The Dirty Trick Republicans Played on the Catholic Bishops

The Catholic bishops shocked the nation this week when they came out loud and strong against birth control. Since studies show even 98% of Catholic women use birth control at some point in their lives, it makes you wonder why they did it.

After all, laws requiring insurance coverage for birth control are already on the books in 28 states.

The answer lies in politics, not religion.

With Romney looking increasingly like the GOP nominee, Republicans need a way to fire up the parts their base who are less than thrilled about him. The slice of base voters that most despise Romney are evangelicals.  And while these cretins may never be happy with a Mormon president, they seem to have an infinite capacity to show more hate for President Obama.

Republicans saw what they thought would be the perfect opportunity to rile evangelicals:  Obama’s recent declaration that birth control was basic health care (and should be included in the list of assured benefits included in all health plans). They also realized that to directly oppose something as mainstream and widely supported as birth control would be disastrous for the GOP brand (which is already pretty worthless.)

The GOP wanted the women haters to know it stands with them, they just didn’t want to take the flack for taking position against the views of the vast majority of the rest of the entire country.  They had a small segment of voters to win and but a whole lot to potentially lose.

So, the Republicans got the Catholic bishops to take the position for them.  These guys are so far to the right it was easy to convince the bishops to do the dirty work.  Perhaps the Catholic leadership  weren’t able to make the same calculations as the GOP about how damaging their position would be. Either that or they were just so filled with hated for women that they didn’t think it through properly.

Anyway, the GOP got the Catholics to run around screaming about how birth control was evil.  To be sure, many Republicans did the same.  But because the Catholic bishops were out in front leading the charge, the GOP could pretend to be fighting for “religious freedom” rather than against birth control.  They could claim they were just standing up for the Catholics Bishops.

Though Republicans would like you to believe that the Catholic bishops were just defending their religion’s tenets, there are a couple of clues that show that the bishops got duped here.

First, as the article linked to above points out, any employer who offers health insurance is simply paying wages and benefits to the workers who are the real policyholders.  It’s really your money (earned salary and benefits) that’s paying for your health insurance, not your company’s. It’s your money, so the only objection that matters is yours.  To suggest otherwise is to take the position that the Catholic bishops should police hospital employees at home to make sure they are following the Catholic religion with the rest of their wages.

Besides, gluttony and drunkenness are also sins.  Yet Catholics aren’t arguing that obese people with heart disease should not treated at Catholic hospitals or that the employees of these institutions be denied these benefits.  Same thing for the alcoholics who need rehab or liver surgery.

The more you think about it, the more you realize how damaging this fight will be for the Catholic bishops.  The GOP has the bishops stomping all over any last shred of hope they had of attracting new members.  In the Republicans defense, perhaps they thought they couldn’t do any further damage to a group whose leaders last took the national stage defending themselves against child sex abuse lawsuits.

 

Posted: February 13, 2012 at 7:48 am

This post was written by Cowgirl

129 thoughts on “The Dirty Trick Republicans Played on the Catholic Bishops

  1. Fair&Balanced

    “the GOP got the Catholics to run around screaming about how birth control was evil.” Any chance you could provide some links or other evidence to substantiate your claim?

    1. Larry Kralj, Environmental Rangers

      It’s simply logic, dude. The catholic bishnuts are kinda like the religeeeious equivalent of the McKenzie brothers. In other words, they need a topic, a topic that will deflect attention from the EIGHT THOUSAND cases of abuse recently brought against the diocese of Milwaukee. MAN! That’s a whole lotta kiddy diddlin’! So, in an attempt to hide their culture of pedophilia and abuse, they played their only remaining card, the SEX IS EVIL card! Problem is though that card simply makes folks laff. It’s a religeeious trick, a sleight of hand, a charlatan’s charade. In Latin, I believe it’s called opus pocus!

    2. George

      I can’t imagine it took much convincing- probably it’s more accurate to say the GOP simply put a megaphone to the bishops ranting. Enter right wing radio and Fixed News. These guys are so outbid touch with the modern world they were thrilled with he attention.

    3. Jennifer Davies

      Those of us who have been following the news can see that the GOP pushed the Bishops in front of this bus by
      1-prefacing their words with talk of how much the bishops want this
      2-repeating at every opportunity how much the bishops want this
      3-positioning themselves as “behind the bishops” which is just another way of pushing the bishops out in front…of the speeding bus.

    4. Davey

      If you have any doubts about whether the repubs know how out of touch it is to oppose birth control, then you missed today’s John Gibson show . They discussed how Romney was responsible for circulating video of Santorum speaking out against birth control and how smart that was if Romney. they discussed it as a woman problem for Santorum

    1. Larry Kralj, Environmental Rangers

      Here, Ingrid, allow me to answer for Jon. ONLY a freakin’ moron, reeetard, idjit, or a person of the Moron religion could be against birth control! You see, Ingrid, it’s no longer acceptable to try to outbreed those of other faiths! Sorry, but we already done BEEN fruity and multiplied! Time to scale back a bit, doncha think?

      I approved this message for Jon Tester.

      1. Jennifer Davies

        Yay Jon Tester! Thank you for standing up for women in Montana and your help to make health care more affordable for women and families!

        1. Mark Tokarski

          His staff issues a statement and you applaud him for standing up for you? Thta’s all it takes to win your heart? I hope we meet in a bar sometime around closing time.

          I’ve got to get into that business – the politicians can’t have all the fun all the time. Give me a set of shears! Let me in on the action.

            1. Mark Tokarski

              Nuance, as always … Rod Rod Rod. Do not always take words at face value. you’re so darned stupid!

          1. Jennifer Davies

            Wow! You are a sick puppy guy. I’m glad that Tester has taken the position that birth control is basic health care for women. I agree with him, and so you imply that this makes me a bar slut? Classic.

            1. Mark Tokarski

              Just saying that you should hold a politician to higher standards and don’t stand up and applaud just because some staffer penned some words he knew you would like to hear. Like, you know, don’t be so damned easy. Make him work a little for your vote.

              Sheesh! Democrats!

        1. Pete Talbot

          That letter still says it all, Ingy. But for a more recent take on Tester’s stance (from the Billings Gazette):

          “Women should have access to full health care coverage, so they have the freedom to choose what suits their needs,” Tester said.

          And here’s the story it came from (dated 2/9/12):

          http://billingsgazette.com/news/state-and-regional/montana/montana-bishops-criticize-obama-contraception-rule/article_4d3530a0-7738-5b71-9637-e9a58c0f763d.html#ixzz1mO4avm9D

          1. Ingemar Johansson

            No it doesn’t say it all.

            Nothing ’bout priests running/paying for the vacuums in their employees abortion procedures.

            1. Pete Talbot

              Pay attention, Ingy. There is no mention of abortion, anywhere, in the birth control insurance coverage proposal,

              1. Craig Moore

                Pete, I think the Bishops are aligned with Shakespeare on this: “What’s in a name? that which we call a rose By any other name would smell as sweet” In other words, what matters is what something is, not what it is called. The Bishops position is this http://usccb.org/issues-and-action/religious-liberty/conscience-protection/upload/Response-to-WH-Blog-on-HHS-Mandate.pdf

                Claim: “Drugs that cause abortion are not covered by this policy: Drugs like RU486 are not covered by this policy, and nothing about this policy changes the President’s firm commitment to maintaining strict limitations on Federal funding for abortions. No Federal tax dollars are used for elective abortions.”

                Response: False. The policy already requires coverage of Ulipristal (HRP 2000 or “Ella”), a drug that is a close analogue to RU-486 (mifepristone) and has the same effects.1 RU-486 itself is also being tested for possible use as an “emergency contraceptive” – and if the FDA approves it for that purpose, it will automatically be mandated as well.

  2. Larry Kralj, Environmental Rangers

    Wow! Now THAT’S a zinger! In your FACE, ratzinger! A good old fashioned redneck American response to the dudes in dresses and funny hats! You see, there is NO substitute for good old fashioned American wisdom! It’s called in Latin, sensus fidelium americanum for you popey types out there! And it comes from the hills of ol’ Kentuck!

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5DcdONaKSQM&feature=related

    p.s. It’ been said that if altar boys could get pregnant, birth control would be approved in an INSTANT by the dudes in dresses and funny hats! And I believe it!

    Look, this “issue” was settled looooon ago. ONLY nuts and bishnuts see any relevance to it now days!

      1. Larry Kralj, Environmental Rangers

        p.s. I heard that there’s a new video out that’s all the rave. It’s called Bishops Gone Wild! Guess I don’t have to tell you what it’s about. It’s rated XXX!

  3. Mr. Anderson

    Both of these articles were published in the Montana Standard on the same day. It’s sad how mixed up the priorities are for the Catholic church.

    -Bishops criticize Obama policy
    http://mtstandard.com/news/state-and-regional/bishops-criticize-obama-policy/article_c454cb40-52e1-11e1-b719-001871e3ce6c.html

    -New suit filed against Catholic church in Montana
    http://mtstandard.com/news/state-and-regional/new-suit-filed-against-catholic-church-in-montana/article_0b2549a0-52e2-11e1-85fc-001871e3ce6c.html

    If you don’t want to read the articles here are the cliff notes. Bishops read a letter to Obama in front of their parishes and demonize the president at the same time that 10 new suits involving child molestation are filed against the Catholic church in Montana.

  4. Dan T.

    Sounds to me like the Catholic hierarchy is trying to distract the media from their sex abuse scandal.

  5. Havre Voter

    Where is the outrage over vasectomy and Viagra. Hmmmm. News flash GOP- contraception is cheaper than babies that people can’t afford to take care of and go on public assistance. Forty percent of births in Montana are paid for by Medicaid.

    1. Larry Kralj, Environmental Rangers

      Back in 1975 when Loretta Lynn released her song The Pill, she recieved a lot of heat from the fundiwackmentalist crowd both catholic and otherwise. But the funny thing was that nearly ALL the doctors who worked in rural Appalachia thanked her profusely for her song. Why? Why would they do this?

      Well, they were on the front lines of poverty in the hills. They SAW the tragic results of the lack of family planning. MOST women there were like Loretta herself who had FOUR babies BEFORE the age of nineteen!

      The attack on birth control is simply bullshit, nothing more nothing less. And the catholic bishuts look like complete assholes for clinging to this bizarre belief, ESPECIALLY since the parishoners have moved on.

      p.s. I myself come from a strict catholic upbringing. Mass every day, nuns for teachers. But I left it forty years ago. My family didn’t. And can’t explain to you how distressing it is for my mother and siblings to hear that crap READ from the pulpit about how if you vote for Obama, you risk hell! These no good slimey bishops are some vile, evil, outta touch morons for doing this. Many in my family have simply stopped going to church. And these are folks who have never missed a mass in the last fifty years! The bishops should be ashamed of themselves, for they have dishonored the catholic church.

  6. Steve Simpson

    The use of surrogates to carry dirty water for candidates or political parties has been around for a long time. What surprises me here is not that the GOP would try to keep the slime away from themselves but that that the Catholics wouldn’t realize the backlash they’d be left with–especially on the heals of the Susan G. Komen comes off smelling a rose in comparison.

    All those ads about “this is the church Jesus started” were just flushed down the toilet by this stunt.

    Here’s their PR about the jesus ads: http://news.catholicscomehome.org/?p=1813

  7. Craig Moore

    Why do progressive blogs like this just make things up? The Catholic Church had been monitoring this issue for over a year and had discussions with Obama’s people. Last November Obama spoke with Bishop Dolan and said he would like what the reg would be. Then in January of this year he called Dolan and said there would be no exception for religious charities, educational institutions, and hospitals. The Church objected. http://www.adw.org/query2011/newsite_news.asp?ID=960&Year=2012

    Statement of the Archdiocese of Washington on HHS Mandate Upheld by Obama Administration

    January 20, 2012

    The Archdiocese of Washington echoes the concerns raised by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) in a statement released Friday in response to the Obama Administration’s decision to enact regulations that will force most Catholic employers to provide health care plans covering sterilization procedures and all FDA approved contraceptives and abortion-inducing drugs.

    Until now, no federal law has required anyone to purchase, sell, sponsor, or be covered by a private health plan that violates his or her conscience. Under the HHS edict, however, virtually all Catholic charitable organizations, hospitals, schools, colleges and universities that want to provide for the needs of their employees and students in a manner consistent with Catholic moral teachings will be placed in the untenable position of having to choose between violating the law and violating their conscience.

    Religious liberty is the most cherished and fundamental of American freedoms. As Thomas Jefferson observed in 1809, “No provision in our Constitution ought to be dearer to man than that which protects the rights of conscience against the enterprises of the civil authority.”

    In a meeting with Cardinal Donald Wuerl and other American bishops on Thursday, Pope Benedict XVI addressed recent attacks on religious freedom, calling upon the American Catholic community to realize they are “grave threats to the Church’s public moral witness presented by a radical secularism which finds increasing expression in the political and cultural spheres.” In response to these threats, Pope Benedict said the Church urges the Catholic laity to have the courage to proclaim “respect for God’s gift of life, the protection of human dignity and the promotion of authentic human rights.”

    As Cardinal Wuerl has previously stated, “No freedom is more precious and deserving of vigilance than our freedom of conscience.” As to states having a similar mandates, they did not apply to self-insured programs by religious institutions.

    1. Margaret

      The President did include a religious exemption – for actual churches- a Catholic hospital that takes public dollars is not a church. Look folks the GOP never did give a rats patooee about women’s health – they just want to find any and every way possible to hit Obama.

      1. Craig Moore

        Margaret insurance programs are NOT put together on single entity basis. A diocese most likely has all their churches and operating institutions under one plan. A single insured or self-insured program would cover all. Most programs are self-insured. Previously states with mandated coverage recognized these combined self-insured programs as exempt. Now, with NO commercial insurer involved, who pays for the coverage under the federal mandate? I don’t see how the bishops have any room to retreat since they have stated that this is a matter of religious principle. Unless Obama backs down to exempt such self-insured programs to honor his pledge to Bishop Dolan that Obama made back in November, that is going to get ugly.

        1. Steve Simpson

          If they have their own self funded plan then they can easily separate between their own church vs hospital employees. Besides, the plan is the employee’s benefit, not the churches. No one is forcing birth control down peoples throats here. If they don’t want to take birth control, or vaccinations, or prescription meds because of religion, they don’t have to.

          1. Craig Moore

            Steve, there is nothing easy about it when it involves principle and religious freedom. As Cardinal Wuerl has previously stated, “No freedom is more precious and deserving of vigilance than our freedom of conscience.” The self-insured route was an avenue to avoid state mandates. To do as you suggest and break apart the program and separately insure the non-church religiously owned and operated organizations, goes to the very heart of the Bishops’ objection — paying for birth control which they believe is contrary to Catholic principles. Saying that the insurers would pay outside of the insurance policy is seen as an accounting slight of hand as those costs for birth control would find their way back into their bill from the insurance company in a disguised form.

            It comes down to this, either grant an exemption for religious self-insured programs or face imprisoning defiant clergy and confiscating church owned property to pay fines. What will Obama do?

            1. Margaret

              Craig- how can they say they are exempt from them the law when they take billions in public money. They can’t have it both ways

              1. Margaret

                Plus, your benefits are your compensation. They are given to you in exchange for your work, they aren’t a charitable gift by the church.

              1. Craig Moore

                Rob, that’s a false equivalence. “Freedom of conscience” to refrain from engaging in actions that violate religious principles is not the same as “freedom of conscience” to inflict physical harm on another.

              2. Rob Kailey

                It’s not false at all. Do you know anything of Sharia law? An infidel woman, even by rape, removes the supplicant family from remembrance of duty to Allah. Refraining “from engaging in actions that violate religious principles” is exactly what one does if one does not remove the infidelity from the family. To not commit an honor killing would be a violation of one’s conscience.

                Now kindly tell me. What is different between men telling women that every act of sex is a punishment as decreed in Genesis and that the physical harm is just what conscience demands – and men telling women that fidelity to faith and family is what keeps them from facing punishment, that punishment being physical harm? I can tell that is the same, that men decree what women should be punished for, whether that punishment be a pregnancy or a stoning. Though to be fair, a stoning is over quicker for a woman who is sentenced by men for being human.

                You say there is a difference because one crisis of conscience involves personal choice and the other violence. I say there is no difference because they both involve men making decisions for women, who they have no right or goodness to make those decisions for. That, in itself, is violence. And don’t even bother to tell me that women unwillingly pregnant are better than women stoned. That is just anther case of a man telling us all what’s better for women who should be making their own choices. They aren’t slaves. They are women.

                Slightly to the side like, I know of two religions that mandate sexual slavery in the afterlife. Can anyone else name them?

                1. Rob Kailey

                  Since no one seems willing to answer the question:

                  Radical Islam, which holds that martyrs be given virgins for the successful jihad in support of Fatwa. The LDS church, where bonded women are tasked with bearing the children which populate new planets for the gods who have lived a good Mormon life.

                  I can’t be the only one to find such information relevant today.

            2. Dallas Reese

              What exactly does the use of the “Freedom of conscience” terminology mean as used by Cardinal Wuerl? Does the good Cardinal mean we are free to make up our own minds? Or does he advocate that we can make up our own minds as long as we agree with him?

              If it’s the former, then allowing coverage seems to be a choice that should be made available to the insurance participants.

              If it’s the latter, what’s the difference between that and a “state” mandate?

            3. Captbobalou

              You can’t tell me that 501c3 and “supporting organizations” for 501c4s are “religious institutions.”

              Look, you can be a church and promoting religious ideas (protected- not c3′s or c4s), or you can be taking public moneys (in the form of tax-exemptions) and providing services to all comers (“sponsored hospitals”).

              Nonprofits are a different business model, but they are just that, a business model. There is a special category for churches — but everyone else falls under a different set of rules. If you’re running a hospital, shelter, food bank, and providing services to the general public, you need to abide by the rules that govern public services. And those rules should be secular, not sacred.

              “Render unto Caeser….”

              There is no self-benefit for religious organizations getting involved in secular affairs. It is either done as noumenon or it is done as deception. Pick one and stick with it.

        2. Norma Duffy AKA ILIKEWOODS

          Dont Mind Craig, Margaret, he keeps talking about Church organizations which do not run Open Universities or Hospitals!

          “Faith only” organizations are a cavernous difference from “Faith Based” Open Hospital Care Organizations, and Colleges(Which are shaped by Federal and State laws to operate because licenses are needed) Craig’s view is a huge stretch of his Imagination! He is only trying to muddy the waters!

    2. Norma Duffy AKA ILIKEWOODS

      Sorry to disagree with you Craig, and the archbishops, but they didn’t want it to become Federal law cause… it already was Health care law in 28 states! They even wanted the President to overturn those state laws…. which he didn’t! They haven’t won a contraception case in any state court…regarding it being a issue of freedom of religion….in 60 years, so they decided to take it to the spin Media, and GOP. Their Politicking of Contraception was a states rights issue first!

      The GOP and the Chruches of today, do not want States rule to be important anymore. Their hypocritical leanings are becoming more transparent each day!

      So the Church, needs to start being Taxed at least on their land Holdings.

      They have entered into American Politics to the point now that they should lose the exempt Tax status given to them, Because they were not supposed to be anywhere near American Politics! Secondly, Any Chruch… That asked for Government funds, and then wont use them to state and federal specifications they agreed to, when granted the funds, should give back all funding Now!

      This Ridiculous Contraception Argument being spun by the Church now is one of the very reasons, the forefathers of our country went to great lengths to neutralize them, from any kind of Monetary Power!

      When America broke with the King and became a country to itself! it was also because the Kings Church was too big! England was forcing Americans who were not of the Kings Faith (protestant) , to build churches, house his priests, and feed them. In turn they became Police for the state. Punishing people who didn’t wear the right attire, confiscating any Items from peoples homes that professed another faith, or looked like religious Icons of other faiths! and taking away children of people who didn’t appear in churches every Sunday! They beat and killed Quakers, Muslims, Jews! Confiscated the ships and business of Americans who didn’t profess the Churches view….or who sold goods to people outside the Church’s faith!

      We are heading right back in that direction with this religious Right Wing BS of today!

      What you don’t believe me! In 1607 the Jamestown Settlement was established 169 years before America became a country! DO you think it was strictly because of the stamp Act and the Boston Tea-party that America broke ranks with England???? One of the biggest reasons we have Independence was to rid ourselves, of over a hundred years of religious persecution from the English Protestant Church,and their church police state as well!

      Thomas Jefferson in his first person account of the church atrocities, talking about what our forefathers did to the Kings religion!

      “The same convention, however, when they met as a members of the General Assembly in October, 1776 repealed all acts of [English]Parliament which had rendered criminal the maintaining of any opinions in matters of [The Protestant] religion, the forbearing to repair the church[stopping the taxation of the populace for repairing churches], and giving freedom of exercising any mode of worship; and suspending the laws giving salaries to the clergy, which suspension was made perpetual in October, 1779.

      Statutory oppression in religion being thus wiped away, we remain at present under those only imposed by the comnon
      law, or by our own acts of Assembly. No Longer,are there common law regarding heresy as a capital offence, punishable by burning, who’s definition was left to the ecclesiastical judges, of the King!”

      This is his explanation of the English christian rule over Americans before the war:

      “If a person brought up in the Christian religion denies the being of a God, or the Trinity, or asserts that there are
      more gods than one, or denies the Christian religion to be true, or the Scriptures to be of not to be divine authority, he is punishable on the first offence by incapacity to hold any office or employment, ecclesiastical, civil, or military.”

      Essentially, the Church had the right to take away any employment, in any town, if they wanted too. Even on rumors alone!

      If the guy was brought on charges a second time, against the Kings religion:

      “The disability to sue, to take any gift or legacy, to be guardian, executor, or administrator, and by three years imprisonment, with
      out bail. A father s right to the custody of his own children being founded in law on his right of guardianship, this being taken away, the children taken away from him, and put by the authority of a court, into more orthodox hands.”

      Yea this is the America, the Right wing want us to go back too!

      This is but, a summary view of that religious slavery under which a people had been willing to remain in England’s America for a hundred years until they rose up and took America for their own, and if we are not careful, this is were the Republicans will send us all back too!

  8. James Conner

    The Republicans and the religious zealots who are beating the anti-contraception drums are going to learn that the votes of women far outnumber the votes of bishops. Having already kicked the clergy out of their bedrooms, women (and not a few men) will enter the voting booth and kick the ban birth control crowd out of office.

    As for the alleged religious conscience issue, former NY Times Supreme Court reporter Linda Greenhouse, observed that “What they [the bishops] now claim is a right to special treatment: to conscience that trumps law. But in fact, that is not a principle that our legal system embraces.”

    Believing whatever they want to believe is a constitutionally protected right for Americans. Doing whatever they think their beliefs direct them to do is not. Believing that God requires sacrificing the left testicle of a man’s second son does not exempt a deeply religious father from laws that prohibit harming children. There are limits to what may be done in the name of religious conscience. The Catholic church is demanding that the government of the United States of America subordinate secular law to the Vatican’s theology. That’s not conscience. It’s an attempt to establish a partial theocracy.

    Obama, who clearly suffers from a pathological craving for compromise regardless of the merits of the compromise, might not have given up much (I’m skeptical on that count) on policy, but he surrendered plenty of self-respect and reminded his adversaries that he’s usually a pushover at the negotiating table. He should not have given an inch. Instead, he should of reminded the nation that the bishops’ approach to birth control is having an ample supply of apple-cheeked choir boys.

    1. Rob Kailey

      Obama, who clearly suffers from a pathological craving for compromise regardless of the merits of the compromise, might not have given up much (I’m skeptical on that count) on policy, but he surrendered plenty of self-respect

      James, we’re in complete agreement that the compromise didn’t give up much of anything at all, your skepticism notwithstanding. And it’s clear that Obama has lost some degree of respect from you. But speaking of pathologies, I’m curious how the Puritopians such as yourself know so very much about what is “clearly” in the mind of the President, especially as regards his level of self-respect. After all it could well be argued that Obama has just ‘pinned the tail on the elephant’. Time and again, he has offered what you call ‘compromise’ (the press has been calling this an “accommodation”) only to have it rejected by the unwavering demands of those against the will of the populace. You’re welcome to call that a need for compromise, but I rather agree with Andrew Sullivan. So far, it’s worked for the President and the people’s benefit. I love this paragraph:

      The more Machiavellian observer might even suspect this is actually an improved bait and switch by Obama to more firmly identify the religious right with opposition to contraception, its weakest issue by far, and to shore up support among independent women and his more liberal base. I’ve found by observing this president closely for years that what often seem like short-term tactical blunders turn out in the long run to be strategically shrewd. And if this was a trap, the religious right walked right into it.

      1. James Conner

        Puritopian? That neologism just might have staying power. Although its application here won’t.

        Obama had three choices:

        (1) Do nothing. Let the tempest in the communion cup blow itself out.

        (2) Announce a “compromise,” thus validating the argument that his policy imperiled religious liberty.

        (3) Counter-attack, exposing the religious liberty argument for the red herring it was, and cudgeling the bishops for their medieval policies on birth control and the health of women. If the bishops had their way, a few women would become nuns, while the rest would stay barefoot, pregnant, and in the kitchen, producing more poor to feed and more choir boys for priests to bugger.

        Obama chickened out and “compromised.” This is not the guy you want on the bridge when your ship enters a storm. He’s got too much Lord Jim in his psyche.

        1. Rob Kailey

          You missed one, Captain Jim. Leading the opposition into a trap they cannot escape. You claim that Obama “has been validating the argument that his policy imperiled religious liberty.” You can’t prove it any more than the religious right has, but you vomit the same nonetheless. Do you work for FOX news? What he did was validate law as passed to him by the branch which makes law. He is enforcing the ADA.

          I don’t see any ‘chickening out’. You don’t either save your desire to do so. Show what you know. You’re the political analyst. How good are you, if you can’t actually analyze anything? Here’s an analysis: women get to control what happens to their own bodies under the edicts of Obama. Their ship enters the storm, and it has, then they win.

          You got a problem with that, James?

              1. James Conner

                I’ll give you a C for your use of a false dichotomy to load a question; a B for loyalty to Rob.

                But there’s really no defense for the argumentum ad hominem style of debate he employes when he’s frustrated by his inability to persuade the other guy of the wisdom of his views. At that point he too often abandons civility and starts blackjacking the other guy instead of addressing the subject being debated.

                You want to help your friend? Sit him down and teach him how to chill out on the web.

                1. Rob Kailey

                  James, you’re hardly an in a position to be giving grades on the Internet. That would be the fallacy of False Authority. That’s the same one you used when giving us your learned psychological opinion of Barrack Obama.

                  In case you’ve missed it these long years, Mr. Conner, I find it intensely funny when people pretend to have prowess they don’t have. I am amused. I share that trait with Larry, though I don’t share the jokes with others quite as often as he does. You’re a smart guy. But two years I watched FAUX news hire psychoanalysts time and again to ‘shrink’ that Kenyon in the White House. Here you come in and do the same thing with the same predictable result. Your analysis has gaping holes. You can tell me what’s in the President’s head and then tell me what’s bad about what is clearly good based on that ‘analysis’. The problem is, your assumptions about your prowess in psychology have left me unconvinced – and it tickles my funny bone.

                  The problem you have, Mr. Conner, is that people might not agree. If they disagree in a manner you find unfit, then most assuredly there must be something wrong with them. Here’s a hint. That’s arrogant, myopic and unbelievably amusing to me. You, again appealing to authority you don’t have, suggest that I be taught how to “chill out on the Internet”. That same sense of authority was used to ignore the relevant facts in favor of a mental diagnosis. Now how can you dictate what is “chill” when I’m laughing at your giant blindspot?

                  Women have ‘been granted’ a right (a word I do not use loosely) to something they have agitated for for 50 years. A bunch of old white guys, not too different from you and me, kept denying that birth control was as valid a concern as birth itself to the women involved. A black man and a snow white woman have changed that forever. There will be no going back from this. Women have a right to access for their health that they would be none to pleased to lose. This is a political bomb, a total non-starter for the GOP which promoted the religious angst in the first place. Despite what you see as ‘capitulation’, the facts tell another story. Women have a right they haven’t had before. And they will give it up only as a corpse before the victorious pectorals of Frothy Santorum.

                  Here’s the thing about fallacies, James. The word doesn’t mean “I win the argument because I claim “FALLACY” on the bad guy.” Fallacies are not a magic spell. What it means is a claim of argument whose truth value cannot be determined. Just because you claim authority you don’t have doesn’t mean you’re wrong. Hell, you might be right in your diagnosis of the POTUS. Claiming authority you don’t have? That’s suspect, and very entertaining to me.

                  1. James Conner

                    Rob, whatever happened to respectfully agreeing to disagree? You’ve long ceased arguing the issue in any constructive manner. You’re simply trying to enforce — not just defend, but enforce — what you believe to be the policy orthodoxies of the Democratic Party. You demand that people agree with you or shut up. If they don’t, you grab your blackjack and start whacking away. Your conduct is as crude and thuggish as Tail Gunner Joe’s — and you’ve come to revel in being a bully-boy of the internet.

                    If you keep this up, your tombstone will read, “Here lies Rob Kailey, Democrat, bully, and enforcer.” That would be a pretty damn sad outcome. Perhaps you should consider cremation.

                    1. Dan T.

                      I do agree with James in that Obama’s compromise did, at some level, make it look like Obama thought the pederasts had a point. They do not.

                    2. Rob Kailey

                      Is Ad Hominem really the best you have, James? Fine. Let me respect you by being as plain as day. You offered a bullshit psychoanalysis of a man you don’t know employing powers you don’t have. I chided you for it, much as a friend would have chided you for farting in public and blaming it on the dog. I haven’t demanded anything of you, other than you own what you wrote. And for that, you call me a ‘bully’ and fantasize about my eulogy.

                      Grow a pair, James. You certainly haven’t impressed me with your mental prowess.

                    3. Craig Moore

                      Rob, James has views and opinions that many respect. He is a good guy. I say that eventhough he and I don’t agree on much, not unlike you and I. Perhaps if you would grant him a little latitude to express himself I would certainly appreciate it as I would not like to see him go dark commenting here. Pretty please.

                    4. James Conner

                      So, Rob, you’re channeling Tail Gunner Joe and bucking for playground tough of the week because you think I’m psychoanalyzing the President without a license? Because you’re defending the honor of Barack Hussein Obama? Because you’re so damn sure you’re right that you arrogate to yourself the the right and duty to hammer into conformity those whose opinions of the President offend you? That’s why you’ve become a one-man committee of vigilance, hellbent, figuratively speaking, on running me out of town or hanging me from the nearest flagpole? Because you think my opinion of the President is not only wrong, but illegitimate? That I must recant and repent? And that you’re the anointed enforcer?

                      Sorry, my friend, you’re not he who must be obeyed. Or he who must be feared. Or he who must be provided what he deems a satisfactory answer. You’re just a guy who refuses to learn how to respectfully agree to disagree because you’re getting too much satisfaction channeling Tail Gunner Joe and the Pinkerton goons of yore.

                    5. Rob Kailey

                      You’re just a guy who refuses to learn how to respectfully agree to disagree

                      For the record, James, there is nothing, nothing, respectful about “agreeing to disagree”.

                  2. Chuck Norris

                    Some respect his opinions. I do as well. I don’t respect his disrespect for facts, nor do I respect his dismissal of those who challenge his disrespect for facts. I have no idea whether he’s a “good guy” or not. To me, my opinion, he seems a puckered persimmon fascinated with his own myopic view. If challenging him based on my opinion leads to my headstone eulogy being written by him and his leaving this website, then that’s just too bad. I guess he’s just not that important to me that I should hold my tongue when he breaths his august wisdom.

                    He has the same latitude to express himself that any single one of us do. I don’t find it at all helpful to request that I not express my humor, clearly explained, because James might snit himself away. If his mental prowess is so fragile as to be damaged by words I write, and he ‘goes dark’ here, I won’t shed a tear. I like his input. I like his intelligence. Please don’t beg me to like or respect his feelings of self-importance. I don’t. I won’t.

                2. The Polish Wolf

                  James –

                  I’m not being loyal to Rob, nor am I even taking his side in the dispute. You both have valid points. What I object to was the comment about meds. I don’t know if Rob has mental health issues or not. I know he can be aggressive, I know he can attack people personally. If he has mental health issues, it’s nothing to be ashamed of and its a low blow to disregard him with a comment about it. If he’s not, its still implying that people who are mentally ill ought to be ignored until they are properly medicated. You’re not the first to make that joke, not the first to make that joke about Mark, but I hope it will be the last, because from what I’ve seen, you’re better than that.

                  1. James Conner

                    I used the phrase figuratively. I’m surprised you took it literally. I thought it apt when used it. I still do. We may have a disagreement we cannot resolve. That’s fine.

                  2. Moorcat

                    Up to this point, I have pretty much stayed out of this particular fight. It should come as no surpise that I UNCONDITIONALLY support my brother as a person of intellegence and honor. It may come as a surprise to most that we don’t always agree. You should witness some of the longass drawn out arguments we have had. That said, there was always respect between us. Yes, he can come across as harsh. He has little tolerance for Bullshit.. something we have in common. He can be undiplomatic. Again I won’t apologize for him. It is his way and I stand behind him for it. He doesn’t brook stupidity – most especially from those he actually respects. I cannot count the number of times he has turned to me and asked me.. with a straight face.. “Are you stupid?”. He didn’t mean that he thought I was stupid. He was asking me if realised just how stupid the statement I had just made was. And I am here to tell you, most of the time he has said that, he was right.

                    To insinuate that Rob is insane, has mental problems or needs medication is crossing a line – in jest or not. He may be crass and in your face, but he has never displayed any behavior on this site or others that would suggest a mental problem. There are plenty of others that have posted here and at other sites that have. We have both had people threaten to show up at our doorstep (boy would they get a surprise if they ever did…), he has had people threaten his job… the list goes on. There are people that are butthurt because of how Rob has replied to them. It is time to get over that. This is not playschool anymore. Very real issues need very real and direct responces.

                    As far as the current topic, I agree with Rob (big surprise there). People all over the internet seem to have some kind of mystical view into the mind of our current president. Let me be the second to tell you that you don’t. You can try to analyse his actions, but you can’t see into his head. When you make a comment claiming that you can, your credibility suffers greatly. I read James’s post the same way Rob did. Hell, I even agreed with some of what James said. What I didn’t agree with was the same thing Rob seemed to have issues with. If you want to talk about Obama’s actions (his real actions, not the ones reported on by Fox News), go for it. If you want to use your crystal ball and see into the head of the man, I will laugh at you right along side of Rob.

                    1. Mark Tokarski

                      Rod has been known to pose fake questions to himself as an admiring reader, allowing him to answer himself in an authoritative voice … “I really respect your opinions and like your writing … I cam curious what you think about ….”

                      Now you have me wondering if you are Rod too … another of his names for the same mental personality.

                      If not, just understand that some things should speak for themselves, and Rod’s character is such a thing. The fact that you have to rise to his defense … speaks for itself.

                    2. Moorcat

                      Once again, you show your true ignorance, Mark. You KNOW that we are different people – probably better than most who reply here. I can only assume that you are as dishonest as you are ignorant. You aren’t wondering if we are different people, you are wondering if you can turn this situation to something to your advantage. Sadly, “kitten”, you can’t. You are still an idiot and you have once again proven it.

                    3. jack ruby

                      There are also people butthurt about a joke about Rob having mental problems. Who cares? All of this pointless neverending arguing makes me suspect he might not be the only one with mental problems around here.

                    4. Moorcat

                      Actually, Jack, I care. Rob is my brother and I will defend him if I feel it is appropriate. As far as the arguing, I have to agree there. This entire issue (contraceptives and the Bishops) is pretty much a non-starter. The hard right would have been far more intellegent to walk away from this one as it is a losing argument for them. There are far more important arenas that they could be working in that would have garnered better results.

                    5. James Conner

                      If I thought Rob was crazy, if I thought he was a mental case, I would just stand aside and let him rant and rave while waiting for the arrival of the men in white coats. I don’t think he’s crazy.

                      So you and the others who are howling that my quip about meds was an accusation of mental illness can knock it off. My words were just a pithy way of urging RK to calm down, to chill out, to take a deep breath and count to ten.

                      Now, this is my last post on this tread, which has wound its way, unfortunately with my help, far afield of the original discussion. I leave it to readers to form their own opinions, and wish everyone, RK included, well.

                    6. Rob Kailey

                      James, I sincerely hope that one day you and I can have a discussion about what is respectful in agreeing to disagree. You are obviously concerned about my demeanor, but you’ve really said very little about our disagreement. Nothing, in fact. You’ve simply expressed that you wish me well even while hoping that my behavior changes. Is that what you think would be “well”? Quit hiding. Write as much, and explain why, if you actually wish me well.

                      You don’t. That’s pretty clear. You wish well to everyone in a venue in which 40 year old cops pretend to be 13 year old girls to catch 50 year old pedophiles. So who is to be well? The 50 year old pedophile or the 13 year old girl who doesn’t exist? You don’t know anybody in the great Intertubes, James. I’m sorry, but leaving with a smile and a wink ’cause your work is done doesn’t work here. It never has. Yet you can write the headstone for another and feel no shame at all. You so totally have it wrong, James.

                      Agreeing to disagree is stating that you know better but you will allow another to post drivel for whatever reason. It may be political. In your case, James, it’s often that someone didn’t buy your line of reasoning or bullshit. You simply can’t convince that other of your wisdom. You immediately flee to them being wrong because they are what you consider rude. Is that respect? No it’s not. You are not interested in respect, and that’s why you don’t offer any. You would rather ‘politely disagree’ (chuckle chuckle, what a bonehead) than actually defend your ground. That’s not agreeing to disagree. It’s capitulation, with the desperate hope that others will be blinded by your wisdom without ever reviewing your ideas. You have nothing save hiding behind the attacks you wager will hide the arguments of another. You posited the President’s mental state. Since doing so, you haven’t defended you position with one single word. You have dismissed your claim of authority by denigrating others showing clearly how you haven’t the authority you claim.

              2. Mark Tokarski

                Kailey draws praise from other Democrats despite his crudity and thuggishness. That’s because being a Democrat is more a religious than thoughtful exercise. Inside the fold all behavior is allowed so long as Duckspeak is spoken well.

                1. Norma Duffy AKA ILIKEWOODS

                  WHat a lying brute about others you have become??? Most people on this blog have more intelligence in their little pinky then a scientist could find with a microscope for yours! The only reason you bash Rob is you cant beat the truth he speaks! Grow up Mark!

                  1. Mark Tokarski

                    Wit and substance would be of some use to you. Seek them out. Again we have the phenomenon of people praising Kaley as he word barfs, not because he offers convincing argument, but rather because he is a Democrat and so his remarks are not closely examined but other Democrats. It’s the fallacy of the circled wagons.

                    1. Norma Duffy AKA ILIKEWOODS

                      Thats your Problem Mark, ROB Kailey Does offers convincing argument backed with fact and concerns of others, and not speculation unlike you!

                      You seem to take the path of least resistance, the Republican Bubble, where real information might hurt your fantasies, about how the world should look according to you! You truly believe the GOP has your best interests at heart? And the Democrats do not? History pretty much proves your distinction of real life issues rubbish!

                      When was the last time any one of you real christians, took the Arguments of Paul to heart! For he reasoned with People, he never once did anything else. He didn’t push his reasoning of Jesus, on anyone. Nor did he raise a spectre of fear in his conversations, treating everything about Jesus’s Teachings as, “Good news!” Read Acts 17 sometime for your own sake.

                      You see, Rob tries to Reason with you , which is some good moral standing in my belief system!… and all you do is put him and everyone else down who agrees with Rob and not you!

                      Oh You complain about my wit and substance? I do not need to use my wit and substance all the time when I stand shoulder to shoulder in company of good conscience, that understands it and uses it wisely like Rob and Moorcat his brother do… because we discuss the issues as people first not parties… and we don’t make it a personal vendetta as you do! So I’ll continue to trust Robs Judgement on most issues…. no thanks, to your trifling concern!

                      We put the best ideas forward as a team, unlike what I have seen from you and your side of the issues, which allows corporations to write law in their steed…. and you just deliver it like a good little errand boy! Where is your supposed freedom in that, May I ask?

                      Good life, and wisdom to move the state and Country forward, comes from a choir of people( who voice their concerns) in this state, not a few businesses! This is why Democrats put together the harmony of law that works to please all, no matter what party, or part of the country you come from! Laws Must be written to Benefit ALL!!!!!

                      I don’t want to work for a company, I want to work for the people!

                    2. Mark Tokarski

                      Oh that’s not true. Rod, or Monty, or Chuck Norris, if you will, is a Democrat and quacks in duckspeak, and you flap your wings and say quack! Quack quack! Quack!

                      He prides himself on reason, often using logic 101 to spot what he thinks to be fallacies, which is why I made up the circle the wagon fallacy. But oddly, it seems to fit.

                    3. Chuck Norris

                      So I’m Chuck Norris now?

                      I don’t salt my food. I just use your fear sweat.

                      My tears can heal all the hurt in the world. It’s too bad that I never cry.

                      Atlas tried to shrug, until I threatened to roundhouse kick him in the balls. The world remains safe.

                      Fear of the outside is agoraphobia. Fear of spiders is arachnophobia. Fear of me is logic.

                      I’m the reason that Waldo is hiding.

                      I’ve been to the moon. That’s why there’s no life there.

                      When Tokarski goes to sleep at night, he doesn’t check under his bed for the Boogieman. He checks for me. So does the Boogieman.

          1. Norma Duffy AKA ILIKEWOODS

            I didn’t see any chickening out either! I saw a man who already had 28 states on his side when it came to this contraception rule….You Know 3/4 of the Country!

  9. Dallas Reese

    So, if the Catholic Bishops have their way, would they not then be making birth control decisions for non-Catholics? I can only assume that there isn’t a religious test to work at a Catholic hospital, charity or university, so those of other religions are bound to be hired. If the bishops have their way, and birth control is excluded from their offering of insurance converage, they would in fact be making a birth control decision for non-Catholics. I’m pretty sure that doesn’t fall into the realm of “religous freedom” unless those institutions DO invoke a religious test and only Catholics are allowed to work at those places. Good luck with that.

  10. Fire Dog

    Around 1973 or so a young upstart Lawyer in Billings named Rob Stephens sued St Vincent’s and the Sisters of Charity of Leavenworth for refusing to perform tubal ligations in the hospital. The case went to the Montana Supreme Court and the Sisters of Charity lost. Tubal ligations have been performed at St. Vincent’s since then.

    This is the same Sisters of “Charity” who were sucessfully prosecuted by the Federal Trade Commission for Anti-Trust violations and price fixing anesthesia services.

  11. Craig Moore

    As to the erroneous premise of this post the Bishops have this to say: http://usccbmedia.blogspot.com/2012/02/six-more-things-everyone-should-know.html

    Beware of claims, especially by partisans, that the bishops are partisan. The bishops and their staff read regulations before evaluating them. The bishops did not pick this fight in an election year—others did. Bishops form their positions based on principles—here, religious liberty for all, and the life and dignity of every human person—not polls, personalities, or political parties. Bishops are duty bound to proclaim these principles, in and out of season.

    1. Margaret

      Sounds like damage control to me. They should be worried. They look like they belong back in the dark ages.

    2. Rob Kailey

      Craig, you claim the premise of this post “erroneous” and yet the best you can counter with is a discredited claim. Despite the principled ‘proclamations’ of the Bishops, 98% of their following has used the contraband they wail against. Despite the principled proclamations of the Bishops, hundreds of thousands if not millions of children have been raped and they covered those crimes up. They make think themselves “principled”. Their own hypocrisy simply makes them look partisan.

  12. Drifter

    Is nothing sacred? To call evangelicals cretins is a compliment. It seems like one trick ponies of any stripe would vote for Chuck Manson if he were the pro-life candidate. Ummmm…Catholics, evangelicals despise you as much as they do Mormons, maybe even more.

  13. Norma Duffy AKA ILIKEWOODS

    Contrary to some opinions in this tread Miracles do not happen in only religious Based Hospitals when saving a life. Faith isn’t the best healing solution for disease. Woman’s needs can be taken care of anywhere there is a caring group of doctors… there is nothing religious about Family planning!

    A lot of preventive medicine is the careful scientific measure brought about by Government grants, and people who want to make a difference in peoples lives…. and I think it bothers institutions of religion because they didn’t come up with it first. Sticking to a 2000 year old philosophy doesn’t bind well, with a growing world.

    Your Right Margaret, The Bishops went to the capital for a quaint conversation with the President, and their message got taken over by the GOP sniffing around for an election fight! But at any time they could have told the GOP to Push off and not mention it… the problem is they didn’t! And that is why I think they are playing to there favorite Party!

  14. Lynn

    Notice the GOP does not care what the Church thinks about unemployment insurance: http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/12/13/388273/catholic-bishops-gop-unemployment-insurance/

    or what they thought about the Iraq War

    http://catholicism.about.com/od/thechurchintheworld/f/popes_on_iraq.htm

    They also believe Heath Care is a basic Human Right

    http://catholicpollster.com/usa-catholic-bishops-health-care-is-a-fundamental-human-right/

    Boehner and the others who claim to be GOOD Catholics ignore all this. I’m a recovering Catholic but I don’t rememeber Jesus only healing the rich.

  15. Larry Kralj, Environmental Rangers

    What kiddy diddlin’? Din’ happen. God just tol me so. So now, I have to take that back!

    http://www.businessinsider.com/cardinal-edward-egan-who-just-withdrew-his-apology-for-the-catholic-sex-abuse-scandal-is-a-monster-2012-2

    CREEPY! How would you like THAT dude sittin’ in judgement at your heresy trial? This moron should be no where NEAR the formation of public policy in this country! Try the middle ages!

    It’s like some sort of bizarre religeeious Star Wars, the Return of the Pedi! Bishop Vader!

  16. Captbobalou

    Loved the last line, sadly. “In the Republicans defense, perhaps they thought they couldn’t do any further damage to a group whose leaders last took the national stage as an organized pedophilia ring.”

  17. larry kurtz

    Seven sacraments for men; six for women. Viagra coverage means breeding more paying Catholics to settle Church sex abuse lawsuits: NPR. Sheesh….

  18. Davey

    Folks probably we aren’t supposed to point this out but I will anyway. This is a fake compromise by Obama to allow the pederasts to save face – and STFU. Obama is smart to do this. Look insurance companies save money by covering birth control. Pills cost less han delivering a baby and baby health care, Requiring insurance companies to “pay” is requiring Henri save money. If Obama had written the bill in the first place he surely would have done it this way, but Baucus was in charge.
    Anyway the result is the exact same for women and companies.

    1. Mark Tokarski

      You really want to argue with Me? Up till this point you’ve let Monty do your talking and you just quacked. Show me what you’ve got. My guess is that you have white wings and webbed feet.

      1. Norma Duffy AKA ILIKEWOODS

        Whats left to argue! You have already proven my Point now twice! You see that little cartoon of the Democratic donkey handing the Republicans elephants Butt back to him, on the end of Cowgirls’s Blog name????? Thats me (the little donkey)not a duck, guess which character you are acting like right now ( hint: its on the plate dude)????

        1. Mark Tokarski

          One, there is no “proof” of things, only evidence. Black/white thinkers seek proof, the rest of us are content to make judgments based on imperfect knowledge and adjust our outlooks as we learn more.

          Two, you obviously draw validation from being a Democrat, thinking that superior to being a Republican. That’s pretty common. But it’s a sports metaphor, as Seinfeld reminds us that we only root for teams based on the laundry they wear, and you only cheer for politicians based on the words they put out in election years. Party politics is a haven for fools, as you are surrounded by people cheering and yelling for the same team, are validated, and never have to think for yourself.

          There isn’t much “there” there with you, but I hope this sinks in – you haven’t written anything of substance since I’ve first read your words. But I challenge you to challenge me on any issue. Anytime.

          1. Chuck Norris

            the rest of us are content to make judgments based on imperfect knowledge.

            QUITTER! Get off the ground, you maggot. When I want your opinion, I’ll beat it into you!

            But I challenge you to challenge me on any issue. Anytime.

            Done, many many times. And every single time you flee into an obvious lie in pathetic hope of escaping your own challenge. You do the same with my brother. You’re just trying it here to do the same with Norma. And for the record, Mark, Seinfeld is full of shit. People only sometimes root for sports teams based on colors, and most of us are pretty sharp about political follow through. You are preaching ignorance, and creating the safe haven of fools. Perhaps you will be king there, someday.

      2. Moorcat

        The only reason I argue with Mark at this point is to A) spin his wrinkly butt up into the stratosphere and B)show just how much of an idiot he really is. You will never “reach” him because his logic doesn’t even remotely resemble Earth logic. He is a waste of human flesh that really matters very little. By his own admission, he rarely votes, he has zero influence with pretty much anyone, and he is his own worst enemy. His only “influence” in his comments on blogs all over Montana (those he hasn’t been banned from) is that he attempts to discourage voting and he tends to drive people away from commenting by his insults and demeaning behavior.

        That said, it is sometimes fun to spin Mark into a cross wearing frenzy occationally.

        1. Mark Tokarski

          I didn’t realize until this morning that “Moorcat” = “Wulfgar”, that “Rod” = “Kenny.” But it took me a long time to realize who Monty was.

          You are mental, man. Mental. If I were of a patronizing nature, I’d tell you to seek help. I’d rather just see you soak in your own brine.

          1. Moorcat

            You keep trying to spin that toon, Mark. It only shows your senility. No one is buying it and it, once again, shows your own ignorance (or deceit since you know for a fact that we are not the same people).

            1. Mark Tokarski

              It was a long shot, and I took a chance, but I stand here before you with evidence: Rod = Wulfgar = Moorcat. The meter of the above comment, and the appeal to group authority is Rod. If he didn’t write it, he and Kenny are identicals.

              I took my first hint when I noticed that he would sometimes invent a name and ask himself a question, as in “Rob, I like your writing and respect your opinions. What do you think about …”. Then yesterday, as he came under attack from non-Mark critics, Conner in particular, Moorcat showed up. The odd thing about Moorcat is that he writes in the same cadence and with the same attitude as Rod. And he absolutely adores Rod!

              Ladies and gentlemen, proof of anything is rare. That’s for philosophers and mathematicians. But I’ve stumbled on a realization, and only over time will it sink in with others … “Wulfgar” and “Moorcat,” Rod and Kenny, one and the same.

              I’ll be damned.

              1. Rob Kailey

                If he didn’t write it, he and Kenny are identicals.

                And your foundation for such an audacious claim? Nothing? Crickets? …

                I took my first hint when I noticed that he would sometimes invent a name and ask himself a question, as in “Rob, I like your writing and respect your opinions.

                Examples please. What you are repeating is the same spam that everyone gets. Are you libeling me, Mark?

                Then yesterday, as he came under attack from non-Mark critics, Conner in particular,

                Conner didn’t ‘attack me’. He avoids any confrontation at all. Try again, kitten.

                The odd thing about Moorcat is that he writes in the same cadence

                Cadence? Are you a master musician now? There is a vast noticeable difference between our writing, cupcake. For one, I’m better at spelling. For another, he has less tolerance for bullshit. What I make fun of, he calls out directly. His passion is truly admirable to me. And you think ‘cadence’ offers you a clue?

                proof of anything is rare. That’s for philosophers and mathematicians.

                I am a philosopher and a mathematician, you dumbass.

                I’ll be damned.

                I most certainly hope so.

                1. Mark Tokarski

                  I’m waiting now for “Moorcat’s” answer. Yes, Rod, I am libeling you. Please sue me at your earliest convenience. Your financial losses must be staggering given your investment in your various personas. While you are at it, please have “Monty” sue me too.

                  One thing I know for sure – you are not Budge. He can be distinguished by writing ability and genuine intellect.

                  1. Norma Duffy AKA ILIKEWOODS

                    Mark the Fact that you keep arguing against many, with witnesses present, and no one is taking your side…. doesn’t it make you stop and Pause…. possibly thinking you are coming at this at the wrong approach? That you don’t have a leg to stand on?

                    Yes. Witnesses being present should assuredly give more reason to cease your arguing anything irrelevant or plainly stupid. Perhaps not in all cases, like you though.

                    Some, I would assume, are unfortunately too obstinate for any degree of rationality to breach the impenetrable ignorance of their mind!

                  2. Moorcat

                    Not to disappoint, I will give you my answer.

                    The sad (for you) fact is that there are far too many people who read this blog that have been around long enough to have knowledge about the following events (including yourself which just makes this new tact you have chosen even more dishonest) –

                    1) Rob has been the author of his blog for more than 7 years. Everyone here knows his blog and the link to it is on the sidebar. Since he posts pictures and speaks to the fact that he lives in Bozeman, it is quite obvious who he is and where he lives. In fact, Mark, you often refer to his profession in your varied insults against him.

                    2) likewise, I also operate a blog. It is also quite obvious (both from my current blog and my previous blog “pragmatic revolt” that I live in Dillon. In fact there is at least one commenter on this site that has met me personally (Hi, Turner). It is also obvious by my blog that I am currently a custom Knife and Sword maker as well as an amataur gunsmith.

                    3) There are at least three commenters on this site that can remember when the Mayor of Dillon had me arrested. It was even covered on Left in the West and 4 & 20 Blackbirds. Since Mark commented on those sites at the time, it is reasonable to assume that he is also aware of this incident. That makes him both a liar and a deceiver given that he is now trying to say that Rob and I are one in the same.

                    4) The true kicker, though, is that both Rob and I attended Matt’s get together in Missoula for John Tester – and that event was well coverd with actual pictures. Yes, there are pictures of Rob and I standing shoulder to shoulder with Matt Singer in front of his house.

                    All of this information Mark knows. He has visited both Rob’s and My site, he was commenting on Left in the West when I was arrested and he was commenting when Matt posted the pictures of his event. Mark has – once again – proven catagorically that he is a liar when it suits him. To be true to form, his next post will try to pass it off as either a joke, or that he was simply trying to piss Rob and I off. It is impossible for the former to work and while I can’t speak for Rob, I find the latter to be quite funny.

                  3. The Polish Wolf

                    Um..Mark? Pictures exist of both of them, together. I’m looking at one right now. They are chopping wood. And Moorcat has put pictures of himself on his blog, which match the pictures of him with Rob. So, it’s possible that Rob is using his brother’s name online, but they are definitely two people, writing two completely different blogs, generally taking different sides of actual issues. Rob using Moorcat’s name would only fly if he was doing so with permission, or Ken had stopped coming to Montana Cowgirl.

                    That Ken comes to Rob’s defense makes complete sense – they are brothers. They are demonstrably separate people as well as separate online personalities. You went out on a limb, and came crashing down from it. Drop it while you have your dignity intact.

                    1. Mark Tokarski

                      ♪♪ If you knew Monty like I know Monty … oh, oh, oh what a guy!♪♪

                      I know that Ken Kaley is a real person, but man it was freaky to read

                      You keep trying to spin that toon, Mark. It only shows your senility. No one is buying it and it, once again, shows your own ignorance (or deceit since you know for a fact that we are not the same people).

                      Rod likes to talk like that, condescending tone, use of what he regards as catchy, or folksy words, like kitten, cupcake, “toon,” – he thinks it is good writing. But more than that, notice how he reverts to speaking for the entire group … “no one is buying it.” Rod often does that to bolster his talking points, calling in the entire group to validate him, and without permission.

                      Rod has also assumed other personae for various purposes, once pretending to be “Monty”, attacking himself on his own blog, pulling up my IP and offering it as proof the the group that I was Monty. That’s sociopathy, the classic springing of the trap. He has also asked himself glowing questions, allowing himself to answer himself – I’d go get an example, but he has taken down all of his writing now at his blog. He suffers from grandiosity, claiming to be a 4.0 philosopher and excellent mathematician, is incapable of self reflection, and adopts the opinions of the group whose favor he desires to insulate himself from critics. He is authoritarian, that is, at once wants to exercise control over others, and at the same time submits to authority …

                      It’s not like I haven’t thought about all this stuff. Yeah, Kenny is a different person, but man, the Kenny who rose to Rod’s defense when Conner went after him … sure sounded like Rod.

                    2. Mark Tokarski

                      If you want an example of Rod both admiring himself and querying himself, go here:

                      http://wulfgar.typepad.com/a_chicken_is_not_pillage/2012/01/nuance.html

                      In it, “LinuxRants asks: Off topic, but what do you think of SOPA/PIPA. I always respect your opinion.

                      Posted by: Linux Rants | January 16, 2012 at 08:02 PM

                      Too funny. It was a post where he was attacking me, and a swooning admirer stopped by. It wasn’t Moorcat, however, who must have been in the Dillon hoosegow at that time.

                    3. Rob Kailey

                      And you wonder why I think you are delusional …

                      I have to give you credit, Mark. Your trolling is superb for one of twisted mind. You’ve managed to make this all about you. ~golf clap~

              2. Paul S.

                It is the frequent tactic of people on this blog to claim that other commenters who disagree with them are “all one person pretending to be multiple people” by making this idiotic claim, the person making it feels that 1-they get to pretend less people disagree with them and try to convince others of the same 2-they don’t have to respond to the merits of what others are writing. It is a pathetic and annoying haven of a small mind.

                1. Mark Tokarski

                  I am perfectly capable of dealing with Rod in all his self-assumed glory, in detail and on any issue. Mind-sizing aside, I became a special target of Rod’s in 2006, he publicly defamed me out of pure spite. He has been paying a price ever since.

                  That said, I am not convinced that the writings do “Moorcat” here are not indeed Rod. I’m not backing off.

                  1. Moorcat

                    Mark, you have never “backed off” of any of the stupid, purile, insane, small minded stance you have taken regardless of the overwhelming proof that you are an idiot. No one reading this appears to have any expectation that you will (with the possible exception of Polish Wolf since he posed his comment as advice). Even the “Monty” thing that you want to re-write… You simply can’t win on this one, Mark. All you can do (which you seem to be doing quite well, BTW) is dig yourself a deeper hole, convincing even more people you are a senile idiot.

                  2. Rob Kailey

                    I am perfectly capable of dealing with Rod … in detail and on any issue.

                    No, Mark. You aren’t. As has been noted by pretty much everyone, you avoid discussing issues that exist outside of your head. Your instant fallback is that there must be something wrong with anyone who attempts to get you to discuss or argue about the real world. In that effort, you’ve tried to build a Boogieman to blame all of your ills on. ~tag~ I’m it. After all, I’m the one who first noticed that you have ‘issues’ and was crass (honest) enough to point them out.

                    You’ve degenerated in thought enough now that anyone who disagrees with you must be tied to me deeply or actually be me. And you have followers in such trolling, right here in this thread. Mr. Conner attempted to denigrate The Polish Wolf for ‘being my friend’ while proclaiming what will adorn my headstone. He did so as if he knows things to be true that are patently untrue. That’s the only method you know, Mark. And it all avoids the actual argument taking place.

                    I know who I am, what I know and how I think. I present it clearly. James willfully missed that part, and that’s fine with me. I don’t care if others wish to be my bestest buddies. You obviously do, so much so that you will create a fantasy that those folks are actually me. But what you obviously can’t do, what you won’t do, is deal with me “in detail and on any issue”.

                    Please don’t back off, Mark. You continually make my point for me.

  19. Larry Kralj, Environmental Rangers

    SECOND! “Malt does more than Milton can to justify God’s ways to man”! Or did you forget? Or did you never know? You not a drinking man, Fr. Craigorio? HEY, than you can’t be catholic! I take great pleasure in reading, writing, and drinking at the same time. Hence, for you, a little bit of evil. REAL evil, and sin that I came across tonight while enjoying my PBR.

    http://smirkingchimp.com/thread/theo-talcott/41391/why-the-xl-pipeline-human-extinction

    1. Larry Kralj, Environmental Rangers

      “Ale, man, ale’s the stuff to drink for fellows whom it hurts to think”!

Comments are closed.