VoteVets’ double standard

| March 5, 2012

I can tell when dicksmith at VetVoice knows when I’m going to hammer him on his double standards – he just copy and pastes VoteVet press releases without comment so I can’t call him dicksmith. But it never works.

Anyway, today’s obvious double standard has to do with, what else, Rush Limbaugh under the title “Sexism Has No Place on AFN” in which some of the VoteVets ‘tards decide that the Armed Forces Network should remove Rush from their airwaves;

Miranda Norman (who is a Senior Advisor), Kayla Williams, and Robin Eckstein, all Iraq War Veterans, and Katherine Scheirman, former chief of medical operations for the U.S. Air Forces in Europe at Ramstein Air Force Base in Germany said the following:

“Rush Limbaugh has a freedom of speech and can say what he wants, but in light of his horribly misogynistic comments, American Forces Radio should no longer give him a platform. Our entire military depends on troops respecting each other – women and men. There simply can be no place on military airwaves for sentiments that would undermine that respect. When many of our female troops use birth control, for Limbaugh to say they are “sluts” and “prostitutes” is beyond the pale. It isn’t just disrespectful to our women serving our country, but it’s language that goes against everything that makes our military work. Again, we swore to uphold our Constitution, including the freedom of speech, and would not take that away from anyone – even Limbaugh. But that does not mean AFN should broadcast him. In fact, it shouldn’t.”

So I looked up the AFN radio programming and look what I found…notice the name following Rush’s name at the 2100 slot;

It’s Ed Schultz who last May called Laura Ingraham a “slut”. Using all of my Google-fu skills and try as I might, I couldn’t find a call from VetVoice or VoteVets’, “three female Iraq war veterans” regarding Schultz “in light of his horribly misogynistic comments, American Forces Radio should no longer give him a platform.”

Same word, different guys, the only thing separating them, besides the size of their listening audience, and their respective talents, is their politics. So, you take away from this posting what you want, but to me it looks like VoteVets isn’t all that “nonpartisan” that they claim in the last line of that piece. I’m just guessing.

Thanks to TSO.

Category: VoteVets

Comments (85)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Kay says:

    @Anon, your point is well-taken, but Reed v. Reed extends the 14th Amendment’s equal protections to women. Thus, there is a head-on conflict between the 1st and the 14th on this issue, further complicated by the point you made, so it all could get very interesting…

    @Jacobite, funny you bring up the Revolution: If you all with your “no common ground” attitudes were around in 1789, instead of having a functioning country with a Constitution, we’d still be squabbling in Philadelphia, while the Brits would be laughing their asses off at us.

    As for “Paying for my ammunition…” Guys, that’s just about the dumbest slogan out there. You may mean personal ammunition, but everyone else is immediately going to remember how many tax dollars have been spent on the wars. And I’m not saying that as some peacenik liberal. I’m saying it as someone who worked at a military sub-contractor and saw the budgets–and salaries. Go drive past a prime or a sub one day and check out the parking lot. If you do that, and let yourself think about what you were paid to risk your life, it’ll drive you nuts. Here’s my slogan: I’d rather have my tax dollars pay for contraceptives than some contractor’s sports car.

  2. NHSparky says:

    Guys, that’s just about the dumbest slogan out there.

    Is it now? Seems to me that the Second Amendment still applies. Can you say the same thing about BC pills?

  3. NHSparky says:

    I’ll go one further, Kay–should Progressive Insurance company be forced by the government to pay for the oil changes or new tires, or gas for a policy holder because those things are just too darned expensive?

  4. ROS says:

    Where in the Constitution, Kay, does it say that a person is entitled to birth control? Health care? While we’re waiting, might I direct you to that pesky Bill of Rights and its 1st Amendment – you know, the one that says some stuff about religion and freedom and such?

  5. UpNorth says:

    Sparky @#51, I didn’t steal it, saw it on a bumper sticker. Looked like it was done professionally, but it was probably done on someone’s printer.
    And, Kay, you really need to lighten up. You’re starting to come across as just another humorless liberal. Glad to see that you speak for “everyone else” though, much like Ms. Fluke apparently speaks for “everyone else”.

  6. Jacobite says:

    Sorry Kay, but the divide between the Left and the Right political spectrums in the country today is far more akin to the divide between the Colonies and Britain than it is to the divide amongst the colonists while establishing the country.

    As a first generation American on one parent’s side, with relatives currently in the UK, I can tell you in all truthfulness that the Brits have never quit laughing their ass off at us over our politics in all these 200+ years.

    And I’d rather my tax dollars didn’t pay for contraceptives OR sports cars. Fact is I don’t think our tax dollars should be spent on a majority of the things they ARE spent on period.

  7. Kay says:

    Healthcare/birth control come under that whole pesky notion that governments are supposed to take care of their citizens, not just use them to fight wars. Or, if you happen to be Germany under the Kaiser, because you’ve figured out that it’s better to have your citizens be healthy when you need them to fight wars. Germany was actually one of (or the) first government to have government-paid healthcare for just that reason.

    And yeah, we still beat the crap out of them in two wars. But now, their citizens have universal healthcare and ours don’t, which is a major something’s-wrong-with-this-picture.

    Oh, and by the way, why don’t you show me where in the Constitution it says the military gets to put an upper age limit on patriotism? And if you’re wondering what the heck I’m talking about, trying enlisting after age 42.

  8. Kay says:

    Sorry, UpNorth, I was trying to give you guys the respect of taking this all seriously. Your point is well-taken. But the truth is my experience working for the military sub-contractor was very unsettling. It really was an insight into how many people are being killed and wounded to keep other people wealthy. Never mind politics or idealism, there’s just no economic incentive to stop going to war.

    Jacobite, I’ve got British friends, and you’re absolutely right!

  9. Kay says:

    Oops, obviously that was “try enlisting.” Sorry for the multiple posts, guys, but there’s only one of me and a whole lot of you!

    I really appreciate your willingness to reply in detail and not just with snarky one-liners. It’s provided me with good insights into why there’s a divide, even if I’m disappointed that we all remain so far apart.

    I love this country dearly, and I wish that somehow, someway, we could bridge the divide, even if we may never agree on some fundamental issues.

  10. Jacobite says:

    Healthcare/birth control come under that whole pesky notion that governments are supposed to take care of their citizens

    Which in the US is supposedly, and erroneously, supported by the ‘Commerce Clause’. The individual States, not the Federal Government, are the correct venue for the debate you envision.

    The Constitution, did not envision the purposes to which that particular clause has been applied, and no amount of wishing it so will make that go away. That Federal lawmakers have been able to circumvent the intent of the Constitution in no way renders it’s original intent obsolete.

    As for enlisting, show me in the Constitution where it says the military can’t set an upper age limit.

  11. Kay says:

    Hi Jacobite,

    Well, of course, the interpretation of the Commerce Clause is one of those fundamental disagreements.

    But regarding, “As for enlisting, show me in the Constitution where it says the military can’t set an upper age limit.”

    (Sigh) you gotta point there…

  12. Kay says:

    Oops, typo, meant to turn the Italics off after “can’t”.

  13. Kay says:

    Okay, time to have a very good laugh at my expense! Really hoping I got it right this time…

  14. Kay says:

    ACK! Thought I knew my way around WordPress HTML. When you all stop laughing, could ya help me out?

  15. Kay says:

    Thank you to whatever coding god fixed the embarrassments in my last posts!!

  16. Anonymous says:


    Article I, Section 8 of the US Constitution explicitly grants Congress the authority “To make Rules for the Government and Regulation ofthe land and naval Forces;” (as well as numerous other things). Congress has done so in Title 10 of the US Code. I believe that age limits are set therein.

    In short: the authority to set age limits for military service is explicitly granted to the Federal government by the Constitution. There is no need to argue about the matter. Anyone arguing to the contrary is wrong on Constitutional grounds.

    In contrast, the power to provide/regulate/compel persons to have healthcare is no where granted to the Federal government by the Constitution. (Authority to “regulate commerce” is NOT equivalent to the authority to “compel participation without any possibility of lawful avoidance”; it is the authority to forbid or set conditions on otherwise voluntary conduct.) Authority to compel participation in healthcare activities is therefore an authority prohibited to the Federal government by the 10th Amendment – which reserves all “powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States” to the States and/or individual citizens.

  17. Kay says:


    Thank you from the bottom of my heart! I’d been told it was impossible to get an age waiver.

  18. UpNorth says:

    @#59, Kay. Yes, you’re correct, Germany’s citizens, along with most or all of the Euro Union have universal health care. Along with other cradle to grave entitlements. How’s that working out for those countries?
    Seems there’s a bit of a dust up in Greece, it’s projected that Spain, Portugal and possible Italy may follow their socialist comrades down the path of insolvency, taking the somewhat healthy economies of Germany, Britain and France down with them. Along with massive riots in the streets of several of said socialist paradises.
    And, as Anon said in #68, most readers of the Constitution can not find anything where it says that citizens must buy health insurance or get fined.

  19. Kay says:

    Actually, UpNorth, Germany’s doing just fine:

    As for the rest, that’s a thesis-worth of complications.

    I wonder how many of you run a business? One of the biggest pushes for national health is coming from business. Employer-paid healthcare is a nearly impossible financial burden, especially if you’re a small business. It’s one of the things that makes businesses reluctant to add staff and it underlies a lot of age discrimination.

    As for mandated insurance with fines, blame a president and Congress who lack the stones to stand up to the insurance industry.

  20. UpNorth says:

    Germany won’t be doing fine if Greece, Italy, Spain and Portugal all go under in the next 12 months. And you’re basing this observation on the unemployment rate? And just skip over the statement that 17 nations are experiencing difficulties?
    Um, business is in love with Obamacare? Then this from the IBD is all wrong? “To the long and growing list of failed ObamaCare promises, you can now add this one: The tax credit that was supposed to cut insurance costs for millions of small businesses has proved to be a complete bust”.? See the article here.
    So, it’s the insurance industry who forced Congress and the President to pass something so that, down the road, they could figure out what they passed?

  21. Kay says:

    The rest of Europe going under is such a complicated issue, which has much to do with the Euro and the recession and about a trillion other things I don’t have enough background to discuss well.

    Business is not in love with Obamacare; it’s a far from perfect solution. But they’re desperate for something to get out from under these costs.

    Insurance industry lobbying is behind so much of the current mess. So many millions of dollars are going to paperwork rather than direct patient care. On top of that, millions more dollars are being spent on unnecessary tests mandated by insurance companies afraid of lawsuits, when they could simply ask people to sign waivers. (Ask the women in your life how many times they’ve had to take pregnancy tests before receiving medical treatment, even when they knew it was impossible for them to be pregnant.)

    We need a single-payer system. You’ll hear that from almost anyone who works in healthcare, outside of insurance executives.

    As for having no business passing bills you haven’t fully read or understood…bingo, UpNorth, we found something we agree on!

  22. Jacobite says:


    I’m aware of all that. My intention was to short circuit any idea that age limits in the military might be un-constitutional on simple grounds.

    Your Constitutional health care issue observations are just more in depth statements of the point I was making. I just figured it wasn’t worth the effort to argue the particulars with someone (Kay) who obviously interprets it differently and isn’t really interested in seeing it any other way. 🙂

  23. UpNorth says:

    @#74, yes we did. Unfortunately, that may be all we can agree on. Fer instance, single payer? Nope, not in a million years. Google the NHS. Or waiting times for service, in the U.S., Canada and Britain. No thanks, I’d rather see a doc and pay, than die waiting to see one.
    And, my doc would disagree with you, vehemently, about single payer.
    And,the major problem with Obamacare, well, at least one of the major problems, the FOB’s(Friends of Barack) have all gotten waivers, so it doesn’t apply to them. Who do you think will have to pick up the slack?

  24. Kay says:

    UpNorth, don’t buy into the myths. I have friends who are Canadian. They grumble about their healthcare system, but after having an emergency with their daughter while in the US, they RANTED about how bad ours is.

    Due to the cost to employers of private health insurance, many have decided to eliminate full-time jobs with benefits in favor of hiring independent contractors. When you have to buy your own, individual insurance, and discover that neither the premiums nor the deductibles are affordable, you realize just how bad is bad.

    It infuriates me that Congress and Obama caved to the insurance companies and cut out the public option, which would have put some pressure on the insurance companies to keep rates affordable. I have no doubt there will be many of us, if not millions of us, who will take the fines instead of buying insurance. Not out of political protest, but simply because the fine will be affordable, while the insurance will still be out of reach.

    If all insurance benefits were stripped from Congress and the presidency, then we’d finally have meaningful reform.

  25. Anonymous says:

    Jacobite: I figured you knew what I posted above re: Constitutional authorities. Though addressed to you, I was posting it for Kay’s benefit – should she decide to actually read it with an open mind and think for herself vice parroting talking points she read on DU or other well-known libidiot sites.

    I’m not holding my breath, though.

  26. NHSparky says:

    whole pesky notion that governments are supposed to take care of their citizens

    No, that would be a GCE, -10 points. Government is NOT supposed to “take care” of their citizens. The citizenry is supposed to take care of themselves.

    Government is supposed to stay the fuck out of the way–a job which they’ve totally sucked at of late.

  27. UpNorth says:

    Sparky, not to worry, all Kay is doing is posting OFA talking points. Ex. In #72, she maintained that “business” was pushing for Obamacare, in #74, she flip-flops to say, “Business is not in love with Obamacare; it’s a far from perfect solution”.
    Then, it’s doctors who love Obamacare, except for the inconvenient fact that around 2/3’s of them don’t, according to Forbes Magazine,

  28. Kay says:

    UpNorth, in 72, I specifically said business was pushing for “national health,” you interpreted that as meaning Obamacare. The idea and its implementation are very far from synonymous. That’s why it’s not a contradiction to say that business isn’t in love with Obamacare. I can say, “I want a car.” But if I get sold a lemon, I’m not going to be in love with the car.

    Again, I did not say healthcare providers were for Obamacare, I said they were for single payer, which is very, very different from Obamacare. Single payer would eliminate much of the paperwork that makes American healthcare so expensive.

    I have some questions for you all:

    1. Have any of you run a business and had to pay healthcare costs for your employees?

    2. Have any of you managed a doctor’s office and had to hire staff whose sole jobs were to handle insurance paperwork, not to provide medical care–and had to adjust what you charged your patients to cover their salaries?

    3. Have any of you tried to buy individual health insurance for yourselves and/or your families? Have you seen the loopholes in the policies?

    4. Have any of you seen the individual health insurance rates for people 40+? Have any of you seen the annual percentage increases on those rates?

    Try to buy insurance for yourself and your family. Then you’ll understand.

    This is why I’m not in favor of Obamacare, as currently written, because it doesn’t offer good ways to lower either rates or paperwork. Maybe you should re-read what I wrote in #77 : )

  29. UpNorth says:

    OK, Kay, my bad. But then, show me where anything says that the government is supposed to, or is able to run, health care? That’s what single payer is. My doctor gets apoplectic over Medicare and Medicaid, and he certainly wants no part of Obamacare, or single payer. MoF, he’s said that he’ll retire, rather than participate in what he calls some bureaucrat’s idea of how medicine should be run.
    If I recall, the Soviet Union had single payer health care, and Cuba has it. They’ve done a fine job with it, right?
    And, I did read #77. If you think that the fines won’t be prohibitive, you’re mistaken. I’ve already heard Sibelius and a couple of her deputies admitting that the fines won’t be high enough to dissuade people like you from risking the fines.
    And, yes, I’ve bought health care insurance, not cheap, but certainly better than the alternative.

  30. Kay says:

    UpNorth, guess your doctor’s got a cash-only practice, ’cause there ain’t no bureaucracy like an insurance company : )

    Don’t know anyone from the former SU or Cuba, but I did meet someone from Germany who was thinking of moving here. He was a freelance journalist with a pregnant wife. When I warned him he’d have to pay for private insurance, he looked at me like I’d told him his wife was going to have to give birth in a field.

    Thanks for the warning about Sibelius. Much appreciated! If the fines go up, there will be protests and pushback, as there should be. I still think Obamacare is a sell-out to the insurance companies.

    UpNorth, I’ve really enjoyed discussing this with you. I appreciate that you, and everyone here, has allowed me to play on your home court. Even if we still disagree, we’ve done it politely, and I’ve learned a lot from you all.

    I think, at a certain point, we do have to shake hands and agree to disagree. We not only have differences in philosophy, but different experiences that both underlie and reinforce those differences. For the simplest example of that, you found private insurance “not cheap.” There’s a world of difference (often based on age and medical condition) between “not cheap” and “out of reach.” Having experienced the latter, I’m going to continue to argue for single payer. But you, with your own doctor threatening to retire, will understandably continue to argue against it.

    So, I extend my hand. Shake?

  31. UpNorth says:

    Sure, we can agree to disagree.

  32. Anonymous says:

    Kay: before you make a statement like “medical providers favor a single payer”, you might want to see how satisfied they are with Medicare’s reimbursement policies and schedules. Medicare is the classic “single payer” for most elderly. And medical providers are taking it in the proverbial shorts right now regarding what they get from Medicare – which is one reason why their normal rates are so high.