirmation in 2005:
# July 21 CyberAlert: There's no doubt in NPR reporter Nina Totenberg's mind that Judge John Roberts is "very conservative," it's just a matter of how "very." On NPR's All Things Considered on Tuesday night, she prefaced "conservative" with three verys, describing him as "a very, very, very conservative man." But in a taped soundbite on the next day's Good Morning America on ABC, she cut back to two modifiers, dubbing him merely "a very, very conservative man."
# July 25 CyberAlert: NPR's Nina Totenberg, who last week tagged Supreme Court nominee John Roberts as "very, very conservative" and "very, very, very conservative," on Inside Washington over the weekend described him as merely "very conservative." But she couldn't resist adding a modifier every time she applied the conservative label, also dubbing him "a really conservative guy," "a hardline conservative" and "a clear conservative." Plus, she emphasized how he's "a conservative Catholic."
# August 1 CyberAlert: A parody of herself? NPR's Nina Totenberg, who has tagged Supreme Court nominee John Roberts as “very conservative,” "very, very conservative" and "very, very, very conservative," as well as "a really conservative guy," "a hardline conservative" and "a clear conservative," to say nothing of being "a conservative Catholic," on Inside Washington over the weekend relayed that after she “spent five hours reviewing all of his documents from when he worked in the Justice Department,” she “was actually quite surprised at how, how very, very conservative he was.” Apparently, she didn't listen to herself.
- Tim Graham's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
These liberals are so far-left....
Submitted by Jarhead68 on Sat, 03/31/2012 - 2:41pm.
...that everyone who disagrees with them is considered "extreme".
For a liberal, anyone who is a Constitutionalist is automatically "very, very conservative". The truth is that conservatism is the mainstream of thinking in America.
Liberals, move to France, if they'll even let you into the country. Better yet, try Greece. They are already where you want us to be. Leave the rest of us alone.
We need to find her address
Submitted by ricklail on Sat, 03/31/2012 - 2:52pm.
We need to find her address and flood her with copies of the constitution
New feature for NB
Submitted by antiObamunist on Sun, 04/01/2012 - 8:54pm.
Every column should end with the email and twitter account of the subject in need of derision. I think it will be much more effective than complaining to each other
Wrong
Submitted by HardRightTurn on Sat, 03/31/2012 - 2:40pm.
Obamacare is in trouble because it is a bad law and nobody wants it. Now the USPS wants an exemption. What does that say when quasi-government workers don't want it?
To more fully comprehend the Left, one must read “Leftism As Psychopathy” by John Ray, M.A., Ph.D. Caution, it might scare you a little bit.
http://jonjayray.tripod.com/psycho.html
Obama is not waiting on the
Submitted by ricklail on Sat, 03/31/2012 - 2:51pm.
Obama is not waiting on the court decsion. He is bound and determined to destroy Tricare. .
Well, I guess
Submitted by chiefpayne on Mon, 04/02/2012 - 2:31pm.
he may as well. There's NO WAY he's getting a majority of votes from the military anyway...considering what social experiments he's been conducting on the military recently:
Repeal of DADT
Soldiers finding out their paychecks (even on a battlefield) are subject to Congressional Budget battles
GI Bill Benefits reduced
Tricare costs to soldiers going up
Women in the Combat Arms MOSs
Congress looking to reduce the annual inflation increases in base pay
Soldiers worrying about offending minorities a lot of the time
Soldiers worrying about offending the indigenous personnel
Soldiers having to HIDE their books of faith while the indigenous personnel can openly read theirs
PT test getting harder and more difficult with those on profile being looked at to be dropped from the military
Promotions made to be very difficult to obtain
DoD pushing to reduce an already short number of active duty and reserve soldiers
SMA telling soldiers if you can’t make a 12 mile ruck march in full body armor in 4 hours you’re out
SMA telling soldiers you can’t have a physical profile and stay in – even if it doesn’t impact your job
SMA telling soldiers if you have a tattoo that shows outside the PT shorts uniform, you have to pay to remove it yourself or get out
DoD pushing soldiers to be everything from a diplomat to charitable delivery boys
DoD pushing solders to do more and more deployments with less and less compensation
DoD reducing the leave day bonus known as PDMRA days for soldiers with multiple deployments
Soldiers making decisions to shoot or not indigenous personnel threatening them while worrying about the ramifications
Soldiers worrying about their every move being watched and recorded by anti-military news agencies
These Comments
Submitted by scottyusmc on Sat, 03/31/2012 - 2:43pm.
Demonstrate the total lack of critical thinking skills of those on the left...
Those Bush judges....
Submitted by zenman1661 on Sat, 03/31/2012 - 2:49pm.
are just conservative. However, she is very very very stupid.
Well, let no Republican or Conservative forget.....
Submitted by winston smith on Sun, 04/01/2012 - 11:53am.
...back in 1995 Totenberg told Tony Snow, live on TV, that she hoped through "retributive justice" Jesse Helms ***AND*** his grand children all die of AIDS. Pretty intelligent, genial woman this Nina Totenberg, huh? She even kind of giggled while she was saying it too. Now imagine if Rush had jokingly wished for the AIDS death of Barbara Boxer or Hilary Clinton and children, how fast do you think the left would be at the drawing board devising ways of removing Rush from the airwaves? Everything I hear spewing from the wretched lips of Nina Totenberg I judge in the light of that ugly statement she made 16 years ago and thus I cannot take seriously even a shred of what this vindictive leftwing harpy has to say.
Ted Kennedy's Most Dangerous Success
Submitted by gopcongress on Sat, 03/31/2012 - 3:06pm.
Imagine the swing vote being that of Robert Bork, not Anthony Kennedy.
If Ted Kennedy hadn't started the politicization process of railing against otherwise constitutional justices, Bork would be where Anthony Kennedy is now, and there would be no question how this court would stand.
"The news and truth are not the same thing." -Walter Lippmann (1889-1974) FOLLOW ME ON TWITTER
She must mean the Bush justices that sided with the government..
Submitted by Dave. on Sat, 03/31/2012 - 3:12pm.
...on the Kelo case.
Yeah, a real conservative SCOTUS we have.
Right.
Sure it is.
-Dave
Vote for the American in November
No Tina, Nina - whatever
Submitted by oldfart on Sat, 03/31/2012 - 4:56pm.
It is because progressives like you are so narrow minded that you cannot understand that someone cannot immediately revel in your aura when you and your like walk into a room.
The fact the Chris Matthews was unsettled by this turn of events indicates what a shell you and your like live in.
The horrible presentation by the SG is a perfect example.
Did he not practice?
Did he not have co-workers play the part of the other side?
Did he not have co-workers play the part of an agressive questioning from the bench?
Obviously not Ms. Totenberg - I guess he figured his presence alone would awe the bench.
GET REAL
It is called the I95 bubble.
You madam, are the type that walks into a room with your pinky finger extended, your glass raised to shoulder height with an attitude of 'here I am you lucky people!"
We are lucky when you leave.
A better question to ask this
Submitted by antiObamunist on Sat, 03/31/2012 - 3:25pm.
A better question to ask this hedgehogis is: why did so many expect legal elites or liberal media pundits to have any particular insight into the current court? After all, many of the legal experts who were so dismissive of the arguments against the mandate were equally dismissive of the federalism arguments that prevailed in cases like United States v. Lopez, New York v. United States, and City of Boerne v. Flores. Many of the academic elite who ridiculed Randy Barnett’s work on the mandate, and who were relied upon by legal journalists and commentators, thought their schools were advancing viable legal claims in Rumsfeld v. FAIR. Oops. Premier appellate litigators may have a good sense of how the Court is likely to assess complex constitutional law claims, but liberal elite pundits, not so much.
"...very, very, very
Submitted by rbosque on Sat, 03/31/2012 - 3:31pm.
"...very, very, very conservative." = They follow the Constitution.
That's correct. they are
Submitted by celator on Sat, 03/31/2012 - 4:22pm.
That's correct. they are Constitutionalists, Originalists. Totenberg gets it wrong again. As usual.
Gee, Nina, I didn't know that
Submitted by motherbelt on Sat, 03/31/2012 - 3:30pm.
Gee, Nina, I didn't know that conservatism is contagious!
Because of the Bush appointments, which were very, very, very conservative, the Court has become so much more conservative.
So because the Bush appointments are conservative to the power of 3 "very's," it makes the whole court more conservative??
We should be so lucky!
Ya, conservatism is the new Cooties.
Submitted by SickofLibs on Sat, 03/31/2012 - 4:12pm.
It was the gays for a while, but they moved on up to a deluxe apartment in the sky.
Or could it be, Nina, . . .
Submitted by rickbren on Sat, 03/31/2012 - 3:32pm.
. . . BammyCare would be dead if Clinton/Bammy's justices weren't so liberal. . .
sorry for the correction
Submitted by powers2be on Sat, 03/31/2012 - 4:07pm.
That's very, very, very liberal to you, rickbren!
judges
Submitted by kinijane on Sat, 03/31/2012 - 3:59pm.
I don't want a liberal or conservative judge, I want one that interrupts the laws, not make them or play politics. What we
have on the Supreme Court and most other courts in this country are judges that think they make the law or they can bend
it to suit their needs or the needs of their friends and buddies. Its pretty sad when the entire country can just about say how this
vote is going to come down and how and who is voting which way.
Nitwitt Nina
Submitted by mmilesll on Sat, 03/31/2012 - 4:00pm.
I think we should have a contest to see who is the dumbest female liberal on radio or TV. Let's see, there is Nina, Mika, Randi, Madcow, Clift, now I am getting a headache, there are just too many of them-I haven't even mention the CNN crowd of morons.
Healthcare mandatory, citizenship status not so much.
Submitted by creekrat on Sat, 03/31/2012 - 4:47pm.
So, we are governed by those who would force us to have healthcare insurance while refusing to ask for proof of citizenship....what could happen !!
The litmus test
Submitted by Kingfish17 on Sat, 03/31/2012 - 4:53pm.
The litmus test for all federal judges should be how they interpret the "Commerce Clause". The nominee should be asked if there is anything the federal government cannot do, based on the commerce clause. Spend all the time they have allotted to their questions, centered around the commerce clause.
"You can’t go take a trip to Las Vegas...on the taxpayer’s dime." Barack Obama
Very, very, very
Submitted by gopsteve on Sat, 03/31/2012 - 5:25pm.
Very, very, very conservative.........Great!!!!!!
Bush got some things right!
Bush got several things right...
Submitted by MightyMouth on Sat, 03/31/2012 - 11:12pm.
The 'Bush Doctrine' foremost. After that, who knows....
Can that vampire even seen herself in a mirror?
Submitted by drsamherman on Sat, 03/31/2012 - 5:26pm.
She takes the blood and life out of anything she touches. She makes Morticia Addams look Little Mary Sunshine.
GIGO
Submitted by allouchsit on Sat, 03/31/2012 - 5:28pm.
Nina Totenberg is very, very, very, very stupid. Always has been. This is just one more example.
I just realized this was a story about Obamacare.
Submitted by KyWriter on Sat, 03/31/2012 - 6:19pm.
From the picture of Totenberg, I thought this was about Secretariat. My mistake, although a natural one.
"The entire legal community,"
Submitted by bkeyser on Sat, 03/31/2012 - 6:39pm.
The problem these folks face is that they believe whatever they can dream up in the fantasy world of academia. Everything works there because it's all theoretical. You can add in whatever properties you want and ignore others so that the desired outcome is realized. That's why there's global warming, and stored solar and wind energy, and electric cars that don't cost more to make than they're worth. But take those theories and try them in the real world, outside of a controlled laboratory and progressivism continually and consistently fails.
What's amazing to me is that each and every time, they're genuinely shocked. Which, clearly, makes them idiots of the highest order.
The only thing keeping this from being 9-0...
Submitted by ChrisNH on Sat, 03/31/2012 - 6:53pm.
The only thing keeping this from being 9-0 against ObamaCare is that the Supreme Court has four very, very, very, VERY Liberal Judges.
Anything Nino can do, I can do better.
I'd love to see how much of that haughty 1970s hair she has left the day her beloved Lib Legislation is struck down.
We must never Surrender
Submitted by Henry Clay on Sat, 03/31/2012 - 7:08pm.
What a tangled web we weave! The deception here is the length in which the Tea Party Judges will go through to distort the Constitution. I have no right to question the intelligence of the four horsemen of the American Apocalypse; I must question the intelligence of the sheep who will undoubtedly say that because of this stacked court, all debate is over.
It is self-evident that the watershed legislation, Healthcare Reform, is constitutional. Can anyone say Necessary and Proper? Healthcare, compromising such a large percentage of our national economy is in a dire situation. Even the future Republican Nominee agrees with our President. If let to go back to the old system it will be a national economic tsunami; people will die needlessly, cost will rise and another Great Recession will give both upon the sore shoulders of the impoverished! I call out to the whispering wind of supreme justice, “Free our working poor from the tyranny of ignorance! For what does is profit a man to be born- if he is born to be a slave to nine lawyers unelected; overturning a duly elected Congress made by the People for the People and of the People!”
Funny stuff, Hank, ---
Submitted by matthewdean on Sat, 03/31/2012 - 7:32pm.
even though your pseudo-fopster phoniness can't hide your actual liberal lunacy.
It is self-evident, Hank, that the watershed legislation, Healthcare Reform, is constitutional?
Well, that would explain, then, why there is no such named legislation on the docket for SCOTUS.
The PPACA, Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act - ObamaCare -, on the other hand ---
MD
Expert on all things Constitutional.
Submitted by Henry Clay on Sat, 03/31/2012 - 7:37pm.
Obviously, my highly honed Constitutional mind has intimidated you from arguing about Constitutionality. I used to teach the Constitution to newly arrived immigrants vying to become citizens. Tis’ a pity…
Ssshhh. Clay's
Submitted by bkeyser on Sat, 03/31/2012 - 7:43pm.
playing weiner games again.
~Henry gets all his highly honed knowledge...
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Sat, 03/31/2012 - 8:01pm.
..from Wikipedia. He copy-pastes from it and then claims that it's okay because he wrote that entry.
For his highly touted
Submitted by LAM SON 719 on Sun, 04/01/2012 - 12:18am.
For his highly touted research on gun owners he posted a youtube clip. weak.
Tis' a pity, indeed, Hank, that your ---
Submitted by matthewdean on Sat, 03/31/2012 - 8:07pm.
idiotic liberal ass would be allowed anywhere near newly arrived immigrants.
Anyone in a position to grant you either authorization or permission be an instructor to same regarding the Constitution, should be arrested for misprision.
MD
Matthew my old sparring partner !
Submitted by Henry Clay on Sat, 03/31/2012 - 8:11pm.
In all fairness, there was a lack of conservative applicants for the position. They were preoccupied cleaning their guns in case the Minutemen called them to the border.
Never, ever, sparred with you, Hank Mud;---
Submitted by matthewdean on Sat, 03/31/2012 - 8:20pm.
cuz knocking your loony lib ass the f**k out each time, every time, was by no stretch of the imagination, sparring.
MD
Sparring partner??? Really??
Submitted by NC Cop on Sat, 03/31/2012 - 9:38pm.
LOL!!!!!!!!!!!
Hank, watching you match wits with Matthew would be like watching Mike Tyson box Stevie Wonder......
P.S. You would be Stevie Wonder, Hank.....
Well Hank Mud*
Submitted by cajun2 on Sat, 03/31/2012 - 8:42pm.
I have owned a car 44 yrs of my life. I have washed my car once a week every week for those 44 yrs. According to your logic, that would make me an excellent mechanic.
LOL Cajun!
Submitted by Radical1979 on Sat, 03/31/2012 - 8:44pm.
.
Hank Mud and Liberal Lies by ommission
Submitted by Free Stinker on Sat, 03/31/2012 - 9:25pm.
"Can anyone say Necessary and Proper?" --Hank Mud
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof. --United States Constitution
Funny how you left out the reference to "the foregoing Powers and all other Powers vested by this Constitution". You Liberals like to pretend that the Federal government does not have specific enumerated powers that it is granted.
And when is comes to PPACA, you have to pretend enumerated powers doesn't exist, that the Federal government can do anything, otherwise you;d have to admit what we Conservatives already know. PPACA is unconstitutional.
/// Sarah Palin Fan since July 11, 2007 /// خال
She has a great face for radio
Submitted by thestalkinghorse on Sat, 03/31/2012 - 7:13pm.
That was cold.
Excellent points all around
Submitted by lesterwink23 on Sat, 03/31/2012 - 7:12pm.
Let's also not forget that the solicitor general's TERRIBLE arguments before the court (some writer likened it to a nervous grade schooler during a play) didn't help matters much, either. The guy was stammering and nearly incoherent DURING HIS OPENING ARGUMENTS BEFORE HE HAD BEEN ASKED A SINGLE QUESTION. Furthermore, Justice Kagan should have recused herself and most definitely should not be allowed to have a vote. Obamacare should be in trouble because it's a terrible piece of legislation and if the justices actually followed the law instead of their own ideologies it would be unanimously defeated.
If you have the Constitution on your side...
Submitted by ChrisNH on Sat, 03/31/2012 - 7:28pm.
...why would the Obama SG be 'nervous?' Just explain in calm language how it meets the test. Simple!
Libs just LOVE saying how this is a constitutional slam-dunk in their favor, and how apoplectic they now are to see that it likely isn't.
The problem with Libs and their media-hack brethren is that they simply pal around with themselves and backslap each other incessantly. Kind of like how cockroaches believe that the world is nothing but cockroaches...until the light gets switched on.
I LOVE the bludgeoning Libs are taking. So richly deserved.
Exactly
Submitted by BBallleaper on Sat, 03/31/2012 - 7:19pm.
how many cans of hairspray does it take to form that helmet. Poor Nina. Not aging well!
B Ball
Submitted by kilrod on Sun, 04/01/2012 - 9:33am.
"how many cans of hairspray" I first read that as "horsespray"...~~~>ROFLMAO!
(grins) kilrod "the Birther"
If an unborn child cannot trust you, why should I,??
Marx
Submitted by lilium479 on Sat, 03/31/2012 - 7:38pm.
How about the very, very, very, very, very hard line leftists
that hate the Constitution?
Adam Smith
Submitted by Henry Clay on Sat, 03/31/2012 - 7:47pm.
Or the very, very, very conservative who hate poor sick people.
The very, very conservative
Submitted by Radical1979 on Sat, 03/31/2012 - 7:50pm.
who believe they should be allowed to keep what they earn and save, so that they can contribute to the charities they choose.
Radical 1979
Submitted by Henry Clay on Sat, 03/31/2012 - 8:07pm.
I was simply pointing out one inflammatory statement by using another inflammatory statement. If I knew it was going to be a problem I would not of wrote anything…
Hmmm
Submitted by Radical1979 on Sat, 03/31/2012 - 8:34pm.
Not the best technique I'm guessing.
No, Henry
Submitted by Blonde on Sat, 03/31/2012 - 8:04pm.
We just hate idiots.
Poor doesn't enter into it.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
So you just hate idiotic sick
Submitted by Henry Clay on Sat, 03/31/2012 - 8:15pm.
So you just hate idiotic sick people? That’s intelligent….
~You really are galactically stupid
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Sat, 03/31/2012 - 8:19pm.
Poor, sick people are covered by Medicaid. ER's are required by law to treat everyone who needs treatment. No one, NO ONE in this country goes without needed medical care.
Now go take your nightly tonguebath and stop annoying these nice people before they decide to stop being nice.
The Real World is Messy
Submitted by Henry Clay on Sat, 03/31/2012 - 8:26pm.
Tell that to the single mother who found out she was pregnant before she applied to Medicaid; and is now denied access to health insurance. Look it up. These cases exist. Now she has to go bankrupt in order to give birth. I do not see very many charities helping her out.
~That is complete and utter BS
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Sat, 03/31/2012 - 8:36pm.
You can get Medicaid after you become pregnant; I personally know a woman who did. You can qualify for Medicaid as long as you don't have more than $3,000 in your bank account; your bankruptcy claim is a lie.
There are crisis pregnancy centers that arrange for free prenatal care and cover the cost of the birth, plus, it doesn't cost THAT much to have a baby unless there are grave complications, which are rare. In any case, most hospitals charge based on a sliding scale pegged to how much you can afford.
You know what, Dimwit? I'm 8 months pregnant; I don't have insurance, and I'm going to give birth at home and not pay a dime to do it, just like I have with the previous 3 children. You know not whereof you speak, fool.
Scrooges
Submitted by Henry Clay on Sat, 03/31/2012 - 8:45pm.
Here is a little nugget from Chuck Dickens I think it applies to most of the comments here:
“Are there no prisons?” asked Scrooge.
“Plenty of prisons,” said the gentleman, laying down the pen again.
“And the Union workhouses?” demanded Scrooge. “Are they still in operation?”
“They are. Still,” returned the gentleman, “ I wish I could say they were not.”
“The Treadmill and the Poor Law are in full vigour, then?” said Scrooge.
“Both very busy, sir.”
“Oh! I was afraid, from what you said at first, that something had occurred to stop them in their useful course,” said Scrooge. “I’m very glad to hear it.”
“Under the impression that they scarcely furnish Christian cheer of mind or body to the multitude,” returned the gentleman, “a few of us are endeavouring to raise a fund to buy the Poor some meat and drink, and means of warmth. We choose this time, because it is a time, of all others, when Want is keenly felt, and Abundance rejoices. What shall I put you down for?”
“Nothing!” Scrooge replied.
“You wish to be anonymous?”
“I wish to be left alone,” said Scrooge. “Since you ask me what I wish, gentlemen, that is my answer. I don’t make merry myself at Christmas and I can’t afford to make idle people merry. I help to support the establishments I have mentioned: they cost enough: and those who are badly off must go there.”
“Many can’t go there; and many would rather die.”
“If they would rather die,” said Scrooge, “they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population.
No Clay, Scrooge doesn't apply here
Submitted by Radical1979 on Sat, 03/31/2012 - 8:52pm.
You see those men were not from the government forcibly taking money away. They came as private, successful citizens asking for money to help the poor. They were shocked that Scrooge, as a successful businessman, wouldn't contribute. That tells you that the norm is that private people, without coercsion, are willing to give to the poor.
I am happy to donate my time and money to charities of my choice. I prefer this because I investigate to find out my resources are being used in the best way possible. Government is full of waste and fraud.
Your argument, is, as usual, ridiculous.
Fools*
Submitted by cajun2 on Sat, 03/31/2012 - 8:53pm.
...No man is so foolish but he may sometimes give another good counsel and no man so wise that he may not easily err if he takes no other counsel than his own. He that is taught only by himself has a fool for a master.........Hunter S. Thompson
~Chuck? Seriously?
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Sat, 03/31/2012 - 8:54pm.
There's nothing so amusing as someone who feigns an offensive familiarity while name-dropping.
Your quote neither applies to, nor refutes the facts I presented. Perhaps you could back up your inapplicable and asinine premise with some statistics showing how many people die of want in this country. I can give you some numbers of my own... "a one-parent family of three making $14,500 a year (minimum wage) has more disposable income than a family making $60,000 a year."
Ah, yes, considering
Submitted by bretzysdude on Sat, 03/31/2012 - 8:55pm.
Ah, yes, considering conservatives give more than liberals ever will, Obamacare has the death panel, and abortions that the liberals favor so much decrease the surplus population...gee, who's the real Scrooge here? Quit pointing at the mirror, Clay.
We are still waiting for you
Submitted by LAM SON 719 on Sun, 04/01/2012 - 12:05am.
HC,
We are still waiting for you to publish the results of your "gun owner" research that you performed. Where is it troll boy?
Then you aren't looking very hard.
Submitted by Radical1979 on Sat, 03/31/2012 - 8:36pm.
Catholic charities, and Catholic hospitals, are more than happy to help out in these situations.
However, she really shouldn't have sex without having any way to pay for the possible consequences. It's the same reason I don't charge my credit cards up to the max when I'm shopping and see something I really really want.
Self control. It's for adults.
Hank, you ignorant slut, ---
Submitted by matthewdean on Sat, 03/31/2012 - 8:37pm.
being pregnant does not constitute being in "NEED of medical attention".
You exhibit progressively more senility with each successive post at NBs.
MD
~Pregnancy is a serious disease
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Sat, 03/31/2012 - 8:40pm.
in the eyes of liberals.
Amazing, Bru, how the end result of ---
Submitted by matthewdean on Sat, 03/31/2012 - 8:48pm.
pregnancy can differ so radically between conservative and liberal thought application; a conservative welcomes a new life; a liberal welcomes the power to prevent a new life if that life might somehow inconvenience them.
MD
Yes Matthew*
Submitted by cajun2 on Sat, 03/31/2012 - 8:56pm.
Conservatives make no distinctions in the value of human life whereas liberals have no problem advocating the death of black and poor babies. Who indeed cares nothing for "poor"folks.
~While accusing conservatives of being the heartless ones
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Sat, 03/31/2012 - 8:58pm.
My irony meter is pegged to the max.
You notice he had absolutely no response to the fact that I'm pregnant without insurance, and somehow my life isn't ruined. Liberals don't understand what it is not to suck off of a system, any system, and do things on your own. What a bunch of whiny little sh!ts.
Dont waste time waiting Bru*
Submitted by cajun2 on Sat, 03/31/2012 - 9:06pm.
Lib trolls never voluntarily offer opinion that will blatantly show their hypocrisy.
I have asked every troll the same question and never once have I received a reply.
If conservatives had been the ones supporting Roe Vs Wade, tax payer funded abortions, PP in every poor black neighborhood for the last 40 yrs , would that not show that conservatives were obviously in favor of eugenics or at a minimum would be racists?
*crickets*
Boring...
Submitted by Henry Clay on Sat, 03/31/2012 - 9:08pm.
First off, I am one of the most pro-life people on this site. This is for ethical and religious reasons. Do not ever equate me with those who promote infanticide. Secondly, pregnancy is a very dire circumstance. Without proper treatment both woman and child could die. I certainly hope you thought long about your decision to give birth at home. No chances of C-Section, ect. I wish you nothing but good health to you and your baby; and I’ll pray for the two of you.
Now this has become quite tiresome. I originally wanted to argue about facts of the Constitution but yet once again, conservatives lack proper logic so they must resort to emotional arguments. Oh well, I have to go anyway. The walleye are biting, one of my bad habits from my youth.
Cheers.
Yes, you are quite tiresome
Submitted by Free Stinker on Sat, 03/31/2012 - 9:10pm.
But not a bit clever.
/// Sarah Palin Fan since July 11, 2007 /// خال
Translation
Submitted by Radical1979 on Sat, 03/31/2012 - 9:12pm.
Hank Mudd has once again lost his argument and cannot defend himself, so he slinks away trying to pretend he has a semblance of dignity left.
A dire circumstance???*
Submitted by cajun2 on Sat, 03/31/2012 - 9:15pm.
Pregnancy is a dire circumstance? What Hank, what happened 5 million years ago when there were no Ob-Gyn's? When there were no remarkabley intelligent academics assessing the dangers to the tribe of neanderthals? How did they survive without the compassion and genius of a Hank Mud?
How can you be more Pro Life, then anyone else
Submitted by Boudin on Sat, 03/31/2012 - 9:15pm.
You either are Pro Life, er your not
~More BS
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Sat, 03/31/2012 - 9:31pm.
Pregnancy is perfectly normal and natural, and in fact, it's hard to get pregnant if you're not already healthy.
I've given birth four times without any medical assistance whatsoever. The first one I gave birth to in a hospital; I walked in, gave birth ten minutes later, and left the next day. The bill was just over $1,200, total. The next three I gave birth to at home, approximate cost for each, $35 dollars worth of supplies. You obviously know nothing whatsoever about birthing babies, so perhaps you should stick to something you do know, like analyzing the quantity and quality of your stool.
Here we go, Hank at :30 seconds in.
Aloha from Asia/Hawaii, Ms.
Submitted by killa37 on Sun, 04/01/2012 - 12:41am.
Aloha from Asia/Hawaii, Ms. lovely and tall Brunette...........I have a math question for you. You have stated that you have 3 children, and that you're 8 months pregnant with your fourth. But you have also stated that you have 'given birth four times', so I'm just wonderin' (Obamaspeak) what the difference is there.
I 'sat in' on the birth of both of my sons, and it was quite an experience. And now I have a part-Hawaiian grandson who is truely the 'apple of my eye'!!! But............in my family bloodline, my father and I never generated any girls, and that has been a let-down to me, because I love girls!! But my #2 son is engaged, so maybe it will happen ...........and I'll be happy and content!!!
And poor ol' Hank might still be investigating his stool!!!! Whatever happened to Vacuous Dummy????
~I thought those two comments might confuse someone
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Sun, 04/01/2012 - 10:17am.
My comment above was that I was going to give birth to this one at home, like I did with the previous three.
The first was born in a hospital, and the next three at home, as this one will be.
1 hospital birth, 3 home births, 1 upcoming home birth = 5.
2 girls then 2 boys, and I think this one is another girl.
Good morning Bru
Submitted by cocodrie on Sun, 04/01/2012 - 10:27am.
Pardon me , I thought you had succumbed to using Biden math.
Jesus Loves You so much He died for you
~LOL!
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Sun, 04/01/2012 - 10:37am.
Don't worry, I know how many I've had. My memory may go to hell when I'm pregnant, but some things are impossible to forget. Each labor lives vividly in my memory, not to mention all the honey blonde, blue-eyed proof currently enjoying themselves at church with Daddy while Mommy sips coffee and checks her e-mail in between loads of laundry.
Huh?
Submitted by CobraMan on Sun, 04/01/2012 - 11:59am.
Hay, Henry, why would a woman who applied for Medicaid also try to purchase health insurance? If she's applying for Medicaid, it's obvious that she can't afford insurance!
Yea, these cases exist alright, but never outside your own mind.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
Where do you see the word "sick" in my post?
Submitted by Blonde on Sun, 04/01/2012 - 9:40am.
Kindly copy/paste what I wrote, then bold up the word "sick"?
Apparently you started drinking really early last night, Henry.
Try again.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
Poor Nina
Submitted by dliston on Sat, 03/31/2012 - 8:07pm.
She only thinks that because she is very, very, very Left.
Totenburger
Submitted by dgpgrove on Sat, 03/31/2012 - 9:02pm.
When they are that far to the left, anything seems way, way, way conservative but that is just because their perspective is so totally warped.
Very true
Submitted by CM on Sun, 04/01/2012 - 12:30am.
I'll bet that she considers Ginsburg a moderate.
Very, very, very socialist
Submitted by Scottyb4292 on Sat, 03/31/2012 - 9:07pm.
Nina Totenberg, true to her northern European heritage, is a socialist of the Swedish kind. Naturally, she cannot understand what the founding fathers were trying to do when they wrote the constitution. They were trying to protect individual freedom and divide power so that the state would not be able to seize our liberties and control the people from cradle to grave.
Thank God the court seems to be poised to protect the constitution and protect freedom.
Nina Totenberg is a stealth socialist in progressive/liberal clothing, disguised as a journalist.
Nina ... what about the others Justices?
Submitted by metaphorsbwithu on Sat, 03/31/2012 - 10:42pm.
I wonder if Nina thinks Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsberg, Sonya Sotomayor and Elena Kagan are very, very, very liberal?
Of course not.
They are moderates, straight down the middle ... to leftists like Totenberg.
Good evening metaphor
Submitted by cocodrie on Sat, 03/31/2012 - 10:54pm.
They've been giving us the middle finger all right.
Jesus Loves You so much He died for you
Take a look at how often she uses "very conservative" on NPR
Submitted by tricityjdw on Sun, 04/01/2012 - 12:02am.
Do a search on Google News Archives for "Nina Totenberg" "very conservative" ( https://www.google.com/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=%22nina+totenbe... ) You'll see about 55 instances of her National Progressive Radio stories using the term. By way of contrast, see
the results in Google News Archives for "Nina Totenberg" & "very
liberal": https://www.google.com/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=%22nina+totenbe... . At most, there is ONE instance of her using "very liberal" in her National Progressive Radio reporting!
As Herman Cain would say...
Submitted by bigdaddy on Sun, 04/01/2012 - 12:37am.
Nine-ah, Nine-ah, Nine-ah! Why are you such an ignorant twit? This POS bill that was rammed through by a POSPOTUS and a bought and paid for liberal congress, who never read the damn thing, is unable to survive in the light of day. At 2700 pages, we won't need to get more toilet paper for a while.
Consider the irony here: Nina
Submitted by big.league.slider on Sun, 04/01/2012 - 2:57am.
Consider the irony here:
Nina Totenberg, who's salary comes from a network (NPR) that is funded by an unconstitutional use of federal taxpayer money, and whose broadcast is ensured by an unconstitutional federal agency (FCC), is complaining about the fact that our constitutional system of checks and balances is actually working as designed.
I'm pretty sick of........
Submitted by GregE on Sun, 04/01/2012 - 10:47am.
........justices who admire and uphold the Constitution being disparaged as something awful. The Constitution matters, twit, and it matters alot. Too bad society today and the Federal Justice system doesn't understand that.
I guess all of the Framers of the Constitution were very very very conservative to eh?
If there were 5 Ginsburg-types instead of 4, would she say Obamacare will be upheld to the very very very Progressive (or Liberal) justices on the Court? We all know the answer.
Their job, Nina, is to weigh
Submitted by Andrew H. on Mon, 04/02/2012 - 5:04am.
Their job, Nina, is to weigh facts of a case against the constitution. Only dangerous liberals disregard our founding document and invent "new" precedents.
You're a sad example of taxpayer subsidized NPR and one reason we should not be subsidizing the broadcast scheme.
The so-called mainstream media is the propaganda arm of the criminal DNC.
I told ya so...
Submitted by DumbCanuck on Mon, 04/02/2012 - 10:41am.
.
"There... Are... Four... Lights!"