Page 2 of 13 FirstFirst 123412 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 260

Thread: The US Presidential Election 2: Revenge of the US Presidential Election

  1. #21
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    London UK
    Posts
    6,996
    Thanks
    1,733
    Thanked 1,137 Times in 601 Posts

    Default

    That's what I fear is the biggest issue in this election, and possibly the last stand -- whether or not we can go forward at all as a country where the individual bears the primary responsibility for their own health, safety, and welfare. Because if the individual does not so bear, than the individual cannot truly be said to be free -- because once you depend on the state to provide these thing, they aren't really yours, they are just allowed to you.
    And what happens when said people can't afford said medicines and treatments? Viewing as I am from a country where I have the right to free healthcare I have to say that the American system seems just a restrictive to the individual as you're saying it is If the state provides.

  2. #22
    Dedicated Spike Fan Maggie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    4,355
    Thanks
    1,700
    Thanked 4,111 Times in 1,065 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ehlwyen View Post
    Maggie, I have seen a couple issues much differently and feel I must add an opposing view for others reading the thread. I respect your opinions and have no intention of trying to persuade you to think otherwise.

    Komen is a business. Some of its biggest donors are Catholics. Some parishes wouldn't allow donations because Planned Parenthood sometimes offers abortion services at clinics alongside their healthcare for low income women. As a business, Komen wanted to increase revenue so thought the loophole to exclude Planned Parenthood would allow more Catholics to donate. Instead, many people were disappointed and decided their money should be donated elsewhere. Komen as a business backtracked because it realized it was going to lose money rather than make money. I don't see how this is related to the government. This seems a matter of business and economics.
    It's not related to the government. I cited the Komen incident as a reflection of the problems I have with the intolerant position of the left -- as a manifestation of how the culture war plays out in a way that scares me, frankly. As you said, Komen wanted to make it possible for people like me to donate to them. But the backlash basically says that there are a lot of people who are energetically committed to the idea that planned parenthood and its agenda are far more important than is Komen and its agenda. Basically fealty to abortion rights >>> than promotion of women's health. You would rather withdraw support of programs to fight breast cancer than allow those programs to be conducted in a way that won't shut out people who cannot for moral reasons fund abortion. It seems to me that the left had a totally alternative tack to take -- which would be to say that they understood why Komen had to withdraw and then embark on a big fundraising program for planned parenthood to support the mission you guys care about. That would have been a win-win. Funding for Komen from you and me; funding for PP from you. You prefer the world where I have to keep channeling my funds elsewhere, to organizations that don't directly fight breast cancer. I'm not sure why that is. I respect your right to prefer what you prefer. But it feels to me that it's born of an attitude that we must be polarized everywhere, rather than one that finds common ground where we can. We could have had common ground on fighting breast cancer. But the left doesn't want that to be common ground, and so now it isn't.

    That reminder about the cultural intolerance of the left reminded me about why I really can't vote for the political party that supports/promotes that intolerance. The Democrat party, for better or worse, booted people like me. The last two months just reminded me of that fact, and has made it clear that I really can't pretend that's not the case and vote for them even in situations where I think that the Republicans are problematic in the extreme.

    As far as contraception being provided for by employee mandated insurance, I have only seen that there are exclusions for religious affiliated employers which includes religious hospitals.
    I'm not sure I follow. The exemption applies only to the actual churches; the religious hospitals and universities and so on will be forced to either comply with the law and therefore be forced to formally endorse something they have a problem with or pay fines or go out of business.

    I think this makes sense. If the business is clearly stated as religious then it should be allowed exclusion. But otherwise an employer shouldn't have a right to control my personal life simply because we have opposing views.
    I don't see this as about controlling your personal life at all. You are always free to get contraception. I'm just advocating that we stay with the present status quo. You're free to get contraception now, are you not? And as I said, if the government and the majority of people come to the conclusion that it contraception is so important that it should basically be "free" to all individuals -- there are other ways to pursue that goal than this one. Really, all I need to see from Obama or anyone on the left is the principle that "if we can find a way to do this without infringing on religious liberty, we'll do that". But that hasn't been the conversation. Obama could have said "We tried to find another way but couldn't; we're open to any and all suggestions about how we can manage it". He didn't. That's what disappoints me. I think it would be trivially easy to say that for all employees whose employers do not feel they can in good conscience provide contraception coverage, that they need to point their employees at supplemental insurance made available by insurers willing to provide contraception. We could then make that "free" by making it a tax write off. That essentially involves having tax payers (including me) pay for contraception -- but I could live with that more easily than having a law that says that Catholic institutions must directly pay for those services themselves.

    Anyway, it's the tone of the conversation more than anything that I object to. The idea that it's my way or the highway. The refusal to grant that it would be a good principle for us to ALL think that government laws that infringe on known religious, moral aobjections should be avoided as much as possible. For us ALL to want to find compromises that would reflect the rights and concerns of as many people as possible.

    If their views are so important then it should be a stated part of the business so I can determine whether I should work there. And perhaps determine if I as a consumer would shop or otherwise patronage them.
    I'm confused here, because I agree with this. I think people should understand that Catholics have peculiar views and take that into account when deciding whether or not they want to accept employment at their institutions. And by all means, if you don't want to patronize such institutions you shouldn't. Really. That's no different at all from me not patronizing Planned Parenthood or any organization that supports Planned Parenthood. That's how pluralism ought to work, in my view. That's why the mandate is so unfortunate.
    Last edited by Maggie; 17-03-12 at 06:43 PM.

    "I don't want to be this good-looking and athletic. We all have crosses to bear." Banner Credit: Vampmogs

  3. #23
    What? KingofCretins's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Big Honkin' Castle
    Posts
    13,461
    Thanks
    218
    Thanked 3,503 Times in 1,648 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sueworld View Post
    And what happens when said people can't afford said medicines and treatments? Viewing as I am from a country where I have the right to free healthcare I have to say that the American system seems just a restrictive to the individual as you're saying it is If the state provides.
    I'd have them turn to charities, their family, their neighbor or their friends directly and ask for help rather than for them to ask the government to point a gun at those people, to take from them and to hand over what's theirs.

    I also sure hope that the person who "can't afford" those things doesn't have a contract cellular phone, contract digital cable or satellite, advanced home electronics, a second car and/or late model car, or a bunch of other of life's little non-essentials. There is, in fact, some Ant and the Grasshopper involved here. I mean, that's why we tell that story. We do still tell that story, don't we?

    Banner by LRae12

  4. #24
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    London UK
    Posts
    6,996
    Thanks
    1,733
    Thanked 1,137 Times in 601 Posts

    Default

    I'd have them turn to charities, their family, their neighbor or their friends directly and ask for help rather than for them to ask the government to point a gun at those people, to take from them and to hand over what's theirs.
    Good grief. Seems some aren't big on the idea of a society that looks after everyone equally from 'cradle to grave' are they. IMO what you're suggesting smacks of the Victorian era where the poor had to go begging to charities and the churches for help. In this country we pay taxes that are supposed to look after us when we need it.

    Yes Cameron (the hateful bastard that he is) is busy at the moment trying to turn the NHS into some kind of pathetic carbon copy of the (imo) appalling set up you have over there in the states, but the health professionals over here at least see what a huge folly that would be and are trying to fight him tooth and nail.

    I also sure hope that the person who "can't afford" those things doesn't have a contract cellular phone, contract digital cable or satellite, advanced home electronics, a second car and/or late model car, or a bunch of other of life's little non-essentials. There is, in fact, some Ant and the Grasshopper involved here. I mean, that's why we tell that story. We do still tell that story, don't we?
    Sorry, I'm afraid that comment comes across as incredibly ignorant of how many people live their lives, not only in your own country but in ours. Your idea of poor and mine must be radically different of that I'm sure.

  5. #25
    ninja scientist Ehlwyen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    3,335
    Thanks
    1,580
    Thanked 1,276 Times in 720 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KingofCretins
    ...the legality of abortion and the legality of contraception are not at issue in the 2012 election.
    I disagree. These are issues at hand in our government right now. Whoever becomes president has to deal with these issues when they become president.

    In addition, if the Republicans currently in office wanted the vote of the female public, as opposed to women already like minded, they wouldn't be making such a forceful push of the issues. It only serves to show me how much I disagree with their views and how very little they think of me as a woman who does not think like them.

    Quote Originally Posted by KingOfCretins
    Even if Santorum were elected,[...], and even if he actually had policy proposals along the lines of banning contraception for instance,[...], he could never actually enact them. Original Post
    I disagree. Our president is in a position of power and with a like minded Congress could enact policies. I find it terrifying to hear the power of the president to be downplayed to that of a harmless man whose views don't affect the country.

    Lydia made the punch!

  6. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Ehlwyen For This Useful Post:

    Ameer (18-03-12),Cinderela (17-03-12),sueworld (17-03-12)

  7. #26
    What? KingofCretins's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Big Honkin' Castle
    Posts
    13,461
    Thanks
    218
    Thanked 3,503 Times in 1,648 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sueworld View Post
    Good grief. Seems some aren't big on the idea of a society that looks after everyone equally from 'cradle to grave' are they.
    Yes, yes, some are. A society that "looks after everyone equally from 'cradle to grave'" is a not a free society. It's a parent to a society of perpetual infants.

    Sorry, I'm afraid that comment comes across as incredibly ignorant of how many people live their lives, not only in your own country but in ours. Your idea of poor and mine must be radically different of that I'm sure.
    As fascinating as I find your judgment of whether I'm ignorant or not, I don't need you to tell me "rich" from "poor". Realistically, if anybody out there thinks that total economic, world-wide equality would resemble anything like the quality of life enjoyed by at the official poverty line in the US or the UK... that would be dangerously naive. If, to borrow a phrase, "everybody had the same amount of stuff", the working poor in the US (who statistically have more than one car, more than one phone, more than one computer, more than one television, just for starters) would probably have none of those things and share with several others what they still have. Because to be poor in the first world -- where individualism and free enterprise have enjoyed the longest reign -- is to be quite rich in most other corners of the world. If it wouldn't basically implode economy and western civilization, it would almost be worth seeing it implemented for the rude awakening.

    EDIT:

    Quote Originally Posted by Ehlwyen View Post
    I disagree. These are issues at hand in our government right now. Whoever becomes president has to deal with these issues when they become president.
    In what sense are they at issue? Both contraception and abortion can only be made illegal by Constitutional amendment or by the Supreme Court nullifying an existing case. Neither issue is before the Court. And, if magically, they were put before the Court and the Court decided to reverse itself, that wouldn't actually make anything currently legal, illegal; it would simply allow states to legislate on them again.

    I disagree. Our president is in a position of power and with a like minded Congress could enact policies. I find it terrifying to hear the power of the president to be downplayed to that of a harmless man whose views don't affect the country.
    The judiciary can trump either one. There are just a lot of layers to this -- for one, it's pure myth that Santorum has all these theocratic intentions, it reminds me of how my parents described the paranoia about Kennedy in 1960, that the Vatican would run the country. For another, he can't act unilaterally because, well, he's not Obama. For a third, even if he got Congress, he can't just dictate to the judiciary. And for fourth, he's not gonna be the nominee anyway.
    Last edited by KingofCretins; 17-03-12 at 07:00 PM.

    Banner by LRae12

  8. #27
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    London UK
    Posts
    6,996
    Thanks
    1,733
    Thanked 1,137 Times in 601 Posts

    Default

    Yes, yes, some are. A society that "looks after everyone equally from 'cradle to grave'" is a not a free society. It's a parent to a society of perpetual infants.
    Sorry imo thats insulting nonsense and just goes to show how little you know of how we do such things in the NHS over here.

    It's hearing this type of heartless remark that encourages me to fight more to make sure we never copy the american system.

  9. #28
    What? KingofCretins's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Big Honkin' Castle
    Posts
    13,461
    Thanks
    218
    Thanked 3,503 Times in 1,648 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sueworld View Post
    Sorry imo thats insulting nonsense and just goes to show how little you know of how we do such things in the NHS over here.

    It's hearing this type of heartless remark that encourages me to fight more to make sure we never copy the american system.
    How you run your system is your problem, not mine. I'm not a universalist, I don't need every part of the country or the world to run my way. I don't honestly care what you do in the UK; it doesn't affect me. In my country, I want self-reliance and self-determination to be the arch-values of society, the ideals to which individuals are encouraged to aspire.

    It's also why I'm a federalist -- fifty different states can have fifty different answers, that was what was envisioned in the design of this country from its founding.

    Banner by LRae12

  10. #29
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    London UK
    Posts
    6,996
    Thanks
    1,733
    Thanked 1,137 Times in 601 Posts

    Default

    I want self-reliance and self-determination to be the arch-values of society, the ideals to which individuals are encouraged to aspire.
    Dear god.....Like we don't manage that without resorting to the kind of heartless system you're enthusing about.

  11. #30
    What? KingofCretins's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Big Honkin' Castle
    Posts
    13,461
    Thanks
    218
    Thanked 3,503 Times in 1,648 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sueworld View Post
    Dear god.....Like we don't manage that without resorting to the kind of heartless system you're enthusing about.
    I am sincerely interested in your opinion and appreciate you sharing how you define "heartless" in terms of politics. I consider freedom and independence pretty compassionate, since they are what delivered human civilization from darkness, destitution, and slavery for the relatively short time that it has enjoyed the sunlight.

    Banner by LRae12

  12. #31
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    London UK
    Posts
    6,996
    Thanks
    1,733
    Thanked 1,137 Times in 601 Posts

    Default

    Sadly just from reading your 'proclamations' about how things should be run, and how they appear to you to be run over here makes me relaise It would be fruitless to expalin my pov to you any further as you just won't get it I'm afraid.

    Leave you with a quote about the founder of the NHS

    Bevan fought passionately for the NHS. In parliament on February 9 1948 he urged ministers and doctors to “take pride in the fact that, despite our financial and economic anxieties, we are still able to do the most civilised thing in the world: put the welfare of the sick in front of every other consideration”.
    Seven key principles guide the NHS in all it does:

    The NHS provides a comprehensive service, available to all irrespective of gender, race, disability, age, sexual orientation, religion or belief

    Access to NHS services is based on clinical need, not an individual’s ability to pay

    NHS services must reflect the needs and preferences of patients, their families and their carers

    The NHS is accountable to the public, communities and patients it serves
    Oh and thanks for the negative rep point hun. I don't believe my views were "pointless and ad hominem"

    But thanks anyway sweetie. Nice one.
    Last edited by sueworld; 17-03-12 at 07:32 PM.

  13. #32
    What? KingofCretins's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Big Honkin' Castle
    Posts
    13,461
    Thanks
    218
    Thanked 3,503 Times in 1,648 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sueworld View Post
    Sadly just from reading your 'proclamations' about how things should be run, and how they appear to you to be run over here makes me relaise It would be fruitless to expalin my pov to you any further as you just won't get it I'm afraid.
    I understand the impulse to turn to the state as the answer to all problems and all suffering, I used to have it myself. But it's not a light at the end of the tunnel down that path, it's a train. People lose the initiative and then the capacity to do for themselves. While there are parts of the world where people work their butts off for a scrap of food or a sip of water, there are parts of the world where people throw things at each other in the streets over paid vacations and eligibility for state-provided retirement. I think the latter demeans the plight of the former.

    Oh and thanks for the negative rep point hun. I don't believe my views were "pointless and ad hominem"
    You're welcome, anytime! A post that exists to call me heartless without actually offering some basis in philosophy for what a better idea would be and why? Is both.

    Banner by LRae12

  14. #33
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    London UK
    Posts
    6,996
    Thanks
    1,733
    Thanked 1,137 Times in 601 Posts

    Default

    understand the impulse to turn to the state as the answer to all problems and all suffering, I used to have it myself. But it's not a light at the end of the tunnel down that path, it's a train. People lose the initiative and then the capacity to do for themselves
    Sorry imo thats utter rubbish. I deal with charities online and they can't possibly deal with everything that would be need If it was all made private. Some people draw the short straw in life and due to many factors will need a great deal of help that many private companies just wouldn't cover long term.

    Thats why the NHS is a the jewel in our crown imo and I'm not the only one who wouldn't want it any other way.

    A post that exists to call me heartless without actually offering some basis in philosophy for what a better idea would be and why? Is both.
    Well If you read what I said rather then what you think I said you'll see I called your system heartless, and not you as an individual.

    You're welcome, anytime!
    Wonderful. Glad to see we finally see eye to eye, eh?
    Last edited by sueworld; 17-03-12 at 09:28 PM.

  15. #34
    Renegade Angel Cinderela's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    In the Mystic
    Posts
    641
    Thanks
    18
    Thanked 26 Times in 12 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KingofCretins View Post
    I'm just going to get this out to deal with it up front, and further discussion may need to trend into the Abortion thread as it becomes more specific and less about the election, but here -- I am big on women's rights, there is no women's right I want restricted or deprived. I just want all women's rights, just as all "general" rights are, to be subject to the expected heirarchies and balances, to wits -- I believe a woman's right to life supercedes her right to not be pregnant. And I believe that the XX she's carrying has that very right to life. I have no interest in debating the merit of that position, but if you want to "get" guys like Rick Santorum (or more to the point, get women like... his wife, or his female supporters, or the women I went to law school with and made up the vast, vast majority of the Lex Vitae chapter -- like 4 to 1 female to male), that's what you need to understand -- they believe, unflinchingly, that they are champions of a woman's right to live and that if the preservation of that right inconveniences or restricts the freedoms, property, or privacy of another woman, then so be it, say they, he, and even me.
    Oh, I *get* Santorum and the men and women that share his beliefs and viewpoints. I would defend to the death their right to believe as they choose. The problem is that Santorum, Romney and their followers wouldn’t defend MY right to believe as *I* choose. They want to enforce THEIR code of behavior on ME. The freedom to share their belief REQUIRES that I be allowed to hold different view. The freedom that allows you to make your own choices REQUIRES that I be allowed to make my own choices. As I previously stated, it’s about CHOICES, not *which* choice is made.
    Quote Originally Posted by KingofCretins View Post
    But, as I've mentioned elsewhere, it's all a bit of a red herring -- because the legality of abortion and the legality of contraception are not at issue in the 2012 election. At all. Anywhere. By and large, the only context in which these issues arise at all is an argument about who bears the responsibility for paying for them. That's what the Sandra Fluke faux-hearing testimony that set off Rush and started this whole recent round going was about -- whether or not she should bear the costs of her own birth control or contraception, or whether someone else should. And, if someone else should, should that burden supercede even their contradictory religious beliefs.
    None of which are about legality at all, but rather about two entirely different arguments -- personal responsibility, and religious free exercise.
    I would respectfully disagree. The President of the United States is a man of enormous power and influence. I can't vote for an individual that wants to enact a public policy that is so diametrically opposed to my own beliefs. The economy *should* be the focus of ALL the candidates, but, for reasons I do not understand, the GOP candidates continue to frame these issues as the centerpiece of their respective platforms.

    And, here, I can’t resist quoting our beloved Buffy – fundamentally, the issue is “Power. I have it. They don’t. This bothers them.” Freedom and responsibility aren’t mutually exclusive. I don’t even see how they can be separated. We all see the world differently and have the responsibility to act in accordance with our own personal world view. Either *everyone* is free or *no one* is free. I want the power to determine my own course and am willing to offer the same power to everyone. These candidates can't say the same. They want to offer me choices that fit neatly into their beliefs. I reserve the power to decide and tend to over-react when I hear that power threatened.
    Quote Originally Posted by KingofCretins View Post
    Frankly, those are two losing issues for this President, which is why you hear his campaign and his administration, and the media that covers him, discussing it as though abortion or contraception themselves are in any danger of becoming illegal.
    Where I live, there has been virtually NO coverage of these issues from the President and his administration. They can afford to be mute because the GOP candidates keep digging themselves into a deeper and deeper hole. In trying to convince “conservative” voters of the sincerity of their views, they are issuing a call to arms to women across the country; a reminder that freedom isn’t free.
    Quote Originally Posted by KingofCretins View Post
    That's what I fear is the biggest issue in this election, and possibly the last stand -- whether or not we can go forward at all as a country where the individual bears the primary responsibility for their own health, safety, and welfare. Because if the individual does not so bear, than the individual cannot truly be said to be free -- because once you depend on the state to provide these thing, they aren't really yours, they are just allowed to you.
    This is what I’ve been saying all along. I am prepared to accept primary responsibility for the maintenance of my own health, safety and welfare. I am not prepared to allow any institution or individual the ability to restrict my options in these matters. I respect the right of others to make choices in their own best interest and would ask for the same respect in return. I have no patience for any individual that waves the “freedom” flag in one hand while the other hand attempts to strangle the freedom of those that hold opposing views.
    Quote Originally Posted by KingofCretins View Post
    I genuinely think that we are living in the time that Alexis de Tocqueville wrote about in Democracy in America, when he said "the American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money.”
    That’s been happening for decades!
    Last edited by Cinderela; 17-03-12 at 07:56 PM.

  16. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Cinderela For This Useful Post:

    shipperx (18-03-12),sueworld (17-03-12)

  17. #35
    Dedicated Spike Fan Maggie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    4,355
    Thanks
    1,700
    Thanked 4,111 Times in 1,065 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cinderela View Post
    Oh, I *get* Santorum and the men and women that share his beliefs and viewpoints. I would defend to the death their right to believe as they choose. The problem is that Santorum, Romney and their followers wouldn’t defend MY right to believe as *I* choose. They want to enforce THEIR code of behavior on ME. The freedom to share their belief REQUIRES that I be allowed to hold different view. The freedom that allows you to make your own choices REQUIRES that I be allowed to make my own choices. As I previously stated, it’s about CHOICES, not *which* choice is made.
    Speaking as someone who is pro-life but who wouldn't pass laws banning abortion, can I ask you a few questions?

    1. How do you feel about the choices women have made to systematically abort female embryos rather than male embryos? There are something like 160,000,000 "missing" women -- i.e. women who were aborted because their mothers wanted sons rather than daughters. Yay choice?

    2. Are you happy about the government's current effort to force people to act in ways that violate their religious consciences?

    3. Does choice really trump everything? Or are there times when we have to infringe on people's rights to choose because other values take precedence? Should I have the right to drive down the highway without a seatbelt on, for example? I'm not saying that choice shouldn't trump in the instance you cite. But it's not an absolute value, is it? All laws, by definition, infringe on choice one way or another. It's part of living together in society.

    Personally I think we should give a lot of deference to choice. But it's always a balancing act.

    I would respectfully disagree. The President of the United States is a man of enormous power and influence. I can't vote for an individual that wants to enact a public policy that is so diametrically opposed to my own beliefs. The economy *should* be the focus of ALL the candidates, but, for reasons I do not understand, the GOP candidates continue to frame these issues as the centerpiece of their respective platforms.
    For me it's the exact other way around. If Obama and the left hadn't chosen to force this issue now, I'd still be voting for Obama. But he decided that it's more important to promote a planned parenthood-driven agenda and now I'm unhappily unable to vote for him.

    I want the power to determine my own course and am willing to offer the same power to everyone. These candidates can't say the same. They want to offer me choices that fit neatly into their beliefs. I reserve the power to decide and tend to over-react when I hear that power threatened.
    Me too. I'm probably overreacting to the threat to religious freedom that Obama and the left currently represent. But so it goes.

    Where I live, there has been virtually NO coverage of these issues from the President and his administration. They can afford to be mute because the GOP candidates keep digging themselves into a deeper and deeper hole. In trying to convince “conservative” voters of the sincerity of their views, they are issuing a call to arms to women across the country; a reminder that freedom isn’t free.
    None of this would be in the conversation to day if it weren't for the HHS mandate. Judging from how Obama is playing it on his campaign page, he was deliberately stirring the pot in order to get the results he's gotten. The media's coverage of this has been remarkably one-sided, and I speak as someone who is no friend of Fox and co.

    Sidebar: I'm sure you don't mean to rob me of my agency by saying that you speak for women -- but you really don't. There might be a slight majority of women on your side... it depends on the poll and how the question is asked, but for sure you don't speak for all of us. So if you could talk about pro-choice/ pro-contraception voters rather than women, I'd very much appreciate it.

    "I don't want to be this good-looking and athletic. We all have crosses to bear." Banner Credit: Vampmogs

  18. #36
    ninja scientist Ehlwyen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    3,335
    Thanks
    1,580
    Thanked 1,276 Times in 720 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Maggie
    It's not related to the government. I cited the Komen incident as a reflection of the problems I have with the intolerant position of the left -- as a manifestation of how the culture war plays out in a way that scares me, frankly.
    When you say views like left or right, I mentally group that as political and therefore related to government. I should have said political but we are in a thread about government and I simply reiterated your own statement that it had nothing to do with government. However, you keep using the word left as if this Komen incident was polically minded and not an individual opinion of people. :/

    My point is that Komen is simply a business and makes decisions based on money not personal views.

    Quote Originally Posted by Maggie
    That would have been a win-win. Funding for Komen from you and me; funding for PP from you. You prefer the world where I have to keep channeling my funds elsewhere, to organizations that don't directly fight breast cancer.
    Planned Parenthood is the only medical centers available for some people, these people were going to lose their opportunity for breast cancer screenings. Without searching for an article, I believe the money Komen donated to Planned Parenthood went only for breast cancer related health services. It is merely the association that Planned Parenthood has with abortion that is offensive not that Komen money went to fund abortion.

    I found it repulsive my theoretically donated money would not go to everyone but instead those available to care at providers determined morally, not simply medically worthy, by Komen. So not a win-win.

    And don't blame me personally, I only followed the stories and made an opinion.
    Quote Originally Posted by Maggie
    That reminder about the cultural intolerance of the left reminded me about why I really can't vote for the political party that supports/promotes that intolerance. The Democrat party, for better or worse, booted people like me.
    I disagree with your use of left as having an opinion different than yours. And I don't see how the public's opinion of a business and how the business catering to making more money is the fault of Democrats and ultimately be blamed on your voting choice for the government positions.

    Quote Originally Posted by Maggie
    I'm not sure I follow. The exemption applies only to the actual churches; the religious hospitals and universities and so on will be forced to either comply with the law and therefore be forced to formally endorse something they have a problem with or pay fines or go out of business.
    Here is the first random googled link. "President Obama announced in February that religiously affiliated employers — such as Catholic hospitals — will not have to cover contraception for their employees. Instead, insurers will be required to enroll their employees into the coverage free of charge." Link: http://www.politico.com/news/stories...#ixzz1pOt1SIbE

    Do you have a particular business example that you find particularly hard shipped? Because as an average employer, they won't know what an employee is doing with their health. For most businesses, it won't be different than before, other than more aware of the nagging feeling that the money paid on behalf of employees goes to funding their personal decisions. Instead of only paying employees a wage to waste on anything, they are paid in something only pertaining to health.

    Quote Originally Posted by Maggie
    I don't see this as about controlling your personal life at all. You are always free to get contraception. I'm just advocating that we stay with the present status quo. You're free to get contraception now, are you not?
    I wish you would stop making wrong assumptions about me. "A person" is the appropriate terminology, not "you."

    I am surprised you do not acknowledge that birth control medication is prescribed sometimes for health reasons like management of painful and excessively prolonged and heavy menstruation. I disagree that someone entitled to health care have to pay additional for their health condition that's treatment has a side effect of reducing chance of conception. This is a matter of personal health not someone else's religious views.

    Quote Originally Posted by Maggie
    Anyway, it's the tone of the conversation more than anything that I object to. The idea that it's my way or the highway.
    See, I find the opposing view the same way. I see no reason that Catholics should determine for all the other religions and individuals what is paid for in health care. I don't think an employer has any right to my medical health decisions.

    As I stated before I have no interest in changing your opinion, you are entitled to have it. I only posted originally to provide an opposing view. I posted this time out of polite conversation, but I really don't have much interest in discussing these matters so cannot promise how involved I can be in this thread.

    Lydia made the punch!

  19. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Ehlwyen For This Useful Post:

    Cinderela (17-03-12),Lyri (17-03-12),shipperx (18-03-12),sueworld (17-03-12)

  20. #37
    Renegade Angel Cinderela's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    In the Mystic
    Posts
    641
    Thanks
    18
    Thanked 26 Times in 12 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Maggie View Post
    Speaking as someone who is pro-life but who wouldn't pass laws banning abortion, can I ask you a few questions?
    1. How do you feel about the choices women have made to systematically abort female embryos rather than male embryos? There are something like 160,000,000 "missing" women -- i.e. women who were aborted because their mothers wanted sons rather than daughters. Yay choice?
    160 million “missing” women? I wonder if that isn’t a somewhat of an exaggeration. Regardless, because I do not want my reasons/motivation judged, I don’t feel I am in a position to judge anyone else.
    Quote Originally Posted by Maggie View Post
    2. Are you happy about the government's current effort to force people to act in ways that violate their religious consciences?
    I am not aware of anyone being *forced* to act in ways that violate their religious conscience. To my knowledge, no one is being required to use birth control against their will.
    Quote Originally Posted by Maggie View Post
    3. Does choice really trump everything? Or are there times when we have to infringe on people's rights to choose because other values take precedence? Should I have the right to drive down the highway without a seatbelt on, for example? I'm not saying that choice shouldn't trump in the instance you cite. But it's not an absolute value, is it? All laws, by definition, infringe on choice one way or another. It's part of living together in society.
    Personally I think we should give a lot of deference to choice. But it's always a balancing act.
    In fact, I do believe the seat belt law is ridiculous. Yes, you should be able to ride down the highway without your seat belt, as stupid as it may be. My point is that personal issues don’t have legislative answers. Individual choice should be preserved in every instance possible. I believe reasonable people can make reasonable choices.
    Quote Originally Posted by Maggie View Post
    Me too. I'm probably overreacting to the threat to religious freedom that Obama and the left currently represent. But so it goes.
    I don’t personally see how individual religious freedom is being threatened. Ehlwyen already referenced the HHR exemption language.
    Quote Originally Posted by Maggie View Post
    None of this would be in the conversation to day if it weren't for the HHS mandate. Judging from how Obama is playing it on his campaign page, he was deliberately stirring the pot in order to get the results he's gotten. The media's coverage of this has been remarkably one-sided, and I speak as someone who is no friend of Fox and co.
    I respectfully disagree. Santorum and Romney continue to keep these issues center stage.
    Quote Originally Posted by Maggie View Post
    Sidebar: I'm sure you don't mean to rob me of my agency by saying that you speak for women -- but you really don't. There might be a slight majority of women on your side... it depends on the poll and how the question is asked, but for sure you don't speak for all of us. So if you could talk about pro-choice/ pro-contraception voters rather than women, I'd very much appreciate it.
    To be clear – I meant exactly what I said. I believe that this election is a call to *all* women, to all voters, really. It is a reminder that our government is made up of individuals WE elect. All voters need to make sure their votes are cast for the individuals that represent their own interests. There is far too much voter apathy. Our society tends to take far too many things for granted.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ehlwyen View Post
    As I stated before I have no interest in changing your opinion, you are entitled to have it. I only posted originally to provide an opposing view. I posted this time out of polite conversation, but I really don't have much interest in discussing these matters so cannot promise how involved I can be in this thread.
    I am in total agreement with Ehlwyen. I respectfully agree to disagree on anything and everything.

    This campaign season is going to be very, very interesting.

  21. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Cinderela For This Useful Post:

    Ehlwyen (18-03-12),Lyri (17-03-12),shipperx (18-03-12),sueworld (17-03-12)

  22. #38
    What? KingofCretins's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Big Honkin' Castle
    Posts
    13,461
    Thanks
    218
    Thanked 3,503 Times in 1,648 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cinderela View Post
    160 million “missing” women? I wonder if that isn’t a somewhat of an exaggeration. Regardless, because I do not want my reasons/motivation judged, I don’t feel I am in a position to judge anyone else.
    Demographics don't lie, be they in China (where I assume Maggie is referring to the price of the inhumane One Child Policy) or in the United States. If you evenly distribute the 40 million or so abortions in the US since Roe, the population is actually short something like 20 to 25 million working age, taxpaying people and that's before we even consider that some of them may have had children by now, too.

    I am not aware of anyone being *forced* to act in ways that violate their religious conscience. To my knowledge, no one is being required to use birth control against their will.
    All state action is force; a mandate that religious institutions provide the underwriting for services that contradict their religious precepts or face penalty is force.

    I don’t personally see how individual religious freedom is being threatened. Ehlwyen already referenced the HHR exemption language.
    That exemption language from Obama's February backpedal is, to be blunt, a crock. As if insurance companies aren't passing along the cost in same premium that the institutions already have to pay. I actually was amazed he was willing to insult the American people's intelligence so drastically as to suggest they don't realize that the premium is still going to pay for the service, whether you call it "free" or not.

    The background of this mandate is interesting -- a lot of people may not remember that the healthcare bill only passed the House because 40 pro-life Democrats, led by Bart Stupak, were promised that religious conscience exemptions would be secured on matters of abortion and contraception. That promise was an abject lie and the mandate imposed by regulation was a public betrayal of the promise that got the votes in the first place. Of course, me and many millions of other Americans were looking at Stupak at the time and saying "Bart, once they draft regulations they aren't going to be bound by anything that was agreed with in the House, are you really stupid enough to believe they are going to keep that pro-- yep, you are".

    Speaking of healthcare, the CBO came out in the past few days and estimated that the cost will be something like double what was estimated when the bill was past. And they also recently estimated that something like 20 million Americans will lose employer provided benefits under the plan due to increased cost. It's already one of the only pieces of legislation to lose popularity after passing, neither of those facts are likely to help -- and it's the only legislative accomplishment of the entire administration to run on.
    Last edited by KingofCretins; 18-03-12 at 04:24 AM.

    Banner by LRae12

  23. #39
    Evil Twin PointMan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    3,965
    Thanks
    232
    Thanked 259 Times in 189 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cinderela View Post
    Oh, I *get* Santorum and the men and women that share his beliefs and viewpoints. I would defend to the death their right to believe as they choose. The problem is that Santorum, Romney and their followers wouldn’t defend MY right to believe as *I* choose. They want to enforce THEIR code of behavior on ME. The freedom to share their belief REQUIRES that I be allowed to hold different view. The freedom that allows you to make your own choices REQUIRES that I be allowed to make my own choices. As I previously stated, it’s about CHOICES, not *which* choice is made.
    I'm guessing this is going to get me flamed for making the comparison but here goes; 200 years ago I could have made the very same argument you are making about abortion, only about slavery. What changed is perception. When people realized that black people were no different than white and entitled to the same rights, things started to chance. And yes at some point the desires of one group had to trump those of the other, because anything else and Slavery would still be legal in most places.

    I really do like discussing politics in theory but the responses I've seen on this board remind me why I tend to refrain from doing so. It isn't enough to simply respectfully disagree. People have to throw insults into it. I think most don't realize that when you have to resort to insults, you've already lost the argument.

    Regarding the issue of government funded healthcare and cradle to grave entitlement; I'm not going to try and tell anyone how their country should run things. Frankly, I don't care how anyone else does it. I care about how the U.S. does things. A famous saying often attributed to Thomas Jefferson sums up my feelings; "A government big enough to give you everything you need, is a government big enough to take away everything that you have...."
    Last edited by PointMan; 17-03-12 at 11:20 PM.
    “The world is a dangerous place to live; not because of the people who are evil, but because of the people who don't do anything about it.” -- Albert Einstein

  24. #40
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    London UK
    Posts
    6,996
    Thanks
    1,733
    Thanked 1,137 Times in 601 Posts

    Default

    "A government big enough to give you everything you need, is a government big enough to take away everything that you have...."
    __________________
    Fair do's but I have to say that It works for us over here. I can barely imagine having to exist with a privatized healthcare system. The whole idea simply horrifies me I'm afraid.

    What changed is perception. When people realized that black people were no different than white and entitled to the same rights, things started to chance. And yes at some point the desires of one group had to trump those of the other, because anything else and Slavery would still be legal in most places.
    Eh, and?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •