Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker believes forced ultrasounds are "just a cool thing for women," a handful of online news sites reported Wednesday.
Problem is: That's not exactly what the Republican governor and likely 2016 presidential candidate said.
In an interview Friday with conservative radio host Dana Loesch, Walker defended a bill that he signed into law in 2013 mandating that women seeking abortions must also be provided with ultrasounds.
The measure, Senate Bill 206, or Sonya's Law, reads, "This bill requires … that before a person may perform or induce an abortion the physician … [must] perform, or arrange for a qualified person to perform, an ultrasound on the pregnant woman using whichever transducer the woman chooses."
Walker bragged in his interview with Loesch that he and his team, "defunded Planned Parenthood."
"We also signed a law that requires an ultrasound. Which, the thing about that, the media tried to make that sound like that was a crazy idea," he said.
The Wisconsin governor, who is also the father to two sons, then marveled at the technology behind ultrasounds.
"Most people I talk to, whether they're pro-life or not, I find people all the time who'll get out their iPhone and show me a picture of their grandkids' ultrasound and how excited they are, so that's a lovely thing. I think about my sons are 19 and 20, you know we still have their first ultrasound picture. It's just a cool thing out there," he said.
"We just knew if we signed that law, if we provided the information, that more people if they saw that unborn child would, would make a decision to protect and keep the life of that unborn child," he added.
Newsrooms took it from there, editing together Walker's comments so that they could claim in headlines that the Republican lawmaker said "forced ultrasounds" are "cool."
Right Wing Watch, a left-wing watchdog group, was one of the first to take on Walker's comments, publishing a story Tuesday titled "Scott Walker: Ultrasounds Should Be Mandatory Since They're 'A Cool Thing.'"
On Wednesday, multiple newsrooms appeared to follow Right Wing Watch's lead.
Talking Points Memo published a headline that read, "Scott Walker: Mandatory Ultrasounds Are 'Just A Cool Thing' For Women."
"Potential 2016 Republican presidential candidate and Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (R) said in an interview on Friday that mandatory ultrasounds for women hoping to get an abortion was 'just a cool thing,'" read the opening paragraph to TPM's write up of the Walker interview.
Politico published a story with the headline, "Scott Walker on mandatory ultrasounds: 'It's just a cool thing out there.'" That headline has since been amended so that it now reads, "Scott Walker defends mandatory ultrasounds."
The Week chimed in, "Scott Walker defends mandatory ultrasounds: They're 'just a cool thing.'"
Not to be outdone, Salon claimed in its write-up of Walker's remarks that he said, "Women should be forced to have transvaginal ultrasounds because they are 'a cool thing.'"
Raw Story also jumped in with a story titled, "Scott Walker: Women should be forced to have ultrasounds because they're 'a cool thing.'"
Then there was Mother Jones, which published a report titled, "Scott Walker Says Mandatory Ultrasounds Are 'Just a Cool Thing' for Women."
Planned Parenthood CEO Cecile Richards cashed in on the media brouhaha Wednesday afternoon by saying in a statement to NPR that, "Women are very clear that forced government ultrasounds are not 'cool.'"
NOT "forced ultrasounds are just a cool thing for women".
Funny...I don't remembet you lambadting Fox and conservative networks taking 'You didn't build that' out of context.
Because it wasn't taken out of context. The full fething statement is even worse:
If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you've got a business—you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen.
So, that... along with his "spread the wealth around" and is big-gubmit proclivities, it's not hard to hear that in context.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/05/28 19:39:14
whembly wrote: Because it wasn't taken out of context. The full fething statement is even worse:
If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you've got a business—you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen.
So, that... along with his "spread the wealth around" and is big-gubmit proclivities, it's not hard to hear that in context.
Et tu, Brute? If anyone objective listened to that soundbyte, it was clear that the "not you" in "you didn't build that" was a reference to "somebody along the line that gave you some help, "a great teacher somwehwere", "somebody who helped create this unbeleivable American system", and "somebody who invested in roads and bridges". And most likely only a direct reference to the "roads and bridges".
.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2015/05/28 19:48:02
whembly wrote: Because it wasn't taken out of context. The full fething statement is even worse:
If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you've got a business—you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen.
So, that... along with his "spread the wealth around" and is big-gubmit proclivities, it's not hard to hear that in context.
Et tu, Brute? If anyone objective listened to that soundbyte, it was clear that "that" in "you didn't build that" was a referenced to "somebody alond the line that gave you some help, "a great teacher somwehwere", "somebody who helped create this unbeleivable American system", and "somebody who invested in roads and bridges".
Disagree there buddy.
I think the crux of it is that Obama really WANTS to be more like Bernie Sanders and do more 'socialist' things... but, he knows he can't, so he (and his peeps) tries to artfully wrap those sentiments to something more palatable. But, it sneaks through.
What that statement said to me, loud and clearly, was that I shouldn't feel good on the successes I've built... and I ought to give more back to society. It totally discounts the amount of bootstrap'n I had to do.
NOT "forced ultrasounds are just a cool thing for women".
The article which used that byline did not imply that Walker said such a thing. I know punctuation is hard for most internet denizens, but it pays to understand it.
I think the crux of it is that Obama really WANTS to be more like Bernie Sanders and do more 'socialist' things... but, he knows he can't, so he (and his peeps) tries to artfully wrap those sentiments to something more palatable. But, it sneaks through.
What that statement said to me, loud and clearly, was that I shouldn't feel good on the successes I've built... and I ought to give more back to society. It totally discounts the amount of bootstrap'n I had to do.
1/2 right from my take. The sentiment is that no successful business became successful solely due to their own efforts. There are, indeed, many infrastructure components businesses rely on (roads and bridges, in the example, but so many more you could barely count them), for which the business itself is relying on the hard work (tax money) of the general populous. If you run a restaraunt in Little Town, USA, you owe your success in part to the taxpayers from Little Town USA who spent all their money on the roads and bridges that allow customers to access your bysiness. You should feel good about your successes, but you should not delude yourself into thinking they would have been possible without social infrastructure.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2015/05/28 20:21:21
NOT "forced ultrasounds are just a cool thing for women".
The article which used that byline did not imply that Walker said such a thing. I know punctuation is hard for most internet denizens, but it pays to understand it.
Can you see the pictures of the website headliners? I'll type it out for you:
Scott Walker: Women should be forced to have transvaginal ultrasounds because they are "a cool thing".
Scott Walker Says Mandatory Ultrasounds are "Just a Cool Thing" for Women
Scott Walker defends mandatory untrasounds: They're 'just a cool thing'
Scott Walker: Mandatory Ultrasounds are "Just A Cool Thing" For Women
Scott Walker: Women should be forced to have ultrasounds because they're 'a cool thing'
Newsflash.
He didn't say anything REMOTE like that. This isn't something where in context you can read it multiple ways. This is straight up journalistic malfeasance on behalf of the Democratic Party.
So, that... along with his "spread the wealth around" and is big-gubmit proclivities, it's not hard to hear that in context.
So you're happy to consider context in some cases, but not in others?
Que?
Obama said "you didn't build that". Here's the FULL transcript:
There are a lot of wealthy, successful Americans who agree with me — because they want to give something back. They know they didn’t — look, if you’ve been successful, you didn’t get there on your own. You didn’t get there on your own. I’m always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something — there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there. (Applause.)
If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business — you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn’t get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.
The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together. There are some things, just like fighting fires, we don’t do on our own. I mean, imagine if everybody had their own fire service. That would be a hard way to organize fighting fires.
Here's the thing... he meant it. He. Said. Those. Words.
I mean, I guess you could interpreted it as: If you have any success at all... thus having $$$, “you didn’t get there on your own.” You owe it somebody else??
Whembley. There is nothing really incorrect with anything Obama said there, except there is somehtng that doesn't get literally translated in writing (remember, this was a speech), and that is...
"If you’ve got a business — you didn’t build that. "
The "that" in this quote is not a reference to the businss owner's business, its a reference to infrastructure like roads and bridges.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: I mean, I guess you could interpreted it as: If you have any success at all... thus having $$$, “you didn’t get there on your own.
This is basically a truism, and its exactly what Obama meant.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2015/05/28 20:27:09
I think the crux of it is that Obama really WANTS to be more like Bernie Sanders and do more 'socialist' things... but, he knows he can't, so he (and his peeps) tries to artfully wrap those sentiments to something more palatable. But, it sneaks through.
What that statement said to me, loud and clearly, was that I shouldn't feel good on the successes I've built... and I ought to give more back to society. It totally discounts the amount of bootstrap'n I had to do.
1/2 right from my take. The sentiment is that no successful business became successful solely due to their own efforts. There are, indeed, many infrastructure components businesses rely on (roads and bridges, in the example, but so many more you could barely count them), for which the business itself is relying on the hard work (tax money) of the general populous. If you run a restaraunt in Little Town, USA, you owe your success in part to the taxpayers from Little Town USA who spent all their money on the roads and bridges that allow customers to access your bysiness. You should feel good about your successes, but you should not delude yourself into thinking they would have been possible without social infrastructure.
I get what you're saying... but, that statement was incredibly inartful.
I mean, when watching that video & reading the full transcript, it's even worse.
He iscompletely discounting of risk and hard work people put into their business.
Lemme put it in a different way.
Do you agree with the premise that going into a business is a risky endeavor?
Do you agree that you can lose your ass in a failed business?
So... who shares the downside with you, when you lose your ass?
See where I'm getting at?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
jasper76 wrote: Whembley. There is nothing really incorrect with anything Obama said there, except there is somehtng that doesn't get literally translated in writing (remember, this was a speech), and that is...
"If you’ve got a business — you didn’t build that. "
The "that" in this quote is not a reference to the businss owner's business, its a reference to infrastructure like roads and bridges.
Stop... what's the next sentence? (In my mind made the whole thing much worse)
It's "somebody else made that happen."
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2015/05/28 20:31:48
Whembly is a hypocritical partisan hack...Never would have thought...
And Walker linked being made to have an ultrasound with people being happy to have one...In effect, he was saying they should be grateful not complaining that they have to get one.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2015/05/28 20:34:47
@Whembley: Yes, starting a business is certainly a risky endeavor, and one in whoch you can lose alot. You and your investors are the ones who would lose.
Do you acknowledge that if you start a business, you are relying on a whole lot of infrastructure services (roads, bridges, post offices, the internet, phone lines, cell phone satellites, etc) for which you had little to no part in creating?
The "somebody" in "somebody else did that" is a reference to the taxpayers who funded "that" (roads and bridges, internet, etc.), and those who did the actual work.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2015/05/28 20:36:03
He didn't say anything REMOTE like that. This isn't something where in context you can read it multiple ways. This is straight up journalistic malfeasance on behalf of the Democratic Party.
Again, punctuation is your friend.
Is it "journalistic malfeasance"? Maybe, but I don't really think journalists have any sort of special responsibility.
jasper76 wrote: Yes, starting a business is certainly a risky endeavor, and one in whoch you can lose alot. You and your investors are the ones who lose.
And that's why that statement was problematic.
What we have is that a successful business contributes to society via taxes, hiring folks and offering product/services. If the business falls flat, the investors loses money and bears the risks.
Do you acknowledge that if you start a business, you are relying on a whole lot of infrastructure services (roads, bridges, post offices, the internet, phone lines, cell phone satellites, etc) for which you had little to no part in creating?
Sure. That's what makes this a great country. We have an environment where the opportunity exists for people to be successful. All of that is partially created by current/previous tax payers + good ol' fashion boot straps.
I'm fully aware that MY tax dollars (income/local/property) are put in good use for society, such that the next generation will have the same opportunity I had. But, that doesn't mean that if I was even more successful at what I do (after taking risks), that I should will to pay a higher tax rate.
What some folks want, (looking at Obama/Warren/Sanders of the world) is that they want to win both ways.
-If you're successful, gimmie dat tax revenue
-You fall flat on your business? Sucks to be you man.
He didn't say anything REMOTE like that. This isn't something where in context you can read it multiple ways. This is straight up journalistic malfeasance on behalf of the Democratic Party.
Again, punctuation is your friend.
Reading comprehension is yours.
Is it "journalistic malfeasance"? Maybe, but I don't really think journalists have any sort of special responsibility.
Then you don't believe in journalistic integrity? They're just an extension their favored group/class?
@whembley: So I don't think Obama's clip here would be a very successful or meaningful argument for a progressive tax system.
The most successful argument for a progressive tax system is pretty simple: 10% of $15,000/year is a whole hell of alot more precious than 10% of $150,000/year. People on the lower end of the income scale simply can't afford to pay as much tax as people on the higher end.
A progressive tax system shouldn't be meant to punish the wealthy, but rather to shield the poor from excessive taxation.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2015/05/28 20:54:29
skyth wrote: Whembly is a hypocritical partisan hack...Never would have thought...
Nice.
Care to point out exactly how I'm hypocritical? dogma has failed so far...
Dogma and Jasper did a pretty good job of explaining it. Not that you listen, but they did.
Now now... don't be shy.
I've rebutted their statements.
If you truly believe they're right, point it out to me. Youcalled me out... I want you to justify it.
We can keep it civil.
You doing the internet equivalent of plugging your ears and going 'lalalala can't hear you' doesn't mean that you actually rebutted their statements.
:waves:
Come... and step into the Thunderdome of Ideas™. You're talking at me, not with me.
I won't bite. Not too hard!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
jasper76 wrote: @whembley: So I don't think Obama's clip here would be a very successful or meaningful argument for a progressive tax system.
The most successful argument for a progressive tax system is pretty simple: 10% of $15,000/year is a whole hell of alot more precious than 10% of $150,000/year. People on the lower end of the income scale simply can't afford to pay as much tax as people on the higher end.
A progressive tax system shouldn't be meant to punish the wealthy, but rather to shield the poor from excessive taxation.
You see... that's a solid argument.
I disagree with it, but I understand the perspective.
If it were me, if I had that powah, I'd still have a progress teir'ed system, but no F'n deductions or loopholes.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2015/05/28 20:59:41
Then you don't believe in journalistic integrity? They're just an extension their favored group/class?
To me "journalistic integrity" amounts to not lying. How you arrived at the second question would be a mystery to me were you not ensconced within the "HURRR Liberal Media!" wagon.
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
Then you don't believe in journalistic integrity? They're just an extension their favored group/class?
To me "journalistic integrity" amounts to not lying. How you arrived at the second question would be a mystery to me were you not ensconced within the "HURRR Liberal Media!" wagon.
No, it isn't. It is a characterized quote, hence the punctuation.
O.o
No. dogma... these sites are falsely claiming that Walker was applying it to legislated ultrasounds prior to obtaining an abortion. He was talking about his own kid's pictures.
My sons are 19 and 20, we still have their ultrasound picture, it's a cool thing out there.
That's the quote. Plain as day.
Funny how many are talking this up as that you don't build that quote...
jasper76 wrote: @whembley: So I don't think Obama's clip here would be a very successful or meaningful argument for a progressive tax system.
The most successful argument for a progressive tax system is pretty simple: 10% of $15,000/year is a whole hell of alot more precious than 10% of $150,000/year. People on the lower end of the income scale simply can't afford to pay as much tax as people on the higher end.
A progressive tax system shouldn't be meant to punish the wealthy, but rather to shield the poor from excessive taxation.
You see... that's a solid argument.
I disagree with it, but I understand the perspective.
If it were me, if I had that powah, I'd still have a progress teir'ed system, but no F'n deductions or loopholes.
If you're interested in my thinking on the matter:
1. Define a reasonable maximum tax rate, and tax people at this rate with zero deductions and zero loopholes.
2. Define a income threshold under which the tax rate from Step 1 would begin to impede on a citizen's ability to have a decent standard of living, including the ability to save money for retirement (remember if a citizen can't provide for their own retirement, one way or another, you and I will).
3. Start from there and create a progressive system scaling down the tax rate based on income until it hits some income level where only a 0% tax rate would provide for a citizen's ability to have a decent standard of living, including the ability to save money for retirement.
4. Dont tax anyone below that income level at all.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2015/05/28 21:36:20
All sympathies to the victims of this accident in Texas. Politics-wise,this kind of thing comes back to haunt Presidential candidates, and in my mind typifies why Cruz doesn't really belong in a national-scale election.
A pair of Republican lawmakers who voted against federal aid in the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy are now looking for federal aid in the wake of the deadly explosion in West, Texas.
Texas Sen. Ted Cruz lambasted the Sandy Aid package, voting against the measure in January. Cruz issued a statement explaining that he voted against the aid because it included a number of spending measures that were not related to disaster relief, including "Smithsonian repairs, upgrades to National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration airplanes, and more funding for Head Start."
However, in Washington Thursday, Cruz said that he was "working to ensure that all available resources are marshaled to deal with the horrific loss of life and suffering that we've seen" after an explosion at a fertilizer plant in Texas leveled the plant and nearby houses and business, claiming the lives of at least a dozen people and injuring hundreds more.
FEMA has reportedly been in close contact with officials in Texas to organize aid, relief and support to the West area.
Rep. Bill Flores, who represents West, also voted against the Sandy relief package but is now requesting federal aid for the disaster in his home district. Flores said Thursday that members of Congress with whom he has been in touch have pledged assistance.
After Flores voted against the Sandy aid package, he justified his vote by saying the package was "too large" and did "more than meet the immediate needs of Sandy victims."
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2015/05/28 22:11:27
That's a bit of an old story, there.
A bit more current, though, is that Ted Cruz is doing his best to sidestep any questions about climate change in recent interviews regarding all the rain and flooding we're getting all over Texas.
"Through the darkness of future past, the magician longs to see.
One chants out between two worlds: Fire, walk with me." - Twin Peaks
"You listen to me. While I will admit to a certain cynicism, the fact is that I am a naysayer and hatchetman in the fight against violence. I pride myself in taking a punch and I'll gladly take another because I choose to live my life in the company of Gandhi and King. My concerns are global. I reject absolutely revenge, aggression, and retaliation. The foundation of such a method... is love. I love you Sheriff Truman." - Twin Peaks