But his plan landed him in the crosshairs of the state Insurance Department, which ordered him to drop his fixed-rate plan – which it claims is equivalent to an insurance policy.
Healthcare: See How Your Government Cares · Snapped Shot.
If you offer a subscription plan, are you offering an insurance plan? No, I didn’t think so. So why is it considered that way when the subscription is doctor visits?
Flaming assholes.
Republicans have caught the Democrats in a midnight “stimulus” power play that seeks to cut Republican conferees out of the House-Senate negotiations to resolve a final version of the Obama “stimulus” package. Staff members from the offices of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) met last night to put together the “stimulus” conference report.
They intend to attempt to shove this $1.3 trillion spending bill through in the dead of the night without Republican input so floor action can take place in both chambers on Thursday.
Republicans Shut Out in New Era of “Bipartisanship” · Snapped Shot.
I think both parties suck, the only real difference between them is on social issues, while both love to spend our money and ruin our national credit rating. I mean honestly, we’re talking about the mythical-conservative Republicans not being allowed to sit in with the Democrats in creating this Golgothan bill, the big gamble at the economic craps table of going full-on Keynesian.
I should be concerned that Repubs won’t get their proper amount of slop from the trough? Fuck ALL y’all.
Still, I applaud Democrat hypocrisy being exposed, just as I applaud exposing Republican hypocrisy. Shine the light on those roaches.
The President bumped his head.
Yes, Barack Obama bumped his head as he entered Marine One.
It’s news, because it was news when President Gerald Ford bumped his head.
But Gerald Ford bumped his head because he was a doofus.
But, The One can’t be a doofus. Therefore, helicopters are racist.
IMAO » Blog Archive » Helicopters are racist.
The Obama Administration has just issued an order declaring that federal contractors are “encouraged” to carry over employees when contracts get changed:
The Federal Government’s procurement interests in economy and efficiency are served when the successor contractor hires the predecessor’s employees. A carryover work force reduces disruption to the delivery of services during the period of transition between contractors and provides the Federal Government the benefits of an experienced and trained work force that is familiar with the Federal Government’s personnel, facilities, and requirements.
…
It is the policy of the Federal Government that service contracts and solicitations for such contracts shall include a clause that requires the contractor, and its subcontractors, under a contract that succeeds a contract for performance of the same or similar services at the same location, to offer those employees (other than managerial and supervisory employees) employed under the predecessor contract whose employment will be terminated as a result of the award of the successor contract, a right of first refusal of employment under the contract in positions for which they are qualified.
Obama: The Business Acumen of an Aardvark · Snapped Shot, Jessica’s Well, Slate, Shopfloor
Honestly, who DOESN’T think Barack Hussein Caesar isn’t a Marxist? A proclamation saying the workers must be kept on while management and supervisors are expendable? If you have any doubts about Glorious Leader Obama, doubt no more. This guy is pure ugly.
After lecturing us all to turn down our thermostats to “72 degrees at all times”
on the campaign trail, The One moves into the White House and promptly
cranks up the heat to tropical temperatures! (Hat tip – Ed Morrissey)
http://www.khow.com/pages/caplisreport.html
Thanks to Snapped Shot
And, of course, showing off his Marxist tendencies:
8. OBAMA SAYS WHITES ARE PHANTOMS TO BE EXPUNGED FROM DREAMS“Questions of competition, decisions forced by a market economy and majoritarian rule; issues of power. It was this unyielding reality-that whites were not only phantoms to be expunged from our dreams but were an active and varied fact of our everyday lives-that finally explained how nationalism could thrive as an emotion and flounder as a program.” Pg 202
It’s that evil competition, market economy and majoritarian rule — a.k.a. free markets and democracy — that makes white people evil and leads to Nationalism.
Seriously, people like this guy? They want him to lead our country with this freakish attitude? WTF?!
Flobots – Handlebars (Obama’s Theme?)
Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.
Yeah, you guessed it, another comment spam-filtered:
************
Brian pays me $10,000 per Photoshop of Ahmadinejad, and I have to pay for my crack addiction, so I won’t give it up. lol
Mandating clothes means punishment for not wearing clothes, hence jail time for being naked. So by doing something that doesn’t cause physical harm, people without clothes are punished with physical harm (jail, assault, rape) under the legal guise of preventing them from being physically harmed by those who would assault and/or rape them. Uncool.
Also, if plain nudity can be redefined as pornography, then any kind of skin-baring can be redefined as something more sexualized. For example, breast feeding, which involves baring the female breast and allowing a minor child to put its mouth on it can be child molestation. Yes, it’s the wrong definition, but that’s my point: you can’t redefine nudity to mean pornography.
Again, my comment won’t pass the Snapped Shot spam filters, so I post my comments to the Child Pornography Called Art post here. Hell, if I write this much I might as well post it on my blog, too. Carpel tunnel, here I come!
*******************
First off, the Cisco router is dead. Long live the Cisco router! :>
Rooster… well, you know.
Now back to the fun. Cap’n, our points of view are pretty close to polar opposites, but I’ll keep writing just to clarify my view. This kind of controversial talk is my kind of fun.
If I recall correctly, the girl was 8 when the pictures were taken, and as this furor erupts, she’s now 11 years old.
Phrases like “They don’t know no better” and “She has seen the seedier side of life” are ones that I have trouble with because it conflates nudity with shame and perversity. Nudity is probably the most natural we can be, as we are brought into this world bare. Clothing has evolved in style and meaning, but it’s mostly to keep us protected from the elements, not to keep us protected from each other. If clothing is mostly to keep us protected from each other, then we should welcome Shari’a law.
Lack of nudity — meaning keeping certain bits covered — is what causes titillation. When your biology says you want something but it’s hidden away from you in plain sight, this creates frustration. This is something being noticed in the Muslim world where sexual frustration is being channeled into the Jihad. When seeing the object of your desire in plain sight, that object becomes less frustratingly desirable over time to the point of it becoming commonplace. This is what happens with nudists. New nudists are shameful and gawky, but as they get used to seeing nude women and men around them all the time, the shame and frustration is sapped from them. Seeing this phenomena, one can conclude that nudity itself isn’t wrong or perverse, and can in fact be good.
I, personally, would never want to allow full nudity in public, but not because it’s dirty or prurient, but because it’s unsanitary. I wouldn’t be keen on sitting where bare-assed people have been hanging out because they would probably leave behind smegma and e. coli. Can’t have that.
As to Brian’s comment, he did say the image of a naked child was child pornography, and essentially agreed with your interpretation, so if nudity is child pornography, then by that definition one could say breast feeding is child molestation, etc. Now Brian won’t post my Photoshops anymore! See what you made me do, Cap’n?! lol
Standards. We all know media makes money by fascinating and titillating us, otherwise we don’t watch, so media standards are a poor measuring stick. Media is a reactionary force only. The law, too, is a reactionary force. Laws are enacted only after something occurs that creates fear. Unfortunately, the law punishes the victim in many cases, whether it’s drug use or nudity. To put someone in jail and force them to face the dregs of society because they didn’t have something covering their nipples is outrageous and wholly unacceptable in my not-so-humble opinion. These laws are called “protection”, but they don’t punish perpetrators of crimes, they punish those who might be attacked by criminal elements, all on the assumption that to put yourself into a potentially compromising situation is equivalent to assault and rape. Cat meat imam from Australia, no?
Again, as you said, it comes down to standards. Shall we punish nudity, or those who would take advantage of the nude? Should we jail the parents of a naked child, or those who would gleefully subject them to shame and humiliation — and rape in jail — because they painted or photographed something eminently natural? We can prove that the image of a naked person, at any age, is not harmful to anyone, so why should they be punished because such an image might make someone else think it’s okay to assault and rape that naked person? Our standard should be to punish those who would cause physical harm to a nude person, not to harm the nude person in the hope of preventing an assault and/or rape.
So sayeth the Donkeyrock. :>
Blind Faith – Can’t Find My Way Home
Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.
I couldn’t get my comment to go through on this post, so I’m posting it here:
See, here’s where my liberal upbringing shows through. Cap’n, I know you were being sarcastic, but I was pointing out that your sarcasm is actually prophetic.
The assumption that a naked child will instill lust in men is right in line with Shari’a law, which is why Shari’a pushes for full covering of women. However this is not the case.
As a normal adult, you don’t look at a naked child and think sex, you probably think of innocence (a common subject in art). But with such a virulent reaction to nudity, you push forward an ideal that that child’s body will create lust.
If you believe clothes are protection from “perverts”, then talk to people who have been sexually assaulted on the street. Lust isn’t visual it’s mental, chemical, hormonal. Just like a picture of a naked man doesn’t inspire lust in a heterosexual man, this child won’t inspire lust in most people. For those that are inspired to lust for the child, clothes don’t matter, just as clothes don’t matter when one sees a hot woman. She’s desirable, no matter the state of undress.
Now, the over-the-top reaction of making the mother and daughter walk around naked because the daughter is naked for a picture is outlandish. Conversely, should they force you to sit around and do nothing while they parade in your house and do whatever they wish? Of course not, and neither should they be subjected to such fantastical ridicule.
My point is that such nudity is only controversial in the minds of zealots. A rational look at the situation shows no reason to fear that image or fear for the child. The only shame she’ll encounter is from people who hate her body simply because it exists, and she’s not more likely to be assaulted because of the image unless it’s from people who want to hide her away and make her feel shame at being human.
And Brian, seriously, nudity is pornography? Such a definition would mean breastfeeding is sexual assault, that the great masters of renaissance art were just peddling sexual titillation, and that the human body is nothing but a shameful object that must be covered under thick robes and hidden away from uncontrollably lustful eyes. Are we not better, more controlled, than our cousins from hundreds and thousands of years past? Biology may dominate us, but our ability to think rationally helps us to transcend base instincts.
Dare you call Clapton a pervert? lol Blind Faith album cover:
