Eloquently stated. The GOP platform is so lame and out of touch that Republicans have to concoct drama to divert the voters' attention from GOP incompetence, (i.e., "If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with BS!")

It is humiliating to know that the world is watching this nonsense.

I'm ashamed to admit that I'm in one of those seven states. Sheesh. It's only happening because our state AG is running for Senate. He thinks this is going to help him? Apparently he doesn't realize that every other person in the state is woman, same as anywhere else. Of course, politics is very much man's world still. I can easily imagine these political men looking around, seeing so few women, and concluding it's the same everywhere.

Derail our country!!!!! Obama makes Carter look like G. Washington-A. Lincoln-FDR-R. Reagan rolled into one president! Are you kidding me....

Here you go "Are you better off today then you were three years ago?" If you are honest with yourself and your answer then.....

The Republican's fault, huh? If in fact the contraception issue does nothing to grow the economy then why in the hell is the president wasting time on the issue. What business does the government have spending a single minute on this. If you want contraception go buy it where it's available. Wake up, people! Laws don't grant rights, they limit them.

Troll alert...

Rick - what will you spend your condom and Viagra money on after all the women move out of your state?

My sincere apologies. I didn't know this was a club for like-minded "individuals" only. Yes, 2+2 does equal 5. I thought yours was the party of acceptance and tolerance. My bad.

You didn't see that my comments were addressed to Rick? I did not comment on your post at all - it happens to appear below yours due to the timing.

We do welcome reasoned, informed debate here. So, as for your comments, the Obama administration's decision on contraception came after the Catholic bishops questioned the application of the Afforable Care Act. Thus, the issue was not raised by Obama. Once the administration responded to the bishops, the GOP and their candidates took it up and began talking about it. If they had not, nobody would be wasting time on it now.

The "troll" term is so adolescent. I agree with nappy KJ. I've been called a troll here countless times whenever I do not agree with the vast, vast majority here. If people do not want to entertain different points of view here, then this blog is nothing more than a pep rally.

I don't see it that way, skip. Despite the mental imagery it may evoke (a scraggly being living in the dirt under a bridge), in my mind it is simply a term used in the blogosphere to identify someone who posts with the intent to disrupt. But as a measure of certainty, I just looked up the term on Urban Dictionary. Here's what they say:

troll

One who posts a deliberately provocative message to a newsgroup or message board with the intention of causing maximum disruption and argument

IMO, Rick from Virginia's first statement above fits that defnition pretty well. By the way, that is the first time I have ever posted that term. Others may use it more freely than I.

So don't take it personally. If I were out on a Fox blog saying extreme left-wing things, I would expect folks out there to call me a troll, and if would fit since my intent there would be to disrupt and start arguments with folks. Frankly, I would expect that group to call me something much worse.

KJ you hit it right on the button. IMHO, it is obvious that this is what Rick and perhaps nappy is trying to do.

Thanks Ashley - those who spend much time on the Maddow Blog know the difference. RobDon is out here frequently representing the right, and while he gets a lot of crap from those of us who disagree with him, he generally presents his point of view in a respectful manner. He admits when he is wrong on a point, and sticks to his beliefs without belittling mine or making it personal. Even though I rarely agree with him, I can respect him.

Others, however...

I still don't buy it KJ. I have been on this post for while now and I have been called it countless times even though I am not an insitgator from the "right-wing" world (I do hope people see me a your description of RobDon). But...even if someone is here to start and arguement - which I think here would be more like a debate - I would rather follow that "thread" than simply everyone on just agreeing on the topic. How much fun would it be if there were 15 straight comments saying that vanilla ice cream was the best. I personally would get pretty bored. But if someone chirps in that they like chocolate, then there would be a spirited discussion about the merits of the two flavors. I really don't see any harm. Remember this is JUST a blog. It means nothing in the real world and I do think some folks here take this a little too seriously :).

Valid or not, I do like to see all sides of a topic. I have to admit a lot of times here it is hard to see more than one side of an arguement. We should welcome the "other side" here.

I have seen many of your posts, skip, and do not consider you to be a troll. I welcome arguments like those I've had with RobDon, and agree with you that there wouldn't be much point in being out here if we all agreed all the time. Still, I do not consider Rick's comment "Obama makes Carter look like G. Washington-A. Lincoln-FDR-R. Reagan rolled into one president!" to be a valuable contribution to a discussion.

If others have called you a troll out here when you've simply stated an opinion or argued with even a minimal level or merit, I would throw the penalty flag for illegal use of troll-calling. I'll even keep an eye out for that going forward.

And I vote chocolate today, and maybe vanilla tomorrow, but most often it's vanilla with chocolate topping. What can I say? I'm a moderate but devoted Dem.

Fair enough KJ. And I too like vanilla with chocolate syrup. I would call that a "balanced" ticket :).

Ice cream for everyone!

Are you suggesting they pulled a fast one over their slow witted base? Do you think that just because Ricky is on a roll they fudged to let his comedy team in?

Back by popular demand (drum roll) the not ready for judgement day candidate from hell.

Yep, that's exactly what happened; if Santorum hadn't won any states yet and was polling at 7% or below in either Indiana or nationally, he would not be on the Indiana ballot.

What is with all these state GOPs that can't count things accurately the first time (and probably not the second time either)? Iowa, Maine, Indiana...the list grows like corn in July.

Keep all this in mind if they get to the supreme court again. It could be that Roberts schooled them on how to better phrase their argument.The five activists care nothing about the law but they are cautious about appearing judicial.

Hmm. Let me give this a try: Manning supplied classified material to WikiLeaks, which they then published, thus making the material available to America's enemies. WikiLeaks is not "the enemy", just a conduit. If WikiLeaks had not published the material, Manning would still be in trouble, but not for "aiding the enemy".

As for your question about journalists, if they discover the information, not through classified material, then they are free to publish it.

Which is why I'm conflicted about it. Should we just shut up about the mowing down of foreign civilians under the guise of "FREEDOM & DEMOCRACY" just because it's classified? At what point are we able to overlook crimes just because there's a sign that says "Secret: Keep Out!" ?

And making material available to America's enemies? The public is America's enemies? If 'America's enemies' (as in, say, terrorists or what-have-you) are going to get mad at shooting civilians, then perhaps, I don't know, we shouldn't be drone-bombing children to get at lower-level officials in hopes to drone-bomb the funeral of the low-level official in order to kill higher-ups?

If we are supposed to be a country of morality, then shouldn't we err on the side of MORE disclosure instead of less?

To addendum my point, here's this from Raw Story:

The Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC), which triggered the hearing by publishing a trove of secret government documents in January, told Raw Story on Thursday that a second round of documents they’ve obtained directly contradicts testimony given on Feb. 16, showing that the DHS instructed their analysts to do exactly what the Department denied.

So what we have here is secret information that was leaked and published. How is this different than Wikileaks? Should the source of EPIC's information be prosecuted? That's getting into some really dangerous territory.

Or perhaps we shouldn't know if the government is spying on us at all?

Your point (and your name and address) is duly noted.

To answer your question, yes the source of EPIC's information should be prosecuted, they broke the law.

If you have a secret or top secret clearance and you hand over classified material to someone who doesn't have a clearance or someone who does have a clearance but doesn't have a need to know then you are breaking the law. There are no exceptions to this. Why would you expect not to get prosecuted? You may decide that there is some greater good there and you are willing to take that risk, but you are still breaking the law so if you get caught you should expect there to be consequences. It isn't really that difficult.

There are actually some very good reasons to classify information, and suggesting that no one should be held accountable when classified information is exposed is ridiculous and could very well put our troops or our citizens in danger. If you would like the rules for classifying information reformed then work towards that, but a free for all on classified information is not safe or smart.

Well said Thrift Store. I was in naval intelligence for several years and signed many documents concerning my top secret clearance. Private Manning no doubt signed the same types of documents and he had to know that he was breaking the law. It may be hard to understand or agree with some of the actions that the U.S. is doing or has done, but we cannot start making individual judgements/decisions when it comes to national or global policies/actions.

With all due respect, Mr. Hoffman, I think my concern-trolling is getting in the way, but I would hope that any actions that would be deemed to be crimes in any means wouldn't be hidden, but even moreso that they wouldn't happen in the first place.

And I'll clarify my position that the leak of classified information should be punished, but such a threat shouldn't be something that would make investigative journalists fear their job more than getting the news across if crimes against humanity are being committed under my, your, our names as Americans. I hope that makes my position more understandable.

Oh, and I'm sure "They are watching me". I have no allusions at running for office what with my own dirty laundry, etc.

Oh, right. Camp LeJeune. The people wanting to know what happened and caused so many children to die should be arrested because the military wanted to keep the camp's negligence secret.

Or perhaps Valerie Plame's name being leaked? If that wasn't giving information to the enemies, right? Granted that's a horrible, horrible, case, but still. Shouldn't Cheney be thrown in jail for life because of this? Well, because of other things, as well....

I would like to hear that Q&A too. I suspect that they would respond with something like "there are other ways to help women with those other medical issues, without rendering their eggs useless." They wouldn't have any information to back that up though. And of course they would roll out the abstinence argument. That is, if they bothered to answer the question at all.

Men should be confronting men on these issues everywhere. No Q&A. Confronting in the neighborhoods, sports gatherings, where ever men meet. This is a human rights issue.