Feeds:
Posts
Comments


If someone has evidence to show how Romney is going to be ‘so much better’ than Obama, please bring it forward. (and because ‘he says so’ is not evidence – I can show you how he says just about anything to garner support)

How is Romney ‘better’?

We can’t say he’ll be better when it comes to national healthcare – he already says he doesn’t intend to get rid of it, he intends to replace it. And Romney said he supports mandates.

We can’t say he’ll end progressive taxation – he’s already said he supports taxing the haves to provide for the have-nots.

We can’t say he won’t be for expanding government, his enacting Romneycare in Massachusetts shows otherwise.

We can’t say he’ll be better at ending cronyism, he’s being funded by many of the same sources as Obama.

We can’t say he’ll be better when it comes to encroaching on rights and liberties…

Romney supports:

Romney is against:

We can’t say he’ll be better when it comes to ending wars. (Romney on Iraq)

So what is he ‘better’ at????

Some have argued that they don’t want to see Obama appointing new justices to the supreme court. Yet when Obamacare came up for a Supreme court challenge, it was Chief Justice Roberts that cast the swing vote in favor of Obamacare – a Bush appointee. One that was endorsed by none other than Mitt Romney.

Ryan as Romney’s VP Choice

Now we are told that Paul Ryan having been chosen for the role of vice president will make all the difference. We are told he is a conservative’s conservative. The media even portrays him as a radical and extremist. But what does Ryan’s record have to show?

Paul Ryan voted for:

  • Tarp
  • the auto bailouts
  • Medicare expansion
  • housing subsidies
  • extending unemployment compensation
  • a national ID card
  • making the Patriot Act permanent
  • the NDAA and surveillance without a warrant
  • No Child Left Behind
  • keeping troops in Iraq indefinitely (and against removing troops from Afghanistan)
  • both the 2008 and 2009 stimulus bills

Ryan’s so called ‘extreme’ budget plan doesn’t even seek to balance the federal budget until the year 2045!

Ahhh, but some say ‘he is a supporter of Rand’ or at least that he mentions the ideas of Ayn Rand and brings them into the forefront of national news. Let’s recall how he last chose to spoke of Ayn Rand:

“I later in life learned about what her philosophy was, it’s called Objectivism. It’s something that I completely disagree with.”- Paul Ryan on Real Clear Politics

The best that objectivists can hope for is that Paul Ryan obtaining the position of vice president will lend validity to his assertion that her ideas are not suitable for government.

So I ask again, R&R is better how? More Rationalization and Recidivist politics?


I direct this post specifically at those individuals saying they intend to vote for a Romney presidency either primarily to defeat Obama or for those who cannot cite any valid, unequivocal reasons that they have any cause other than an Obama defeat as their primary purpose. This includes those of you that say trite little phrases like ‘a vote for a third party is a vote for Obama‘ or that call people names for considering a third party vote without making any valid arguments other than an alleged Obama win as cause for not doing so.

The Three Imperatives

So let us say for a second that you are right. Or at least that your claim has validity to it. What you are saying carries with it a couple of imperative premises. Imperative, for any unfamiliar with the term, means ‘absolutely necessary or required; unavoidable‘. This means that the claim that a ‘vote for a third party is a vote for Obama’ requires that certain things be true or at least highly likely. There are three specifically that I would like to point out first.

If you are saying that a vote for a third party is a ‘vote for Obama’ than it is not simply an implication, it is an imperative that you think such a vote would otherwise have been a vote of support for the most likely candidate ‘other’ than Obama. In our current two-party system, this means the Republican candidate whom this time around happens to be Mitt. In other words, by making your assertion, you are saying that support for third party candidates (such as Gary Johnson) are going to, or at least more likely going to come from what otherwise would be a likely Republican base. (again, this is not an assumption, it is an imperative based on that claim)

If you can’t cite worthwhile reasons to vote ‘for’ Romney – or worse, you admit fully that your support of Mitt is primarily based upon a desire to ‘defeat Obama’, then there is also an imperative in that line of reasoning. That being, you assume 4 more years of Obama will be very bad, will damage the country, will do harm to the country’s future, etc.  You are in essence saying that anyone who supports ideas similar to yours would be foolish and self-defeating to do anything that might help Obama have more years in office.

Finally, the third imperative in this statement is related to the likelihood of Obama winning. If Obama was perceived by all to be as awful as you claim he is, to be doing as much potential damage as you say, and if the Republican alternative is that much more superior, then people should be voting for Romney by default anyway. The election should be an open-shut Romney landslide.

But to say that third party votes will so damage Romney’s chance of winning that it will ensure an Obama win requires another thing to be true: Romney does not inspire nearly enough enthusiastic support as would be required for a landslide Obama defeat. Or in other words, Obama’s chances to win are pretty good despite your claims that his presidency is so horrible.

A Reasonable and Likely Assumption

Another implication that is not quite to the level of an outright imperative, but which seems to be suggested by the existence of those three imperatives is those supporting Obama are either too stupid to know better (in significant enough numbers to still give him a good chance of victory based on the third imperative above) or, more likely, Obama is a slick politician who is very good at using politics, manipulation, corruption, deception and whatever other means he can utilize to get himself support. And even if your worry is simply that the main stream media’s biases will simply support and promote the democratic candidate to make up for such short comings, the same reasoning below still applies, only to the media machine instead of the Obama campaign staff.

Although I am sure anyone that fits my description in the first paragraph probably considers the former to also apply, any with any integrity will also admit that they think the latter is also something they believe or assert as a truism for our current President. Based on this assumption and corresponding evaluation of Obama as a very slick political opportunist, this brings me to the purpose of this posting.

If Your Assertion is Correct, Watch Obama!

If what you say is in fact true, that a third party vote (for someone like Johnson) is in fact a vote to get Obama re-elected,  then it stands to reason that getting more people to support Johnson (and therefore ‘not’ support Romney by your own reasoning) is in Obama’s own interest.  If in fact it is correct that Obama is an unscrupulous, political opportunist then he and his campaign/handlers will use whatever means he can to improve his chances of being elected. In short, if your assertion is correct, then if Johnson continues polling in states above 10% (such as he recently did in his home state of New Mexico) such as to make him more a more significant alternative than most third party efforts, then it is in the Obama campaign’s best interest to help him get to 15% to get him into the debates so more people will see him and (by your reasoning), more Romney voters will filter off to Johnson.

So, watch Obama. If Gary continues to show increases in the polls, and your assertions hold any validity to them at all, then Obama should start finding ways to get more attention on the Libertarian candidate. If not, then you are as full of crap as your assertion that anything other than a ‘vote for Obama’ is a vote for Obama.

Homeless God

These are a couple of short parables (and a true stories) depicting a brief history of the nature of religion(s)

Homeless God(s)

When early man first conceived of God he saw him in the beasts and the trees and the rocks.

But soon man learned to make hammers break open the rocks, weapons and tools to hunt and carve the flesh of the beasts and still other tools to harvest the plants and trees for food, fuel and building materials.
He found no gods inside them.

So man decided that the Gods must obviously be in the distant lands and across vast the oceans.

But as man spread out he learned to build ships to cross wide the oceans and vehicles to travel to the distant lands.
And again he found no gods there.

So man stated that the Gods must therefore be under the seas and exist in the skies and even out in the heavens among the stars.

But again, man learned to devise capsules to venture under the seas and built machines to soar the skies and eventually made devices to peer into the heavens to see the distant stars and even rockets to visit the nearby planets.
And still he found no gods.

Now man has evicted his god(s) to a place outside of all reality itself, to a supernatural realm where no one can ever go unless the god(s) let them in. An imagined place in an alleged mystical realm outside of all that we know to exist.

I can’t help but wonder when we finally realize there is in fact nothing outside of reality, where we will send poor God to next?

The Religion that is Subjectivism

Way back at the dawn of man, some men who were older, perceived as wiser and smart enough to sound important would wander off into a mountain somewhere to think to themselves. They would ponder long and dream up many great sounding ideas then come back and speak to the masses in big sounding words and spew out complex theories about man and creation and the nature of the universe. And all the common folk who were too busy trying to please their slave drivers and maintain their meager lives to ponder such things would bow down to them saying ‘oh oh great wise one, tell us how to think, tell us how to behave, tell us more of the truths you have received through revelation!

Yet more amazing still is that 4000 or so years later, similar men who are older, perceived as wiser and smart enough to sound important now go off into the ivory towers of their universities to think to themselves. They also ponder long and dream up many great sounding ideas then come into the public and speak to the masses in big sounding words and spew out complex theories about man and creation and the nature of the universe. And the common folk who are too busy trying to please their employers and maintain their meager lives to ponder such things still bow down to them saying “oh oh great wise ones …..

I was in a number of discussions this week and find that I continually run into similar [false] concepts that people hold. People, when faced with government wrongs, will do little or nothing (other than complain) because they feel they can’t. Or more specifically, they are unwilling to face the consequences of doing anything differently.

An example of this came to mind in regards to taxes. Most people think taxes are too high. Last year, I hinted at an idea in this blog about a ‘tax revolt’. Or at least questioned why people don’t do more while claiming to support things such as Rand’s “Galt’s oath” while participating with and enabling the very system that makes it impossible to uphold said oath – at least if you willfully play along with that system.

It was the responses I got to the concept of ‘tax evasion’ in that post that inspired my thoughts on the matter tonight. I decided to do a little math on mortgages. I started by looking at what the average house costs today ($172,600), what the average interest rate was (around 5%), what the average home mortgage term is (30 years),  and the average annual income ($50,233.00).  Based on the average house cost, on a 30 year loan at 5% interest, this equates to a monthy payment of about 926.55 fully amortized out over the term of the loan. Using the recommended income-to-payment ratio (from 28-30% of gross income) this would equate to a salary of about $40,000 a year so it falls well below the average annual income.

Wikipedia has a break down of federal tax brackets as well as information on state tax rates.  Using either the average income above or the front-end ratio from the average home loan cost, this would place any income ranging from $40-50k per year into the 25% federal tax bracket.  Meanwhile, the average state income tax is 6.7%. This is not counting fees, embedded costs of government in every day products like gasoline, from tariffs or other sources, does not include sales tax, excise and use taxes, estate taxes, property taxes, local, city or county taxes. This does not include FICA (social security withholding) or Medicare and Medicaid, costs of regulation, mandatory insurance, licenses, certifications costs of permits or any other costs of government. And most importantly, this does not include the state and federal deficit and all of the growing entitlement liabilities being accrued by government in all of our names.

Just using the state and federal income tax averages, this means that the average tax per person is going to be around 31.7%.

What made me think of doing this research and the corresponding math is the fact that many of the people responding to my tax post said they ‘couldn’t afford’ to take such a stand. Many even were more specific to say things like “I couldn’t afford to lose my home”.

Now consider, as stated above, the average income-to-payment ratio is 28-30%. JUST the income tax rate on the average homeowner is almost 32%. This means you are paying more, on average, over the term of your mortgage in JUST income tax than you are paying on your home.

In short, you already ARE losing your (potential second) home.

Yeah right!

No doubt we’ve all see the zombie Jesus by now

but seriously folks – same concept if done without the sardonicism:

  • that out of this huge, trillions of years old, trillions of trillions of miles across universe full of literally countless numbers of galaxies each of those full of countless stars – many with dozens or even hundreds of planets, some with surrounding moons….
  • that it was all created by a single God (and here’s the good part):
    • who looks just like us!
    • who built it all just for us!
    • and just because of us.
  • and that despite the absolute immensity in both size and age of the universe, it all is here just so a little ape that learned to walk upright and come up with a few thousand word vocabulary can eventually die in a few short decades and go to some magic place (outside this immense universe mind you) where nothing ever goes wrong.
  • and of course, on this little rock alone, there are over 5000 different versions of that particular type of story – and the vast majority of any group believing any partilcular story, each thinks they are the only one(s) that have it right and thus the only one(s) going to the ‘magic place’.

uh, yeah. riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight

(and to think I’ve been called arrogant and self-righteous by the religious.)

I resent Earth day. So I think it’s about time I had a good ole Earth-Day-Mirth-Day rant.274_cartoon_happy_earth_day_large

I resent Earth Day in part because I’ve been involved in countering animal “rights” and environmental extremist groups for over 2 1/2 decades and thus I am very familiar with both the green movement (and all of it’s predecessors) as well as Earth Day itself.  This nouveau populist pap  is a manufactured feel-good-bullshit day created by a bunch of ludite, anti-industrial marxists who perverted concern for the environment into a political cause to advance their own pet agendas and abrogate rights of free loving people around the world with one pseudo-science-crisis after another.

The other reason I despise the sentiment of Earth Day is because it gives all the lazy assholes who couldn’t give a flying rat’s butt what happens to that McDonald’s wrapper or the pop can they hurl out the car window during rush hour, an excuse to think because they ‘think green’ on and off a couple of times during the 18 waking hours of one day out of the year, that they are being environmentally friendly and responsible.

I have been involved in conservation and responsible use efforts since I was old enough to tag along with my father when he did the same. I am watching out for the environment every single day out of the year.

But these pompous, self-righteous, pretentious fuck heads more-often-than-not will curl their nose up at me when I tell them I actually hunt and fish rather than buying plastic windmills (made from oil byproducts) and synthetic clothing (made from oil by-products) and eating tofu (made from soy beans grown on land that could be used for habitat instead of growing their god damn tasteless bean paste), etc.

So every day for me is earth day bitches! Ya don’t like? Well guess what, on your precious Lenin’s birt… er I mean ‘earth day’….  that will now be my one day out of the year where I don’t do jack squat dick bupkiss, when I won’t stop to think about doo-wah-diddly-dip, and shall not think for a second about not making a big ass mess of anywhere I go!

In fact, I think I’ll take my gas guzzling SUV, drive a bigass long way tomorrow to go to public land, catch as many fish as I can stuff on a stringer, clean them right there in the lake and splay the fish entrails all over the futha mucking dock!

Natural? Ya want Natural? There’s a little bit of #($)@( “NATURAL” for ya !!!! that’s as #@()#($() natural as it gets mutha @(#!@#$@!

I keep waiting for more of a splash! I understand the Libertarian party struggles for funds compared to the ‘big two’ but I would expect that would lead such a party to find more creative ways to catch news headlines. As a result I’ve still remained hesitant to donate time and money until I’m more convinced you can garner more support than in past elections.

Which leads me to a question…

It occurs to me that a lot of attention for Gary is overshadowed by Ron Paul. I don’t like Ron Paul as much as I do Gary. RP strikes me as an all-too-typical politico. The speed at which he threw his newsletter contributors ‘under the bus’ amid fallacious allegations of racist or controversial statements and disavowed any knowledge of them instead of using it as an opportunity to point out the hypocrisy, falsehoods and bias of the media and defend not only his authors but the truth and the 1st amendment freedoms of expression and the press was extremely disappointing if not alarming

But, like it or not, Ron Paul has a cult following of people who think they know what a liberty candidate is. Ron Paul is not it, especially when any issue of liberty crosses over his religious boundaries. But again, he has a core following.

Gary Johnson / Ron Paul

Thus my question, is the libertarian party doing anything to try to explore or otherwise court Ron Paul as a potential VP for Gary Johnson? Gary is a better candidate but RP has more attention. A GJ/RP ticket could actually win an election where Romney and Obama are the other two choices. A GJ/RP ticket could have enough combined ideas in line with Tea Party sentiment to gain their support, not to mention a LOT of media attention. The combined media black-outs against both Gary and Ron could be used as a weapon to bludgeon the media into paying attention.

Have you guys considered this? If it was me, even if I thought it was a virtual impossibility, I would still have someone who’s job it was to scour the press every morning to find new reasons why it would be a good idea for Ron Paul to consider and have them call Ron’s campaign headquarters with those two tidbits every single morning to ask “what about now?”
Whether I like him or not, he would be a strong resource to make a libertarian ticket viable in 2012. (and he’s still better than Romney/Obama)

Evil Walmart

The following is a response I recently sent to an email that was forwarded to me.  The email included a number of quotations of sales figures of Walmart (with what appeared to be old numbers) comparing them to other chains and eventually criticizing government operations going on in the present. From what I could tell it was praise of Walmart in light of all the demonization going on by the progressive left. But I expanded on it a bit.

From the original email:

  1. Americans spend $36,000,000 at Wal-Mart Every hour of every day.
  2. This works out to $20,928 profit every minute!
  3. Wal-Mart will sell more from January 1 to St. Patrick’s Day (March 17th) than Target sells all year.
  4. Wal-Mart is bigger than Home Depot + Kroger + Target +Sears + Costco + K-Mart combined.
  5. Wal-Mart employs 1.6 million people, is the world’s largest private employer, and most speak English.
  6. Wal-Mart is the largest company in the history of the world.
  7. Wal-Mart now sells more food than Kroger and Safeway combined, and  keep in mind they did this in only fifteen years.
  8. During this same period, 31 big supermarket chains sought bankruptcy.
  9. Wal-Mart now sells more food than any other store in the world.
  10. Wal-Mart has approx 3,900 stores in the USA of which 1,906 are Super Centers; this is 1,000 more than it had five years ago.
  11. This year 7.2 billion different purchasing experiences will occur at Wal-Mart stores. (Earth’s population is approximately 6.5 Billion.)
  12. 90% of all Americans live within fifteen miles of a Wal-Mart.

I then went on to add:

Here’s some other numbers. Walmart currently employs 2.1 million people worldwide. For those of you counting, that amounts to about 1.5% of all the working people (amounting to 140 million) in the country. i.e. if we had about 9 more companies like Walmart, there would be no unemployment right now. The average wage of those employees is not high, but the average skill needed to work at a Walmart isn’t incredibly complex. The average is about $11.75 per hour. (the national average for retail employees is right about $12 per hour, but Walmart also has many programs that involve part-time employment of retirees and special ‘needs’ people. This average is also well above the federal minimum wage of $7.25)

The national poverty line is currently at $22,000 which would also place the annual wage of walmart ($20,744) slightly below that amount, but they also offer benefits and profit share programs to many of their full-time employees. But one should also consider that if a single household has two people working at Walmart making the average wage, that places the total household income above $40,000 per year, well into the so-called ‘middle class’.

Just for sake of argument though, Walmart did post $15 billion in profit last year. So perhaps they should increase wages. With 2.1 million employees and annual (net profit) earnings of 15 billion, if they spent every cent of their profits on raises, that would amount to a great big whopping $3.50 per hour raising the average annual earnings of each employee to $29,000 per year.

Of course, large corporations don’t exist to post no profit. Stockholders don’t buy stock to have no earnings.

So how’s about some other numbers? The US government spends $121,000 dollars per second. To pay for this, they have to borrow $52,000 every second. This means that in 1 minute, the US government eats up $7,264,020 in money that otherwise could have been profits for companies such as Walmart. That’s $435,841,200 per hour, $10,460,188,800 per day.

And of course, the government doesn’t exist to post any profit. So what are they paying as an average salary from all this money they are spending from other people’s productivity? The average federal employee made about $68,000 per year in 2008. And we are upset at Walmart? For what? Making money? THOSE BASTARDS!

Last night I had a dream. I was sitting in a park minding my own business when up walked none other than President Barack Obama. Before I could say anything, he began to speak.

“I understand you don’t like me young man,” he said reaching out his hand.

I just sat nonplussed and responded, “To be more accurate I disapprove of you.”

Seeing I was not going to shake his hand, he held it out a moment longer than eventually pulled it back with a slight ‘hmm’ sound then resumed speaking with his political smile.

“Well, I would like to try to change your mind. As President of these United States I would like to offer you anything you desire that is within my power to grant.”

I looked up at him a second to see if he was serious, then looked around to see if perhaps it was some kind of hidden camera prank, then looked back at the President. He seemed quite in earnest. After I pondered his intentions a bit longer, he finally asked again, “Well, what would it be?”

I took in a deep breath and said simply, “No.”

“No?” he asked, “You mean to say I offer you anything you want, anything that is within my power to grant you and your answer is no?”

“Yes,” I said, “my answer is no. But if you are sincere in your desire for me to have such a favor, I will tell you what…,” and I reached into my pocket and pulled out a pen and a small pad of paper I carry around for scribbling down writing ideas.

As I started to write, the President tried to peek out of curiousity, but catching my attention and causing me to pause in my writing, he quickly resumed his smiling stance patient but curious to see what I was up to.  I eventually finished writing and tore off the sheet and handed it to the him. It read as follows:

To whom it may concern:

Today I offered a young man by the name of Scott Webster Wood a favor of anything I had within the power of my office to bestow upon him for the purpose of trying to gain his favorable regard of me and my administration. This young man refused my offer.

He refused it on the grounds that he does not approve of my administration, it’s policies or even my holding this office based on the nature of those policies. Therefore he considered me neither worthy, nor holding the appropriate authority to grant such a privilege onto him in the first place.

But it was my sincere intention to grant this favor. So should this man ever return to the capital seeking fulfillment of this favor, I would like to ask humbly that you take it under consideration should any of my successors be found sufficiently worthy by this young gentleman after my term of office has expired.

Sincerely,

X______________________________
President Barack Hussein Obama

When it appeared he had finished reading, I told him, “Now all you need do, if your offer was in fact sincere, is sign your name down there at the bottom and shove that somewhere in the drawer of that big HMS desk that you love to put your feet up on all the time.”

Obama just scoffed, then began to laugh, crumpling up the piece of paper and throwing it on the ground before walking away spouting only the word “Fool!” I went back to minding my own business.

What is in a word? Apparently a lot of the recent hullabaloo over Rush Limbaugh‘s use of the word ‘slut’ in describing women’s rights activist Sandra Fluke.

Some time ago, I ran into a usage of the word ‘slut’ that I hadn’t previously been aware of. I tried to find the reference, but the Fluke/Limbaugh/contraception story is so out of control at the moment, any searches I try to do on google either bring up that story or a whole slew of pornography. The essence of the usage was akin to that of ‘bitch’. The references I had seen attributed the use of the word ‘slut’ also to that of breeding classes of animals. i.e. on a farm, a female animal considered to be well suited to mothering more animals of the breed was referred to as ‘the slut’ in much the same, non-negative manner that we call a female dog used for breeding ‘the bitch’.

Cow Slut

The etymology of the term is a bit cloudy, it’s origins most likely pointing to a word meaning something akin to ‘mud’ or otherwise un-pure liquid. And it appears it’s usage in application to women of ‘loose sexual morals’ (as defined at wikipedia) goes back about as far as it’s usage when referring to farm breeding stock or dogs – possibly farther. But the term appears to have parallel usage in both aspects going back at least as far as most etymological sources I can find can speak for. It would be my guess that the existence of one usage helps support the usage of the other and vice versa.

So let’s examine the usage of words like ‘slut’ or ‘bitch’ in relation to breeding stock. What would be considered the most desirable traits of an animal you wish to breed. It should have desirable attributes — attributes consistent with what you want from that particular type of animal. If it’s a cow, you might want an ability to produce lots of milk or perhaps to produce the best cuts of meat. For a sheep you might instead prefer an animal capable of producing a thick coat of wool. On a pig you might want the biggest backstrap to make bacon. But all-in-all, it boils down to ‘desirable characteristics’, whatever they may be.

Another big requirement of a slut or bitch, is a lack of resistance to sexual activity. If you are going to be breeding an animal, you aren’t going to want to go through a lot of fuss any time you seek to sire the female. Any good slut would not be resistant to the advances of the animal you bring to ‘stud’ her with or from.

Thus is why I think these two usages support one another. When applied to a female, it applies to a woman who is generally presumed to not be too resistant to having sex with anyone. In essence, to quote an old musical, “she’s just a girl who can’t say no!”

So no everyone is getting offended because ole Rush, a radio talk show host, said something sensational! Isn’t that kind of like getting upset because the sun rises? OH MY GOODNESS, a person who makes their living by being sensational was BEING SENSATIONAL!!! Call out the national guard!  But was what he said really ‘offensive’?  Was what he said, a response to something equally or of greater offensiveness?  Well, why should I say anything, Rush is more than capable of speaking about such things for himself:

Listen to Rush Limbaugh“What is she 30 years old? Thirty years old, a student at Georgetown Law, who admits to having so much sex that she can’t afford it anymore.

And thus, a new welfare entitlement must be created so that society will pay for it. You know, somebody asked me, “Why are you so insulting?” Me? Can anybody understand that a whole lot of us are insulted by this? Here we are, we’re minding our business one day. We’re bothering nobody. We can’t anyway! We can’t inspect your kids’ lunch box. We can’t raise your taxes. We can’t send your kids off to war. We can’t make you buy a certain kind of car. We can’t do anything. And all of a sudden we’re told that people who want to have sex without consequence, sex with no responsibility, and we have pay for it! We’re told we have to pay for it — and if we object, that somehow we’re Neanderthal. Just out of nowhere this comes up.

Now, that, to me, is insulting.

It’s no different than if somebody that I don’t know knocked on my door and said, “You know what? I’m outta money. I can’t afford birth control pills and I’m supposed to have sex with three guys tonight.”

“Well, why are you coming to me?”

“Well, because you’ve got the money.”

“Well, have you ever thought maybe you shouldn’t? If you can’t afford it, you can’t do it.”

Where is it written that all of a sudden, if you want something and don’t have the money for it, somebody else has to pay for it. I think the whole notion of being insulted here is misplaced. There are a lot of us insulted by this whole idea that is growing throughout the Obama administration, that the people who make this country work are somehow not doing their fair share. Not paying their fair share. We’ve gotta be punished even more. And here’s the latest example of it.”

(From Transcript)