The real issue at hand in the Limbaugh/Fluke controversy

[Bubblehead1980]

While feminists and liberals continue to lose their minds over Rush Limbaugh being what he is, a provocateur, the real issue has been pushed to the wayside.The real issue is Obama and his government going too far yet again by violating the constitution and demanding contraception coverage, religious freedoms be damned.They know very well they can't win the constitutional argument since it is pretty black and white, so in predictable liberal fashion, they try to shift the subject without appearing to.They find a female law student(who it turns out is a long time feminist activist/political operative) and parade her out as if she is just a regular student trying to get by in order to inject emotion into the argument and get women on their side.Apparently it has worked to a degree as Obama's support has went up in the past week among the most emotional among us, women.:down:

[Tribesman]

Another one of your misogynist rants young man?
Still feeling bitter about not getting any?:rotfl2:

[Takeda Shingen]

Georgetown University's student health programs cost the taxpayer $0.00 US. They are subsidised from tuition and donor contributions. Limbaugh's argument is, therefore, rendered a moot and inaccurate ad hominem. The rest of the OP's comments amount to blatent Misogyny. Sorry, but you just labeled half of the population as weak and emotional. Bad form.

[mookiemookie]

Bubs has shown and proven in the past to be a misogynist. No shocker here.

[Subnuts]

Those dishes aren't going to wash themselves, Bubblehead.

[vienna]

They know very well they can't win the constitutional argument since it is pretty black and white, so in predictable liberal fashion, they try to shift the subject without appearing to.


You mean kind of like the way the GOP Religious Right in Congress know they can't win any up-or-down vote on thier issues so, in predictable Fringe Right fashion, they try to attach their issues as amendments to bills having nothing to do with their pet peeves?... :hmmm:

[Stealhead]

Those dishes aren't going to wash themselves, Bubblehead.



:har:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5fjgDgVEJtw


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JKTaukDhHus


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkYl_AH-qyk&feature=related

[Onkel Neal]

While feminists and liberals continue to lose their minds over Rush Limbaugh being what he is, a provocateur, the real issue has been pushed to the wayside.The real issue is Obama and his government going too far yet again by violating the constitution and demanding contraception coverage, religious freedoms be damned.They know very well they can't win the constitutional argument since it is pretty black and white, so in predictable liberal fashion, they try to shift the subject without appearing to.They find a female law student(who it turns out is a long time feminist activist/political operative) and parade her out as if she is just a regular student trying to get by in order to inject emotion into the argument and get women on their side.Apparently it has worked to a degree as Obama's support has went up in the past week among the most emotional among us, women.:down:


I disagree wholeheartedly. First, it's no big news that Limbaugh is an entertainer, and pretty much a terrible person. While I agree with much of what he says on a theoretical level, how he says it is irresponsible, mean, and downright uncivil. He's embarrasing. And he's hypocritical. I remember years ago how he would rant and rave about Ted Kennedy's alchohol habits, pretty much ripping him apart. Which is ok, except Limbaugh has his own substance abuse issues.:nope:

And his comments about this woman were way across the line--and stupid. Where does he get this idea that she's having "lots of sex". You pretty much have to take the pill every day, regardless of how often you engage in sex. :-?

As for the "religious freedom" aspect of this, I don't understand at all how religious people think everything is about them and their religion. So what if insurance covers contraception. That's great! It means fewer unwanted pregnancies and fewer abortions. Hell, I am all in favor of free birth control for everybody, and I hope they use it.

[CaptainHaplo]

You mean kind of like the way the GOP Religious Right in Congress know they can't win any up-or-down vote on thier issues so, in predictable Fringe Right fashion, they try to attach their issues as amendments to bills having nothing to do with their pet peeves?... :hmmm:

Both sides do this vienna - calling out "the other side" when both do it (and neither should) simply shows you to be the same as bubblehead - a partisan hack....

Georgetown University's student health programs cost the taxpayer $0.00 US. They are subsidised from tuition and donor contributions. Limbaugh's argument is, therefore, rendered a moot and inaccurate ad hominem.

OK - let me take issue here Takeda. The cost for the required insurance is $1895.00 a year per student. (source: http://studentaffairs.georgetown.edu/insurance/letteraccept.html)
Most students are required to participate: (Source: http://studentaffairs.georgetown.edu/insurance/ )

It is added to their "student account" - you know the same "student account" where financial aid - such as FAFSA gained Pell Grants get deposited. Those are federal funds - paid for by the taxpayer. So are student loans - though they are (at least in theory) repayed. I found nothing on Georgetown's site that indicated that the insurance costs were defrayed using donor contributions. Could you show me where that is indicated?

Every piece of information shows that universities charge the student - and the student uses money in their "account" to pay such charges. Given that most students qualify for federal grants - again, paid for by taxpayers - the claim that health insurance for college students costs taxpayers "0.00" is inaccurate.

[Takeda Shingen]

OK - let me take issue here Takeda. The cost for the required insurance is $1895.00 a year per student. (source: http://studentaffairs.georgetown.edu/insurance/letteraccept.html)
Most students are required to participate: (Source: http://studentaffairs.georgetown.edu/insurance/ )

It is added to their "student account" - you know the same "student account" where financial aid - such as FAFSA gained Pell Grants get deposited. Those are federal funds - paid for by the taxpayer. So are student loans - though they are (at least in theory) repayed. I found nothing on Georgetown's site that indicated that the insurance costs were defrayed using donor contributions. Could you show me where that is indicated?

Every piece of information shows that universities charge the student - and the student uses money in their "account" to pay such charges. Given that most students qualify for federal grants - again, paid for by taxpayers - the claim that health insurance for college students costs taxpayers "0.00" is inaccurate.

Now that is a stretch, at best. As you noted, these loans are (again, theoretically) repaid. The money derived from Pell Grants is, at most, indirect.

[CaptainHaplo]

Takeda - its not a stretch. Taxpayers foot the bill for Pell Grants. Simple as that. Pell Grant money is mixed with other funds and used to pay student bills - including the insurance in question. So if you mandate contraceptive coverage - taxpayer money goes to it. Simple as that.

But the more important argument isn't even being made. That is that the cost of additional coverage is not going to be absorbed by the insurer. There is no such thing as "free" coverage - no matter how much the president says it is. Someone is paying for it. That "someone" is everyone who does business with the insurer - because the insurer passes on the costs to its consumers.

You know that as well as I do. So not only does taxpayer money go to help pay for the insurance - if additional costs are put on the coverage - the consuming public will have to pay additionally.

So why should you or I or another consumer have to defray the costs for students - or any other group for that matter?

[Takeda Shingen]

Takeda - its not a stretch. Taxpayers foot the bill for Pell Grants. Simple as that. Pell Grant money is mixed with other funds and used to pay student bills - including the insurance in question. So if you mandate contraceptive coverage - taxpayer money goes to it. Simple as that.

But the more important argument isn't even being made. That is that the cost of additional coverage is not going to be absorbed by the insurer. There is no such thing as "free" coverage - no matter how much the president says it is. Someone is paying for it. That "someone" is everyone who does business with the insurer - because the insurer passes on the costs to its consumers.

You know that as well as I do. So not only does taxpayer money go to help pay for the insurance - if additional costs are put on the coverage - the consuming public will have to pay additionally.

So why should you or I or another consumer have to defray the costs for students - or any other group for that matter?

Then abolish Pell Grants. Then you don't have to worry about contraceptives.

[CaptainHaplo]

Takeda - instead - why not use Pell grants for what they were intended - to help pay for a student's EDUCATION?

Instead of mandating something from on high, why are we not expecting some personal responsiblity? These students know the risks and can choose to not engage in behaviors that carry high, long term risks. Oh - that's right - abstinance is a bad word.

Why are we not allowing these students to make the choice to carry contraceptive insurance on their own? Is it because they would choose to spend the money on beer, liquer, pot and meth instead? If so - then why is it our job as a society - or the job of the "gubment" to save them from their own stupidity?

Of all the things that kids can take classes on in college - why is there not a course in plain, good ole fashion common sense?

[Takeda Shingen]

Takeda - instead - why not use Pell grants for what they were intended - to help pay for a student's EDUCATION?

Instead of mandating something from on high, why are we not expecting some personal responsiblity? These students know the risks and can choose to not engage in behaviors that carry high, long term risks. Oh - that's right - abstinance is a bad word.

Why are we not allowing these students to make the choice to carry contraceptive insurance on their own? Is it because they would choose to spend the money on beer, liquer, pot and meth instead? If so - then why is it our job as a society - or the job of the "gubment" to save them from their own stupidity?

Of all the things that kids can take classes on in college - why is there not a course in plain, good ole fashion common sense?

No, no. Let's get rid of it. But first, let's get rid of that 1.45% of my annual pay that I put out for some senior's heart medication. It's not my fault that he ate red meat three meals a day for 30 years. Common sense indeed.

[vienna]

Posted by Captain Haplo:


Both sides do this vienna - calling out "the other side" when both do it (and neither should) simply shows you to be the same as bubblehead - a partisan hack....



You took my post in the manner in which it was not intended, Captain. Given that Bubbles seems to believe it is only "liberals"who do what he deems as underhanded and unethical actions, I was merely pointing out that the world is full of people and organizations, including those he espouses and defends, who are capable of and, quite do the very things he decries as "liberal"...

As far as being a "partisan hack", I take quite a bit of umbrage to your declaration. Firstly, you don't know me well enough to make such a judgement. Secondly, I am very much an independent and very proudly so. As a matter of full disclosure, I live in California where cross-party voting in primaries and other lesser elections is not allowed. I, therefore, am registered as a Democrat so I may have some say in who gets elected and what laws get passed. Democrats run the state and the GOP here is woefully lacking in viable candidates. Registering with one of the independent parties just serves to further maginalize those who do not wish to take a side. I have voted for Dems and for GOP candidates, but I always vote my conscience and ethics. I believe wholly in common sense; rhetoric does not sway me, slogans do not impress me, and the loudness of the true hacks will not make vote their way. I will criticize, question, and speak out against those who see ethics as an inconvienient obstacle and who see common sense as something to be ignored...

BTW, calling someone a "political hack" or the like is often an indication the person doing the calling lacks substantial, viable arguments of their own, is trying to act dismissive to cover that condition as a means of avoiding a real discussion of the issues, and is reacting to the touching of a "raw nerve"...

Just saying... :D

...

[CaptainHaplo]

Vienna - I simply call it like I see it. Your party affiliation and your reasoning are your own business. I simply pointed out that your choice to decry an action that is done by both sides, yet you chose to only fault one side - smacks of blind partisanship.

I agree the practice is wrong and should be stopped. However, if your going to find fault - don't blame just one side. You take umbrage at being called a partisan hack - I can only respond and say your original complaint makes you appear to be one. Thus, I said you show yourself to be something. Like you said, I don't know you - so I can only go off of how you portray yourself. Was the call inaccurate? Maybe. But it was based of a legitimate observation of you acting entirely one sided.

As for hitting a raw nerve - I am tired of the partisan crap that exists when people ignore the failure of both sides and lambast only one. As for lacking viable underpinnings - we are not disagreeing that the right shouldn't do it - we just are at this point because you didn't fault "your own side" for the same action. Failure to have the same standards when looking at one side vs the other is what defines a person as a partisan.

[CaptainHaplo]

No, no. Let's get rid of it. But first, let's get rid of that 1.45% of my annual pay that I put out for some senior's heart medication. It's not my fault that he ate red meat three meals a day for 30 years. Common sense indeed.

Ultimately, I would like to see us do that. Now that doesn't mean you can't choose to contribute if you wanted to - but right now, the entire "social net" is compulsory for any working citizen. The government doesn't offer you the choice of whether you want to be a part of providing for others. It mandates your "social responsibility", whether you agree with it or not. The problem is, not only does it mishandle the funds it takes from you and I, it also can increasingly require our "level of social responsibility" to be greater and greater. All without us being able to do anything about it.

I know we will likely disagree on this, but I don't believe that mandating citizen social responsibility is the proper job or role of government. Thus, I would like to see all such mandates end.

I am realistic enough to know that isn't going to happen, and even if it were it would need decades to phase into place. But I think the trend of the people becoming more and more reliant on government to control what they get and how they get it is unhealthy for the cause of liberty and freedom.

[vienna]

Vienna - I simply call it like I see it. Your party affiliation and your reasoning are your own business. I simply pointed out that your choice to decry an action that is done by both sides, yet you chose to only fault one side - smacks of blind partisanship.

I agree the practice is wrong and should be stopped. However, if your going to find fault - don't blame just one side. You take umbrage at being called a partisan hack - I can only respond and say your original complaint makes you appear to be one. Thus, I said you show yourself to be something. Like you said, I don't know you - so I can only go off of how you portray yourself. Was the call inaccurate? Maybe. But it was based of a legitimate observation of you acting entirely one sided.

As for hitting a raw nerve - I am tired of the partisan crap that exists when people ignore the failure of both sides and lambast only one. As for lacking viable underpinnings - we are not disagreeing that the right shouldn't do it - we just are at this point because you didn't fault "your own side" for the same action. Failure to have the same standards when looking at one side vs the other is what defines a person as a partisan.


Yes, we both agree neither side should do actions that are unethical or lacking in common sense. However, I made the comment you that you dispute as a form of ironic sarcasm to Bubbles own one-sided view of the national condition and his own inability to critcally assess issues. Sometimes, as the saying goes, "Irony is lost on some people"...

[mookiemookie]

Hell, I am all in favor of free birth control for everybody, and I hope they use it.

This is where I can't understand the hardcore righties. They're so opposed to "entitlement" spending, but things like the spread of birth control that prevents entitlement spending and the necessity for things like welfare, they're against! :06:

[Takeda Shingen]

I know we will likely disagree on this, but I don't believe that mandating citizen social responsibility is the proper job or role of government. Thus, I would like to see all such mandates end.

I don't think that we would disagree about the need of government to remove itself from social responsibility. I think that we would disagree about how far it would go, and not in the way that you might anticipate that we would disagree. I am all for the removal of all safety nets. I am also for the legalization of all drugs, the end of restriction of marriage as it pertains to same-sex marriage or even polygamy and the full availabilty of abortion in any and all cases. To me, civil liberties are just as important as fiscal liberties.

It is here that I disagree with the Republican party. When they talk about 'liberty', they mean almost exclusively finance. Civil liberty is not now, nor has it been for most of the past century, a priority. This is a party that gave us the so-called Patriot Act, opposes abortion as part of it's party platform, attempts to legislate theological morality and stands in the way of gay rights. It is the polar opposite of the Democratic party, which is in favor of civil rights, but wants to control your money. I want a party that holds liberty in a much broader light.

[August]

I think there are some things that should not be market based. National defense, law enforcement and health care are three of the big ones.

Because of the thirst for profit the cost of even basic health care has risen beyond the ability of most people to pay. Even when they can afford insurance they are routinely denied and/or delayed compensation, sometimes right into the grave. The only solution may be a national health care system.

But if that's the way we're going to go then it has to be complete. NHS hospitals, clinics, doctors, nurses, technicians and labs. The whole enchilada. This idea of the government telling me I have to purchase health care insurance from a private company is crazy. It's like they're holding me down while the insurance company robs me.

[mookiemookie]

I think there are some things that should not be market based. National defense, law enforcement and health care are three of the big ones.

Because of the thirst for profit the cost of even basic health care has risen beyond the ability of most people to pay. Even when they can afford insurance they are routinely denied and/or delayed compensation, sometimes right into the grave. The only solution may be a national health care system.

But if that's the way we're going to go then it has to be complete. NHS hospitals, clinics, doctors, nurses, technicians and labs. The whole enchilada. This idea of the government telling me I have to purchase health care insurance from a private company is crazy. It's like they're holding me down while the insurance company robs me.

Well said. The problem with Obama's current health care "reform" mess is that it was written by the health insurance industry to do exactly what you said - have the government hold you down while the insurance industry robs you. The bill was written by Liz Fowler, the ex-VP of Wellpoint insurance. To solve it, I'm not sure what to do. I guess a good start would be to take profit motive out of the equation. Not because the government could do it so much better, but because the insurance companies do it so much worse.

Government for the corporation, by the corporation is alive and well in America.

[gimpy117]

either which way; just because it's covered by the institution does not mean you have to use them. If people are morally opposed, it should be their decision to use or not use said products. I think it's a slippery slope when we let "moral judgement" decide whats covered and whats not. It's such a subjective thing, especially when you are in effect letting another party decide whats going to happen to YOUR body...especially when this is a take it or leave it health care situation...students don't have money to pay for health care ( i know i sure don't).

Well said. The problem with Obama's current health care "reform" mess is that it was written by the health insurance industry to do exactly what you said - have the government hold you down while the insurance industry robs you. The bill was written by Liz Fowler, the ex-VP of Wellpoint insurance. To solve it, I'm not sure what to do. I guess a good start would be to take profit motive out of the equation. Not because the government could do it so much better, but because the insurance companies do it so much worse.

Government for the corporation, by the corporation is alive and well in America.

well yes, I think 3 things would work; in descending order on what i think is best:
1. Universal health care
2. take out profit motive
3. get rid of the bill

But something needs to change because I think your health is something that nobody SHOULD EVER make profit off of, especially when it's mandated. It's really not a fair market, healthcare is all too often emergency situations and shopping around for the best deal is not something that's often an option, If I'm in a car wreck with a broken neck, I'm not gonna talk to the ambulance drivers about their rates, or read information compairing hospital prices in the city, I'm going to get the nearest ambulance and go to the nearest hospital AT ANY price...because my life is on the line. And that pretty much shoots the free market in the foot.

[CaptainHaplo]

I don't think that we would disagree about the need of government to remove itself from social responsibility. I think that we would disagree about how far it would go, and not in the way that you might anticipate that we would disagree. I am all for the removal of all safety nets. I am also for the legalization of all drugs, the end of restriction of marriage as it pertains to same-sex marriage or even polygamy and the full availabilty of abortion in any and all cases. To me, civil liberties are just as important as fiscal liberties.

It is here that I disagree with the Republican party. When they talk about 'liberty', they mean almost exclusively finance. Civil liberty is not now, nor has it been for most of the past century, a priority. This is a party that gave us the so-called Patriot Act, opposes abortion as part of it's party platform, attempts to legislate theological morality and stands in the way of gay rights. It is the polar opposite of the Democratic party, which is in favor of civil rights, but wants to control your money. I want a party that holds liberty in a much broader light.

Then we agree in many ways. The issue of drugs and abortion I will differ with you on - because both hold dangers to people other than the user/recipient. The issue of "gay marriage" is one where government shouldn't be in the marriage business at all.... While I have a moral objection to it - the reality remains that your talking about something that government shouldn't have its fingers in either way. Still - your entirely correct that "team R" definines freedom and liberty with a narrow scope under most circumstances.

This is where I can't understand the hardcore righties. They're so opposed to "entitlement" spending, but things like the spread of birth control that prevents entitlement spending and the necessity for things like welfare, they're against! :06:

If you look at your statement - you will see why you don't understand the objection. Your coming at this with the predetermined view that some entitlement spending by government is absolutely a necessity. Your example of "the necessity for things like welfare" is exactly where the confusion comes in. Sure, if you assume welfare is a necessity, then reducing more kids on welfare reduces the cost of the program. But for many conservatives, the welfare system is broken beyond repair.

Take a moment to step outside of your normal view and play devils advocate for a moment. Pretend that you see entitlements - all of them (Social security being a partial caveat) as entirely NOT the job of government. Medicaid, TANF & SNAP (welfare and foodstamps), Section 8 (subsidized housing), etc - look at it from the perspective of "none of these are the job of the government". If you do that - then the entire equation changes.

Now - lets be realistic. These programs cannot be just "killed" outright - but when a conservative sees how much the government has already gotten into things they feel it shouldn't - and then it wants to add MORE fingers to the pie, for whatever reason - they scream and yell and kick and raise a fuss. Why? Because its all going the WRONG way - we should be looking at putting more responsibility on citizenry for their own welfare - not increasing the role of government in their lives.

As conservatives - we hear all the time that new program A is "for the children", and new program B is "for the elderly" and new program C is "for the poor" or "for the GLTB folks" or some other nonsense - and that if we oppose more government gimme's we are somehow heartless and meanspirited.

Yes - to a few nuts this is about some biblical moral standard. For most of us, its not. Its about personal responsibility and the role of government. If someone wants to argue the fiscal wisdom of this - thats fine. But before that conversation can happen, the real root of the matter needs to be addressed - where is the line that defines how much government intervention in the life of its citizens?

The first question any legislator or government official should ask when they consider a "government program" or governmental interference is simple..... HOW is this within the proper role of government as defined by the Constitution.

If Washington had done that over the last 100 years or so - we would not be anywhere near this mess - and a whole lot more people in this nation would be standing on their own 2 feet, instead of kneeling at the alter of the government nipple.

[mookiemookie]

And that pretty much shoots the free market in the foot.

They want it both ways. They scream about "free market! free market! let the market decide!" but then anytime the issue of revoking the antitrust exemption for insurance companies (McCarran-Ferguson Act) is brought up, all of a sudden it's "Whoooooaaaa, not that free of a market!" The insurance companies in this country are absolute slimeballs and one of the worst examples of regulatory capture.

If you look at your statement - you will see why you don't understand the objection. Your coming at this with the predetermined view that some entitlement spending by government is absolutely a necessity. It is, and that's the prevailing view in Washington as well.

But for many conservatives, the welfare system is broken beyond repair. Then you're getting into a completely different argument altogether.

Take a moment to step outside of your normal view and play devils advocate for a moment. Pretend that you see entitlements - all of them (Social security being a partial caveat) as entirely NOT the job of government. Medicaid, TANF & SNAP (welfare and foodstamps), Section 8 (subsidized housing), etc - look at it from the perspective of "none of these are the job of the government". If you do that - then the entire equation changes. Ok, I'll go with you on your tangent. The social safety net was enacted because the world we lived in without it was brutal and cruel. Some have the attitude of "oh the government's gone wrong, it's made all these mistakes getting into the health insurance and food stamp business. etc etc." as if there was no good reason for the programs to be enacted in the first place. The days of debtor prisons and the elderly's only choice, as a rule, was having to live in squalor or with relatives are too far gone for anyone alive today to remember. Maybe that's why there's these pushbacks against the programs that eliminated these things. Do we really want to go back to the days of child labor? Do we want to go back to people dying in the streets or in sanitariums? Would it be an improvement to tell the elderly "welp, you've used up your usefulness and you can't work anymore, so unless you've saved and had good luck with your investments, piss off!" I don't think that's a world I'd like to go back to.

Now - lets be realistic. These programs cannot be just "killed" outright - but when a conservative sees how much the government has already gotten into things they feel it shouldn't - and then it wants to add MORE fingers to the pie, for whatever reason - they scream and yell and kick and raise a fuss. Why? Because its all going the WRONG way - we should be looking at putting more responsibility on citizenry for their own welfare - not increasing the role of government in their lives.Soooo, social Darwinism? No thanks. As I said before, that's a brutal way of life.

As conservatives - we hear all the time that new program A is "for the children", and new program B is "for the elderly" and new program C is "for the poor" or "for the GLTB folks" or some other nonsense - and that if we oppose more government gimme's we are somehow heartless and meanspirited. Telling the disadvantaged that they just have to suck it up and tough poop for your disadvantage is pretty heartless and mean spirited. ""Any society, any nation, is judged on the basis of how it treats its weakest members ; the last, the least, the littlest." - Cardinal Mahoney or Ghandi or a million other sources. Still a good quote though. And if you don't care for that one, there's always "Whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me." - Jesus.

[August]

Just lovely.

I get a letter from Blue Cross today telling me that as of April 1st they will no longer cover my Lipitor prescription. I guess i'll just have to do without it. Isn't mandatory health care insurance just grand?

[mookiemookie]

Just lovely.

I get a letter from Blue Cross today telling me that as of April 1st they will no longer cover my Lipitor prescription. I guess i'll just have to do without it. Isn't mandatory health care insurance just grand?

Didn't Lipitor just go generic? They won't even cover that?

[August]

Didn't Lipitor just go generic? They won't even cover that?

I don't know. The letter just says to talk to my doctor to see if there is an alternate medication.

[vienna]

The insurance company is probably responding to the Lipitor "co-pay" situation. Once the generic forms were given the go ahead, Pfizer, the maker of Lipitor tried lowering its prices, but was unable to compete with the $4 generics. So they devised the "$4 dollar co-pay". But the lower price comes with conditions that may be what has caused your insurer to balk:

http://myhealthcafe.com/pfizer-offers-4-lipitor-co-pay-card-is-affordable-4-lipitor-too-good-to-be-true

[krashkart]

The hardcore flaming right has come to Rush's defense. :03:

NSFW - http://www.defendrush.org





.

[mookiemookie]

The hardcore flaming right has come to Rush's defense. :03:

NSFW - http://www.defendrush.org



Aaaaaaahahahhahahahahha :rotfl2:

[frau kaleun]

The hardcore flaming right has come to Rush's defense. :03:

NSFW - http://www.defendrush.org





.


:har: :har: :har:

[Onkel Neal]

This is where I can't understand the hardcore righties. They're so opposed to "entitlement" spending, but things like the spread of birth control that prevents entitlement spending and the necessity for things like welfare, they're against! :06:

I can see being against entitlement spending, but like you said, when it curtails other costs, like birth control, I think it's money well spent.

[krashkart]

What exactly is entitlement spending? :06:

[August]

The insurance company is probably responding to the Lipitor "co-pay" situation. Once the generic forms were given the go ahead, Pfizer, the maker of Lipitor tried lowering its prices, but was unable to compete with the $4 generics. So they devised the "$4 dollar co-pay". But the lower price comes with conditions that may be what has caused your insurer to balk:

http://myhealthcafe.com/pfizer-offers-4-lipitor-co-pay-card-is-affordable-4-lipitor-too-good-to-be-true

So while they fight it out amongst themselves i'm stuck with a cheap copy. :nope:

[Blood_splat]

The hardcore flaming right has come to Rush's defense. :03:

NSFW - http://www.defendrush.org





.

:har::har::har:

[mookiemookie]

So while they fight it out amongst themselves i'm stuck with a cheap copy. :nope:

Generics work just as well as the name brand stuff. A chemical's a chemical's a chemical.

What exactly is entitlement spending? :06:

It's simply spending that happens automatically under law. It's more accurate to call it "mandatory spending" - it happens unless Congress specifically votes to change it.

In reality it's a loaded phrase. "Entitlement" has a negative connotation, and those with a political agenda loooooove to use that to their advantage.

[August]

Generics work just as well as the name brand stuff. A chemical's a chemical's a chemical.

But i'm not buying a chemical. I'm buying a little white oval pill that somebody says contains a certain amount of a chemical. Now I wouldn't care if it was laundry detergent but when it comes to health maintaining drugs I just like knowing who that somebody is.

[CaptainHaplo]

First of all, let me thank you Mookie. While we disagree, this conversation has a tone in which we are dealing with the problem - now lets see over the course of some give and take how we can get closer to a solution that maybe people can get behind!


It is, and that's the prevailing view in Washington as well.

I agree it is the prevailing view. As to if its necessary - well you put forth a good arguement as to why.

Then you're getting into a completely different argument altogether.

Maybe. But lets not dismiss it quite yet since you bring up the point in a way below.

Ok, I'll go with you on your tangent. The social safety net was enacted because the world we lived in without it was brutal and cruel. Some have the attitude of "oh the government's gone wrong, it's made all these mistakes getting into the health insurance and food stamp business. etc etc." as if there was no good reason for the programs to be enacted in the first place. The days of debtor prisons and the elderly's only choice, as a rule, was having to live in squalor or with relatives are too far gone for anyone alive today to remember. Maybe that's why there's these pushbacks against the programs that eliminated these things. Do we really want to go back to the days of child labor? Do we want to go back to people dying in the streets or in sanitariums? Would it be an improvement to tell the elderly "welp, you've used up your usefulness and you can't work anymore, so unless you've saved and had good luck with your investments, piss off!" I don't think that's a world I'd like to go back to.

Like almost every well meaning idea - there are success and failures. Things like Medicaid, Welfare, Food Stamps, even Social Security, were all programs started with wonderful intentions. You are right in the point that none of us want to "go back to" those bad old days. The problem is that while these programs have alleviated some problems - they have created more.

The elderly do not always have multiple sources of income. Many survive on a "fixed income" that is - under most cases - almost all Social Security. That means in 2011, they recieved less than $1200 a month.

Social Security benefits represent about 41% of the elderly's income, according to the Social Security Administration. But 22% of married couples and 43% of singles rely on the monthly checks for 90% of their income. http://money.cnn.com/2011/10/19/news/economy/Social_security_cola_increase/index.htm

Nearly 1 out of 4 elderly rely almost exclusively on SS payments. And the amount they get is just barely enough to keep them above the federal poverty numbers. And that is not counting all the other help they get - with Medicare, etc. Just ask AARP about whether or not subsistance (and not a "living wage" amount) is sufficient for the elderly.

Welfare - the most the state will allow in TANF is usually around $650 - Still well below the poverty cutoff. If you make money, you lose benefit money. So welfare is not lifting people out of poverty - and in some ways its incentivizing them to not work a "low paying" job.... so instead of a solution, its prolonging the problem....

Continuing the cycle and exacerbating the situation for those who are poor is trapping people in poverty - so how is this "better"?

Soooo, social Darwinism? No thanks. As I said before, that's a brutal way of life.

In 1973, 22.9 Million people were considerd to be "poor". In 2010, that number had more than doubled to 46.2 Million people. Given population growth - that is a growth in percentage - of 4%.

http://npc.umich.edu/poverty/
http://bottomline.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/09/13/7742437-poverty-rate-hits-18-year-high-as-median-income-falls

The number of poor people in the country has more than doubled in less than 30 years... No matter how you slice it, poverty has grown. So how are we doing on that whole "war on poverty" thing? How are social programs ending the issue of poverty in this country? Answer - they are not....

The "social safety net" has become an utter failure. Continuing to support programs that "make you feel good" because of their purpose - but are abject failures - thus leaving the poor worse off than before - is just as much social Darwinism.

Telling the disadvantaged that they just have to suck it up and tough poop for your disadvantage is pretty heartless and mean spirited.

So is promising them help, only to have that "help" be a hinderance instead. Especially when it comes at the expense of others through forced wealth distribuiton at the behest of the government tax man.

""Any society, any nation, is judged on the basis of how it treats its weakest members ; the last, the least, the littlest." - Cardinal Mahoney or Ghandi or a million other sources. Still a good quote though. And if you don't care for that one, there's always "Whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me." - Jesus.

Seriously - if your going to quote Jesus - please provide context. This is at the judgement - and it was those who never CHOSE to follow the Lamb that would be told this - because good works do not earn you a pass into heaven. If anything - the quote proves the point - we could all claim to have clothed the destitute, fed the hungry, comforted the poor - because the government did it with our money. And Jesus says - that doesn't fly. Doing it for the wrong reason (be it because it makes you feel good about yourself - or because the "gubment" makes you) is a fail. Still, I digress.....

Now I submit that we need to consider that if the "answer" we have used for more than 30 years has failed - its time to come up with a new answer to the problem.

There is nothing wrong with true charity - and that must be a component of the answer. But charity cannot be mandated by the government. However, government does have a place in encouraging charity.

Why not make charitable gifts deductable on a dollar for dollar basis? This alone would spur charitable giving like nothing else! Since private (and especially - local) charities are more agile and efficient, more of the giving would go to actually helping those who need it.

One other idea is to make donations of time tax deductible. Say $1 an hour. This would encourage volunteerism as well, allowing charities to better reach those who need help.

These changes alone would result in a massive outpouring of support to those most able to help the needy. Isn't that the purpose?

I hope that those reading this don't misunderstand - I recognize the desire to help the underprivileged - and I applaud it. I do what I can - and I encourage others to do so as well. Conservatives are not cold hearted bastids - ok well some are but most are not. We simple see how personal choice - combined with encouragement and not coercion - could do so much more for this wonderful country of ours. We were founded on the right to choose -to help or not - to reach out or not, as we see fit. We can find ways to encourage our fellows to reach out - without using the force of government to pick their pockets.

*edit - I just got told that time is actually tax deductible - good! Lets increase that!*

[mookiemookie]

In 1973, 22.9 Million people were considerd to be "poor". In 2010, that number had more than doubled to 46.2 Million people. Given population growth - that is a growth in percentage - of 4%.

http://npc.umich.edu/poverty/
http://bottomline.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/09/13/7742437-poverty-rate-hits-18-year-high-as-median-income-falls

The number of poor people in the country has more than doubled in less than 30 years... No matter how you slice it, poverty has grown. So how are we doing on that whole "war on poverty" thing? How are social programs ending the issue of poverty in this country? Answer - they are not.... How much worse would those numbers be if the programs weren't there? Income disparity is a troubling problem...the rich are getting richer, while the ranks of the poor keep expanding. It can't continue, and I see it as one of the biggest threats to our country. History shows that unchecked income inequality in a country will lead to its downfall.

http://masteringmusicblog.com/wp-includes/js/french-revolution-timeline-i8.gif

The rich are richer than ever before. Scary. And no, it's not because of merit and hard work.

http://img.slate.com/media/1/123125/2265681/2266033/100902_GD_Part1_PikettySaez-fig1.gif

There is nothing wrong with true charity - and that must be a component of the answer. But charity cannot be mandated by the government. However, government does have a place in encouraging charity.

Why not make charitable gifts deductable on a dollar for dollar basis? This alone would spur charitable giving like nothing else! Since private (and especially - local) charities are more agile and efficient, more of the giving would go to actually helping those who need it.

One other idea is to make donations of time tax deductible. Say $1 an hour. This would encourage volunteerism as well, allowing charities to better reach those who need help.

These changes alone would result in a massive outpouring of support to those most able to help the needy. Isn't that the purpose?

I hope that those reading this don't misunderstand - I recognize the desire to help the underprivileged - and I applaud it. I do what I can - and I encourage others to do so as well. Conservatives are not cold hearted bastids - ok well some are but most are not. We simple see how personal choice - combined with encouragement and not coercion - could do so much more for this wonderful country of ours. We were founded on the right to choose -to help or not - to reach out or not, as we see fit. We can find ways to encourage our fellows to reach out - without using the force of government to pick their pockets.

*edit - I just got told that time is actually tax deductible - good! Lets increase that!*

Charity is fine. But someone's right to life shouldn't depend on whether a rich person is feeling generous that day.

[Onkel Neal]

Charity is fine. But someone's right to life shouldn't depend on whether a rich person is feeling generous that day.


What? :o Has it come to this, someone's right to life depends on the govt taxing the rich?

I'm sure you didn't mean that the way it sounds, Mookie. I sure hope a guy like me can get by ok without assistance from the rich (however they are defined).

[CaptainHaplo]

How much worse would those numbers be if the programs weren't there?

How much better would it be if those programs were not there? We have no way of knowing either way....

Income disparity is a troubling problem...the rich are getting richer, while the ranks of the poor keep expanding. It can't continue, and I see it as one of the biggest threats to our country. History shows that unchecked income inequality in a country will lead to its downfall.

The rich are richer than ever before. Scary. And no, it's not because of merit and hard work.

So instead of addressing the proven failure of the "social net" system, we jump to "lets just bash the rich"? That doesn't address the problem.

Someone please explain to me why we should blindly continue on using a system that is demonstratably a failure at its stated goal. Someone please explain to me why even discussing changing a failed system that is proven to trap more and more people in poverty into something that has the potential to actually be more effective to help the underpriviledged is somehow "hearless and cold".

Someone explain to me why it makes sense to continue down a road that shows us that doing so will only create more poor people. Is this what we want for our countrymen? I say no - and thus the failed answer needs to change - else we doom even more people to poverty. We are better than that.

Charity is fine. But someone's right to life shouldn't depend on whether a rich person is feeling generous that day.

You have made the accusation - so by all means - show us how someone will lose their life if the strategy for the war on poverty were to change. I have already shown how NOT changing it means making more people poor, so you need to show how changes to the system are somehow automatically going to "kill people".

[Bubblehead1980]

I disagree wholeheartedly. First, it's no big news that Limbaugh is an entertainer, and pretty much a terrible person. While I agree with much of what he says on a theoretical level, how he says it is irresponsible, mean, and downright uncivil. He's embarrasing. And he's hypocritical. I remember years ago how he would rant and rave about Ted Kennedy's alchohol habits, pretty much ripping him apart. Which is ok, except Limbaugh has his own substance abuse issues.:nope:

And his comments about this woman were way across the line--and stupid. Where does he get this idea that she's having "lots of sex". You pretty much have to take the pill every day, regardless of how often you engage in sex. :-?

As for the "religious freedom" aspect of this, I don't understand at all how religious people think everything is about them and their religion. So what if insurance covers contraception. That's great! It means fewer unwanted pregnancies and fewer abortions. Hell, I am all in favor of free birth control for everybody, and I hope they use it.

Well her claim about $3,000 a year is total bull.I remember my ex spent $50 a month, does not add up.I have heard others mention can get it for $20, sure the numbers are a little different depending on insurance, or lack there of etc etc but nowhere near three grand, just an outrageous figure from a democratic/feminist operative with an agenda, not the all american student the Dems tried to make her out to be.I believe Limbaugh was lampooning her ridiculous claims as the sarcasm in his voice was pretty easy to detect.I found his remarks somewhat amusing as did many others but as usual the fems, the dems and others who can't handle satire etc because it offends their politically correct sensibilities are just full of "moral outrage" and self righteous indignation.

The religious freedom aspect, which is the real issue not contraception itself, is a constitutional right.The federal government has absolutely no authority under the constitution to require a church to pay for something or do anything that is against it's own teachings.A church buys health insurance but does not want their policy to cover contraception, that is their right to do so.

I am an atheist and very much a fan of contraception BUT this is not about my opinion or yours, it is about not allowing the government to once again violate the constitutional rights of others.Some may say "so what?" government gets a pass because it's just those silly religious people.Well that sets a precedent and they will do it again in the future, next time you may be your or I because some fool like obama decides he knows better than us.That is why we have a bill of rights, to protect us.

I always think of the Martin Niemoller quote "

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out --
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out --
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out --
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me -- and there was no one left to speak for me."


I find religious people to be morons usually, some are more intelligent than others but they certainly lack some intellect to believe in the fairy tale that is religion and I mean pretty much any religion.Sure. church is a big thing in many cultures and it is difficult to pull away, I grew up in the south so am well aware of that but I evolved away from that nonsense and that is my right, to be an atheist and not have the government involved in my religious life or lack thereof.Well, religious people have a right to the same protections.Like I said in the OP, people like Obama know this(for all things he is, he is not stupid really, he knows the constitution, just dislikes it unless it serves him which is rare as most liberal's views are contrary to the constitution) but just decided to be intellectually dishonest OR they shift the subject as they did this time.I do admire their political skill in this one as the sympathetic press really picked up on it and changed the discussion.

[Tribesman]

Well her claim about $3,000 a year is total bull.
Wow, maths not your strong point either then.

Bubbles, are you trying to prove in simple stages that you are absolutely clueless about the issue as well as clueless about the constitution?

BTW you previously said you were going to show that last "constitutional experts" piece to your teachers of law, which raises two questions.....
did you and have they stopped laughing yet?

I always think of the Martin Niemoller quote
:har::har::har::har::har::har::har::har::har::har: priceless

I find religious people to be morons usually
So you have insulted women and the religious, which blanket segment of humans are you coming for next?:doh:

[mookiemookie]

What? :o Has it come to this, someone's right to life depends on the govt taxing the rich?

I'm sure you didn't mean that the way it sounds, Mookie. I sure hope a guy like me can get by ok without assistance from the rich (however they are defined).

Food and medicine wouldn't fall under right to life?



So instead of addressing the proven failure of the "social net" system, we jump to "lets just bash the rich"? That doesn't address the problem.]/quote] You're the one that brought up the expanding ranks of poor.

[quote]Someone please explain to me why we should blindly continue on using a system that is demonstratably a failure at its stated goal. Someone please explain to me why even discussing changing a failed system that is proven to trap more and more people in poverty into something that has the potential to actually be more effective to help the underpriviledged is somehow "hearless and cold".

Someone explain to me why it makes sense to continue down a road that shows us that doing so will only create more poor people. Is this what we want for our countrymen? I say no - and thus the failed answer needs to change - else we doom even more people to poverty. We are better than that.



You have made the accusation - so by all means - show us how someone will lose their life if the strategy for the war on poverty were to change. I have already shown how NOT changing it means making more people poor, so you need to show how changes to the system are somehow automatically going to "kill people".

You're going to help the starving and those without any way of getting health insurance... by taking away their food stamps and Medicare. That's pants on head crazy.

[Platapus]

But i'm not buying a chemical. I'm buying a little white oval pill that somebody says contains a certain amount of a chemical. Now I wouldn't care if it was laundry detergent but when it comes to health maintaining drugs I just like knowing who that somebody is.

You can always ask your doctor if you are concerned. If you still have questions, consult the PDR. If you are still concerned, you can pull the FDA report on the generic product. You can also contact the company that makes the generic product for information. If you are still concerned, I guess you can take one of the pills and pay for a lab to analyze it. I would not recommend that thought.:DL

But seriously, ask your doctor.

[Tribesman]

But seriously, ask your doctor.
But what about buying in bulk on the internets instead of doing all that silly doctor pharmacist routine, I am surehe can find tablets with pfitzer on the box or tizer or piffer so its all good and reasuring

[Onkel Neal]

Originally Posted by Neal Stevens http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/smartdark/viewpost.gif (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?p=1852788#post1852788)
What? :o Has it come to this, someone's right to life depends on the govt taxing the rich?

I'm sure you didn't mean that the way it sounds, Mookie. I sure hope a guy like me can get by ok without assistance from the rich (however they are defined).


Food and medicine wouldn't fall under right to life?



No, they do not. We disagree here. If you propose that food and medicine are an individual's rights to be provided by government, may as well through in shelter. And dramtatic as this statement sounds, we can start working on a new name for this country because that isn't American at all.

[krashkart]

I find religious people to be morons usually, some are more intelligent than others but they certainly lack some intellect to believe in the fairy tale that is religion and I mean pretty much any religion.

I bet you're really popular at school. :yep::03:

[mookiemookie]

No, they do not. We disagree here. If you propose that food and medicine are an individual's rights to be provided by government, may as well through in shelter. And dramtatic as this statement sounds, we can start working on a new name for this country because that isn't American at all.

As I told Hap, I'm glad we live in a country where (for the most part) the poor aren't dying in the streets from sickness and hunger. Social Darwinism is brutal. It rewards those who take advantage of and exploit others. It necessarily places a lower value on some human life. It stratifies and divides society into caste systems. That's the antithesis of what America is to me. "All men are created equal."

If you want to get purely economical about it, having consumers die in the streets is bad for business. Better to keep them alive and spending.

[Onkel Neal]

As I told Hap, I'm glad we live in a country where (for the most part) the poor aren't dying in the streets from sickness and hunger. Social Darwinism is brutal. It rewards those who take advantage of and exploit others. It necessarily places a lower value on some human life. It stratifies and divides society into caste systems. That's the antithesis of what America is to me. "All men are created equal."

If you want to get purely economical about it, having consumers die in the streets is bad for business. Better to keep them alive and spending.


I want to make it clear, I am not trying to argue with you for the sake of being contrary :) Yes, I am glad we are living in a country where the poor aren't dying in the streets, too. I would be even happier living in a country where people don't quit high school, form gangs, make rap music, and engage in organized crime. Unfortunately, people are free to choose those paths. I am glad we live in a country where (still) people are held accountable for their own choices.

We're a long way from Social Darwinism, and historically, America has been a country that provides opportunity and freedom, it does not guarantee food and medicine. I'm ok with people who want that to be a new part of the equation, but get used to being told that it is not American, because, historically, it is not.

[CaptainHaplo]

You're going to help the starving and those without any way of getting health insurance... by taking away their food stamps and Medicare. That's pants on head crazy.

So keeping programs that increase the number of poor is the right path? That's crazy too....

Its only crazy to close doors when you don't open others. I proposed the opposite. Your ignoring half the equation, and apparently doing it on purpose.

I have a friend who is part of Manna food bank. They provide food for a number of other charities, as well as direct to society. I asked him how many people he could feed if he got 10% of what is spent in foodstamp purchases in the area. Granted - we have no hard numbers - but his answer was quick and sure - 20% of the people getting foodstamps was what he could feed. That is with nutritious meals - not the crap that many snap recipients choose to purchase. Nothing the government does is efficient. Thus - it is wasteful.

When you can do more with less because its not government run, when you can do more with less because its done out of compassion and a desire to help, instead of compulsory by government, its foolish to not do so. Unless of course, you don't care about results......

Quite honestly - that is my biggest gripe with the left - results don't matter, only the "intent" when it comes to entitlements.

*edit - I also take exception to it being "their" foodstamps etc... They didn't pay for them - we of the working class did. It just shows how screwed up the thinking is - one person pays so another person can lay claim to something.

[August]

You can always ask your doctor if you are concerned. If you still have questions, consult the PDR. If you are still concerned, you can pull the FDA report on the generic product. You can also contact the company that makes the generic product for information. If you are still concerned, I guess you can take one of the pills and pay for a lab to analyze it. I would not recommend that thought.:DL

But seriously, ask your doctor.

I've already talked to her about it and she shares my concerns. The PDR and FDA report are immaterial to my point here. I know what the drug is supposed to do. That's not the issue.

My problem with generic drugs in general is the difficulty of maintaining quality controls on a drug being made by numerous, often obscure and unknown companies located God knows where.

[Tribesman]

My problem with generic drugs in general is the difficulty of maintaining quality controls on a drug being made by numerous, often obscure and unknown companies located God knows where.
Good point, what is needed is more rigorous government enforcement and more government regulation.
After all if a label says the company and the product have been identified and approved by the government then they had better not be an obscure unknown company from god knows where and the product had better be what it says it is.

[mookiemookie]

So keeping programs that increase the number of poor is the right path? That's crazy too....

Its only crazy to close doors when you don't open others. I proposed the opposite. Your ignoring half the equation, and apparently doing it on purpose

Nope. I already said that whether someone eats or not shouldn't depend on how generous another person feels that day.

[AVGWarhawk]

I find religious people to be morons usually

Prominent figures in history were religious people. The everyday Joe is a religious person. There were the folks that believed in something greater than themselves including a country free to do as one wants. The same freedoms you enjoy today. Morons...

[krashkart]

Prominent figures in history were religious people. The everyday Joe is a religious person. There were the folks that believed in something greater than themselves including a country free to do as one wants. The same freedoms you enjoy today. Morons...

Morons indeed. :roll: I wish I could be a moron, too. But I'm too selfish. :O:

[Takeda Shingen]

Prominent figures in history were religious people. The everyday Joe is a religious person. There were the folks that believed in something greater than themselves including a country free to do as one wants. The same freedoms you enjoy today. Morons...

Indeed. Isaac Newton was religious. So was Johann Sebastian Bach. Louis Pateur, the Wright Brothers, astronaut Jim Irwin, George Washington and even Bubblehead's own beloved Ronald Reagan were all noted adherents to religion. This list of great and brilliant people who were also religious goes on and on.

[mookiemookie]

You guys and your pesky "facts" are getting in the way of Bubs' mission to offend every group of people on the planet.

[Hottentot]

This list of great and brilliant people who were also religious goes on and on.

It doesn't even have to be black&white "religious / not religious" mentality. Machiavelli, for example, was fairly critical towards Christianity and yet sited Moses as a kind of a great person needed to build a flourishing republic. To him the characters of the Bible likely were historical persons, much like he considered Lycurgus of Sparta such great person.

What a moron, huh?

[Torplexed]

On a side note a bust of Rush Limbaugh is to be installed in St. Louis.

House Speaker Steve Tilley, R-Perryville, intends to honor Limbaugh with a place in the Hall of Famous Missourians, a ring of busts in the Capitol rotunda recognizing prominent Missourians. http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/g...1a44b87fa.html (http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/bust-of-rush-limbaugh-to-join-twain-s-others-in/article_4aba525d-c395-5b3a-8860-0131a44b87fa.html)

Tilley defended his decision by saying "It's not the Hall of Universally Loved Missourians. It's the Hall of Famous Missourians." Does that mean Jesse James or James Earl Ray will qualify?

I wonder how much will it cost Missouri taxpayers every time it's vandalized? :doh:

[Onkel Neal]

On a side note a bust of Rush Limbaugh is to be installed in St. Louis.


http://penroseonpolitics.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/rushs-bust-blog-3-6-12.jpg

[Torplexed]

http://penroseonpolitics.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/rushs-bust-blog-3-6-12.jpg

:rotfl2:My compliments to the cartoonist. :salute:

[Sailor Steve]

Does that mean Jesse James or James Earl Ray will qualify?
:rotfl2:

Great point! :rock:

[August]

:rotfl2:

Great point! :rock:

Jesse James would but Ray doesn't have much name recognition nowadays.