The "Stay Classy, Republicans" Super Nintendo Chalmers Thread

[quote name='nasum']
I suppose we can now call Chris Christie an activist governor?[/QUOTE]

I dont have a problem with Chris(py Kreme) Christie threatening to veto the bill. I dont think that makes him "an activist govenor". The way the govenrment is set up, you also have to convince the governor to sign the law or convince enough lawmakers to override the veto. I think CCs use of the veto is fair. He's *dead wrong* on the issue, but the veto in and of itself is fair. NJ residents dont like it? Vote him out!

My problem is the bullshit-assed "justification" for the veto. Rather than take a stand and say that he believes gay marriage is not detrimental/not beneficial to the state of NJ, he ducked/punted/"voted present" by saying the reason he's vetoing is that it should be put up to a referendum. What a coward! At least one could respect a Rick Santorum for standing up for what he (IMO wrongly) believes. But CC just hides, trying to keep a facade of being a 'moderate' conservative.

Funny, when he vetoed the so-called "Millionaires Tax" (twice even), he didnt call for a ballot inititiave for that!

[quote name='Clak']In other words, they became what they hated. Little bit of poetic justice on your shirt there.[/QUOTE]

I think the more illustrative quote comes from further down in that New Yorker piece:

In the Times story, there’s a man named Ki Gulbranson from a small Minnesota town called Chisago, both barely clinging to the middle class. He tries to make ends meet selling apparel and refereeing kids’ soccer games. All around him, he sees growing dependence on government. No fan of government spending, he joined the Tea Party in 2010; at the same time, he benefits from the Earned Income Tax Credit, free school breakfasts for his children, and Medicare for his mother. “I don’t demand that the government does this for me,” he said. “I don’t feel like I need the government.” Yet he finds it hard to imagine surviving without the safety net. “I don’t think so,” he said. “No. I don’t know. Not the way we expect to live as Americans.”
Click to expand...


Sucking off the government's teat and doesnt even realize that it is *his* money the so-called "Tea Party" wants to shut off. Sad really.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='hostyl1']Sucking off the government's teat and doesnt even realize that it is *his* money the so-called "Tea Party" wants to shut off. Sad really.[/QUOTE]

I read that too.

Biting the hand that feeds is nothing new. The difference is that the tea party turns it into an art form.
 
[quote name='hostyl1']
My problem is the bullshit-assed "justification" for the veto. Rather than take a stand and say that he believes gay marriage is not detrimental/not beneficial to the state of NJ, he ducked/punted/"voted present" by saying the reason he's vetoing is that it should be put up to a referendum. What a coward! At least one could respect a Rick Santorum for standing up for what he (IMO wrongly) believes. But CC just hides, trying to keep a facade of being a 'moderate' conservative.[/QUOTE]

See, that's where I was coming from. There's always going to be some bullshit reason for them to block same sex marriage in any way possible. Why? Because they'd completely alienate moderates/undecideds if they just came out and said "yeah, I'm blocking it because I hate teh gayz"

Like I said, when it was the judicial trying to protect rights, they were "activist judges," now that there's a statute attempting to be passed it's still not enough to show the will of the people. Where would we have been if civil rights, slavery, (even suffrage perhaps) had been left to referendums? Good luck South...

[quote name='hostyl1']
I think the more illustrative quote comes from further down in that New Yorker piece:

Sucking off the government's teat and doesnt even realize that it is *his* money the so-called "Tea Party" wants to shut off. Sad really.[/QUOTE]

See, perfectly indicative of voting against your own interests. Furthermore, not realizing that even prior to his own troubles there were thousands, millions in the same place. Sure there are people who abuse government assistance but that's no reason to get rid of it. There's people that abuse/d alcohol too and look what happened when the government tried to take that away...
 
[quote name='nasum']I don't know that you can really call TP the lunatic fringe. I'd be more inclined to think of them as misinformed/misguided people that simply don't think things through to the big picture element. The "taxes are bad" thing is easy enough to see from their point of view if you stop at your paycheck. I mean hell, if you could get an extra 5-10% out of your labour with reduced taxes, that's great! But if you take another step or three to see what you get for your taxes, then you realize that the return on investment is pretty damn great. I rather enjoy driving on roads that aren't so pocked with potholes that I need to replace my suspension every 4 years.
Those taxes also pay for that military they're so fond of as well as the police that reaffirm that authoritarian style of govt that they indirectly favour.
THough I'd really love to see the look on the face of anyone that wants to get rid of Social Security when you tell them "fine, it's gone, you don't get any despite paying in".[/QUOTE]
I think lunatic fringe describes them perfectly as people like them have always been around. They're more akin to European nationalists and all of this commie/socialist talk isn't anything new either; it's just that people used to have more sense than to use the language of outright racists and McCarthy before the election of a black president with an ARAB sounding name got elected and "conservative" people collectively lost their damn minds.

The thing of it is that teabaggers don't really care all that much about taxes, but they care about "taxes" helping people that they don't want to be helped. Welfare reform, Obamascare, hands off my Medicare/-caid, etc really disproportionately harm the poor and people of color. Kinda like the whole "perception is reality" thing mentioned in the other thread.

There's always going to be some small part of the population that is pissed about things too. They're the religious right and the ultra lefty. But they're such a minority that it's more or less ok to ignore them at all times. The sad thing is that they tend to be the most vocal in terms of primary/caucus voting that they get heard despite their low numbers.
Click to expand...
I don't think it's accurate to describe the religious right as a small vocal minority or how they're similar to the "ultra left." In case you haven't noticed, no one really cares about the "ultra left," but there is heavy pandering done to the religious right. The only "ultra left" group I can think of that gets the same exposure with anything close to resembling the same level of hypocrisy is PETA, but even then, PETA is practically impotent.
 
[quote name='hostyl1']I dont have a problem with Chris(py Kreme) Christie threatening to veto the bill. I dont think that makes him "an activist govenor". The way the govenrment is set up, you also have to convince the governor to sign the law or convince enough lawmakers to override the veto. I think CCs use of the veto is fair. He's *dead wrong* on the issue, but the veto in and of itself is fair. NJ residents dont like it? Vote him out!

My problem is the bullshit-assed "justification" for the veto. Rather than take a stand and say that he believes gay marriage is not detrimental/not beneficial to the state of NJ, he ducked/punted/"voted present" by saying the reason he's vetoing is that it should be put up to a referendum. What a coward! At least one could respect a Rick Santorum for standing up for what he (IMO wrongly) believes. But CC just hides, trying to keep a facade of being a 'moderate' conservative.

Funny, when he vetoed the so-called "Millionaires Tax" (twice even), he didnt call for a ballot inititiave for that!



I think the more illustrative quote comes from further down in that New Yorker piece:




Sucking off the government's teat and doesnt even realize that it is *his* money the so-called "Tea Party" wants to shut off. Sad really.[/QUOTE]
Yeah that's from the first article linked. Reminds me of the "keep the government's hands off my medicare" types.
 
[quote name='hostyl1']I think the more illustrative quote comes from further down in that New Yorker piece:.[/QUOTE]
The one that really makes me LOL is the tattoo artist talking about how he has a lot customers pay him using disability money and have brand new Nikes that he can't afford. And about his retirement? He's never going to retire because he loves his job despite the shoulder pain he currently experiences. I wonder if he has health insurance...
 
For some, "voting against one's own interests" means doing what's right. I know that's something that so many of you here will never, ever understand. You (royal) rail on and on about the greedy, the selfish, etc... but when faced with those who "vote against" their own interest, well, they're dumb, they're stupid, they're brainwashed. It's as if everyone's supposed to vote for the candidates that promise them the world - and somehow that's not greedy. The very simple idea that some folks think beyond their own interests is so far beyond your (royal) comprehension...
 
[quote name='dohdough']The one that really makes me LOL is the tattoo artist talking about how he has a lot customers pay him using disability money and have brand new Nikes that he can't afford. And about his retirement? He's never going to retire because he loves his job despite the shoulder pain he currently experiences. I wonder if he has health insurance...[/QUOTE]

He would join medicare if or when he becomes eligible.

Which is why I hate the baggers and assorted con kool aid drinkers. They are against other government spending money (on other people).

Even the con true believers here have copped to consuming government largess in the past.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
It's noble when someone with much takes a hit for the little guy. If someone like Romney thought he should pay more in taxes. When you are the little guy and you're voting to basically shit on yourself, that's sheer idiocy. The fact that you can't see that makes me think you're a sadist or something, bob.
 
Forget even going into a "nobility" argument. It's more (IMO) about recognition.

There are rich "lefties" who advocate raising taxes knowing full well that it would "hurt" them economically. Conversely, there are poor-ish "righties" who advocate shrinking the size of "goverment". However, I dont think that many of them fully grasp what this shrinkage would mean. I dont think that they equate 'cutting spending' with 'less road maintainence' or 'fewer Pell Grants' or no new books for schools'. I think most of them just have the idea of some 'gubmint' fat cat who sits on his ass all day doing nothing for society. Or the proverbial 'welfare queen'. Or worse, they think of the dude at the DMV who is always an asshole on a power trip. Those are the people they are in favor of 'cutting'. But you'd sweep up a whole lot more if you cut the Departments of Education, Commerce and whatever other dept Rick Perry was thinking of in his "OOPS" moment
yes, I know it was supposed to be Energy
.

If they fully understand how 'cutting spending' is going to affect them, then God bless them for taking a principled stand. They are wrong (IMO), but good for them for voting their consience.

Just dont complain when you cant get G'mint cheese anymore (it's the best cheese for Grilled Cheese Sandwiches).
 
[quote name='hostyl1'] However, I dont think that many of them fully grasp what this shrinkage would mean. [/QUOTE]

It would mean they were in the pool.
 
[quote name='hostyl1'](it's the best cheese for Grilled Cheese Sandwiches).[/QUOTE]


Govt cheese is havarti?!?!
Jesus christ where have I been?!
 
[quote name='hostyl1']I dont think that many of them fully grasp what this shrinkage would mean. I dont think that they equate 'cutting spending' with 'less road maintainence' or 'fewer Pell Grants' or no new books for schools'.[/QUOTE]

You live in NJ, don't you?

;)

Don't forget "reduced police force in a city with one of the highest crime rates in the nation."
 
[quote name='UncleBob']For some, "voting against one's own interests" means doing what's right. I know that's something that so many of you here will never, ever understand. You (royal) rail on and on about the greedy, the selfish, etc... but when faced with those who "vote against" their own interest, well, they're dumb, they're stupid, they're brainwashed. It's as if everyone's supposed to vote for the candidates that promise them the world - and somehow that's not greedy. The very simple idea that some folks think beyond their own interests is so far beyond your (royal) comprehension...[/QUOTE]
Sorry, but this is one of THE biggest hocks of horseshit I've ever read on a forum, and I've seen a lot. "...doing what's right?" HA! Moral relativism at it's best, right here. Doing what's "right" is ensuring that those that are most vulnerable in our society aren't left in squalor and dying on the streets of starvation and dysentery. Do you know what happens when things get bad enough? Bloody revolution...and morons like you would be standing at the gates would be standing at the gates defending your "betters" because they promised a promotion and some table scraps.

[quote name='hostyl1']Just dont complain when you cant get G'mint cheese anymore (it's the best cheese for Grilled Cheese Sandwiches).[/QUOTE]
I love gubment cheese! Just thinking about those awesome salty creamy bricks of goodness brings back pleasant memories from my childhood in daycare that made triscut and cheese sandwiches for snacks. Double irony points for government peanut butter being healthier than those other peanut butter brands marketed to us as kids.
 
[quote name='Admiral Ackbar']Remember when they would show full surgeries on the discovery networks. I think it was in the 90's. They would show heart surgery, shoulder surgery, etc.

One day, I'm flipping the channel, and there's this doctor working on this guys knee. But it's kinda strange. The guy isn't under anesthesia, it's in a normal looking office and I can't figure out what the doctor is trying to do.

Then I realized, it wasn't the guys knee I was looking at![/QUOTE]

I credit those shows for getting me interested in surgery.

As for the Catholic Church, they'll never espouse any doctrine that thins the herd. They desperately need more members and it's much easier to keep people instead of convert or convince them to return.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='mykevermin']You live in NJ, don't you?[/QUOTE]

I'd never live in a commie/marxist/socialist/statist state where even your freedom to pump your own gas has been taken away by the union thugs.
tongue firmly in cheek
I live in Northern Virginia, just *outside* the beltway.

[quote name='dohdough']Sorry, but this is one of THE biggest hocks of horseshit I've ever read on a forum, and I've seen a lot. "...doing what's right?" HA! Moral relativism at it's best, right here. Doing what's "right" is ensuring that those that are most vulnerable in our society aren't left in squalor and dying on the streets of starvation and dysentery. Do you know what happens when things get bad enough? Bloody revolution...and morons like you would be standing at the gates would be standing at the gates defending your "betters" because they promised a promotion and some table scraps.[/quote]

Bloody revolution? Wait, does that mean Santorum's "guillotine" comment wasnt too far off? (j/k)

I love gubment cheese! Just thinking about those awesome salty creamy bricks of goodness brings back pleasant memories from my childhood in daycare that made triscut and cheese sandwiches for snacks. Double irony points for government peanut butter being healthier than those other peanut butter brands marketed to us as kids.
Click to expand...

Didnt like the peanut butter. It wasnt (isnt?) as 'spreadable' as say Peter Pan. You'd tear a slice of Wonder Bread to pieces trying to make a PB & J sammich.
 
That NYT article sparked a lot of discussion.

As a Republican, I take three things.

One, what are the motivations of those who oppose being helped by the government. It's much deeper than "doing's what right." people can disagree amicably about what's right. But as a member of a family that has itself endured personal hardship, I think i have an understanding of what drives people in tough situations. It's twofold.

The first, and I've mentioned it before, is the "They're getting something I'm not." Syndrome. The tatoo artist is a perfect example. He sees people come into his parlor and he just assumes that they're getting something he doesn't. Nike sneakers and new tattoos on the government dime. But I would argue that's not really true. It's the old myth about welfare queens. Someone is getting some benefit I'm not getting and that's not fair. But often those who have that attitude either neither apply nor know about programs that are offered nor realize the ebenfits in taxes or other programs they're already getting. I've also worked witht he poor. At food banks and in my job.

Even the poor strive for comfort and normality in their life. Let's say you're poor and you get a part time temp job painting or roofing and you scrape up several hundred bucks. Because of the transient nature of the work,you can't rely on the income to make long term investments like buying a car. But maybe your shoes are wearing out so you decide to splurge on a really nice pair of sneakers. Are the poor not entitled to have even one nice thing? Does it not give him just a modicum of happiness and normality in a life otherwise filled with indignities. Yet, when he walks into that tatoo parlor, he's automatically assumed to not really be poor just because he wanted at least one nice thing in his life.

We encounter this problem at the local food bank. Everyone brings in canned beets and vegetables and soups and cereals and dried milk and tuna. But there's often a shortage of fruit and snacks. We had a mini-crisis over Thanksgiving because there were no deserts. Because those are sweets, people don't think of donating those items. But what are you saying to an individual, who's poor and reliant on handouts, that you're not good enough for cake, or pie, or cookies. Just a simple snack, the ability to cook some turnovers, those little things, can brighten the day of a mother or a child who's on food support. But heaven forbid, you see someone on food stamps use that to buy a box of fig newtons, because then they're accused of not really needing food assistance.

Two, I'm a Republican, and I disagree on policy with several inititatives of the Democratic party., But the fact is, the Republican Party isn't helping it's own either. The article highlights how in Republican dominated area, areas that enact conservatice republican policy, things are terrible. Poverty, the distintigration of families, economic stagnation. It doesn't seem Republicans are toubled by that.

A perfect example is in this video about family structure.
http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/294705-1

The conservative states are the ones that focus on traditional familie values. But it's in the liberal north and west where families are mosyt stable. Barack Obama is the perfect example of that. The child of a broken home, he is an exemplary family man and Christian. Yet he has lived in a political enviroment that supports gay marriage, believes in the right of divorce, the right of contraception. While in conservative states, that are opposed to those principles because it is believed they distabalize the home, that's where the family is falling apart the most. Even the conservative speaker in the video at one point said it's a mystery to conservatives why that's so. And the argument the librals make in the video is, that because the north is liberal, it actually provides more freedom of choice and less repression. Thus individuals take more personal responsibility for their actions. And aren't stigmatized when things go wrong so they get the support they need to rebuild their lives. While, in conservatve states, because liberal policies are seen as bad, the people living there neither have the education nor accept the personal responsibility.

That's just one example, but it's across the board in area where conservative policies are followed. In other words, the empirical evidence does not support the policies that conservatives espouse. And that doesn't bother most Republicans. As a Republican, that really bothers me.

Three, when you have to ask for assistance, you feel shame. When you can't provide for you're family, you feel disgraceful. What is the value of a man who can't even put food on the table? It's heart-breaking. You feel worthless. People react diferently to that. Some get depresed. But a lot of people also get angry. Angry even at the people trying to help them. They don't need you're help. They have too much pride to want your help. Sometimes pride is all they have left. That then drives a lot of anger at the government.
 
:applause:

As much I appreciate your post, let me put on my Rush Limbaugh hat for a moment.

In what areas do you agree with Republicans? Either in attitude, principles, or policy?

Because reading your post, you recognize that we live in a society, and that societies are large organisms that rely on each other for growth, development, and support. Communitarianism is at odds with much of the rugged individualism espoused by today's GOP.

So my devil's advocate is to see where you do identify with the Republican party, since you place yourself among their membership.
 
[quote name='UncleBob'].[/QUOTE]

I understand.

I understand that when someone stands "on principle" it almost always means that they are completely full of shit.
 
[quote name='camoor']I understand.

I understand that when someone stands "on principle" it almost always means that they are completely full of shit.[/QUOTE]

So, basically, you don't understand at all...

Thumbs%2Bup.gif
 
[quote name='camoor']I understand.

I understand that when someone stands "on principle" it almost always means that they are completely full of shit.[/QUOTE]

Well you know, when you cannot defend it as good policy and when there isn't even a moral argument to be made. What else does it leave them?

Letting corporations etc. rule over us like feudal lords is a matter of principle.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']:applause:

As much I appreciate your post, let me put on my Rush Limbaugh hat for a moment.

In what areas do you agree with Republicans? Either in attitude, principles, or policy?

Because reading your post, you recognize that we live in a society, and that societies are large organisms that rely on each other for growth, development, and support. Communitarianism is at odds with much of the rugged individualism espoused by today's GOP.

So my devil's advocate is to see where you do identify with the Republican party, since you place yourself among their membership.[/QUOTE]

Ultimately, I believe in the core principles of the Republican Party. Efficienct Gov't, personal responsibility, low taxation, and a belief in the promotion of virtue in society. I disagree with Democrats on the Heath Care Mandate thought I think otherwise there are a lot of good things in the ACA. I disagree with Cap and Trade. Ultimately, I think as economic systems, both the Mandate and C&T will fail in their stated goals. I agreed with the first Bush tax cut, but not the second. I oppossed the Prescription Drug plan because it just wasn't paid for. I believe we need to privatize the postal service, add market reforms to Social Security but not neccesarily privatize the system. I am more aligned with Republicans than I am with Democrats on the concept of how Government should operate.

One of my argumenst is that we're currently confronted by two false economic choices. I don't believe economic prosperity can be driven by Govt. Largess. But neither can it be driven by corporate welfare. What ultimately makes an economy competitive is millions of Americans opening their wallet, slapping money down on a table, and saying "I want that." That's something I think in all the discussions about laffer curves and keynsian stimulus we've forgotten.

In some ways you could say I'm a third way Republican. If I could be defined I guess I'm an old school Eisenhower Republican, which are the majority of Delaware Republicans, at least in the north. But while I believe in the core values of the party, I dont take it to a illiogical extreme. I see the limits of the market place and value certain ideas that the a Libertarian would oppose.

Let me put it another way. In the Kennedy-Nixon debate, Kennedy was asked about his accomplishments and he says something like, "We're the party of the New Deal, we're the party that defended liberty in Europe, and we're the party that created Social Security." The moderator asked Nixon to respond and he goes, "No Comment." And that's the quandry with today's Republican. The conservative/libertarian wing of the party essentially hates the history of the party. I'm proud of the fact that we're the party that created the Interstate Highway System, developed the EPA, and demanded that no child be left behind.

Let me end on one example. Often, policy arguments are not about good vs evil. They're about good vs. good. We live in a world of limited resources and we often have to make choices. Both sides of the argument often have good points. Take foreign aid vs foreign direct investment. Often, Democratic administrations are focused on foreign aid. Supplying food and medicine to the hungry and the suffering. Republican Administrations focus on Foreign Direct Investment. Providing the know-how and investment so a people can create their own infrastructure and lift themselves out of poverty. It's the idea of giving the fish or teaching to fish, as we all learn in sunday school. But neither of these is bad! There are some people, in such wretched conditions of human misery, that they need charitable aid. And there are other people, who due to circumstance or habit, have not had the opportunity to suceed and just need a little support.

While mostly I tend towards and my instincs are Republican, I neither demonize the Democrats or fail to respect the power of their arguments. It just happens, often, my instincts and beliefs fall on the Republican side.
 
[quote name='hostyl1']Forget even going into a "nobility" argument. It's more (IMO) about recognition.

There are rich "lefties" who advocate raising taxes knowing full well that it would "hurt" them economically. Conversely, there are poor-ish "righties" who advocate shrinking the size of "goverment". However, I dont think that many of them fully grasp what this shrinkage would mean. I dont think that they equate 'cutting spending' with 'less road maintainence' or 'fewer Pell Grants' or no new books for schools'. I think most of them just have the idea of some 'gubmint' fat cat who sits on his ass all day doing nothing for society. Or the proverbial 'welfare queen'. Or worse, they think of the dude at the DMV who is always an asshole on a power trip. Those are the people they are in favor of 'cutting'. But you'd sweep up a whole lot more if you cut the Departments of Education, Commerce and whatever other dept Rick Perry was thinking of in his "OOPS" moment
yes, I know it was supposed to be Energy
.

If they fully understand how 'cutting spending' is going to affect them, then God bless them for taking a principled stand. They are wrong (IMO), but good for them for voting their consience.

Just dont complain when you cant get G'mint cheese anymore (it's the best cheese for Grilled Cheese Sandwiches).[/QUOTE]
Around here you'd have to be blind not to see the effect of spending cuts. The roads are getting worse every day because they've cut spending for repairs. Festive things like fireworks shows on the 4th are out, it's plain to see. For some reason however, conservatives seem to give state and local governments a pass when they complain about spending. It's always federal spending they're riled up about.
 
So then why does the party that created the EPA now want to demonize and ultimately destroy it? And I have to say, demanding that no child be left behind in school, and actually accomplishing that, two different things. Really good post though.
 
Good show, AA.

[quote name='Admiral Ackbar']I guess I'm an old school Eisenhower Republican,[/QUOTE]

I'll admit, I constantly forget that the dire warnings of the military-industrial complex came from the mouth of a Republican President.

I hope that you see it's easy to forget, though.
 
I remember first hearing that well before knowing who actually said it. Then when I got curious and checked the source I thought my head was going to explode. Granted Ike wasn't exactly a republican by today's definition I think. Neither was Goldwater. Funny how that all changes in a relatively short amount of time.
 
[quote name='Admiral Ackbar']
We encounter this problem at the local food bank. Everyone brings in canned beets and vegetables and soups and cereals and dried milk and tuna. But there's often a shortage of fruit and snacks. We had a mini-crisis over Thanksgiving because there were no deserts. Because those are sweets, people don't think of donating those items. But what are you saying to an individual, who's poor and reliant on handouts, that you're not good enough for cake, or pie, or cookies. Just a simple snack, the ability to cook some turnovers, those little things, can brighten the day of a mother or a child who's on food support. But heaven forbid, you see someone on food stamps use that to buy a box of fig newtons, because then they're accused of not really needing food assistance.[/QUOTE]

Another case of I may be completely wrong, but don't most food shelves reject perishables?
 
[quote name='perdition(troy']everywhere around where I live does.[/QUOTE]

does reject perishables or does take them?
 
In my experience it varies. Usually though, food banks that are just giving out food to needy families will only take non-perishable items. Soup kitchens etc. feeding the homeless will sometimes take perishables if the donation is large enough and its something they can easily serve before it goes bad.

Random story related to that, in grad school we ended up with a ton of frozen mussels as a roommate volunteered at a soup kitchen and some restaurant or something donated a few bags of frozen mussels and they couldn't use them. Don't know if there weren't enough, or they just didn't want to serve shellfish due to the food allergy risk or what. So they gave them out to volunteers who wanted them.
 
Sen. David Vitter, a pro-life Republican from Louisiana, joined the event today as well and said he supports the bipartisan and bicameral measure that would roll back the Obama administration’s requirement that religious organizations provide insurance covering contraceptives and abortion-inducing drugs.
...
“ It hasn’t changed anything because it still requires employers to offer insurance with these controversial services – even self-insured organizations like many religious hospitals and universities. It may be good enough for President Obama’s conscience, but not for the millions of Americans who cherish their religious liberty,” said Vitter.
Click to expand...

http://www.lifenews.com/2012/02/15/members-of-congress-demand-bill-to-stop-obamas-mandate/

Yes, that is the same David "I had sex with prostitutes" Vitter

I have to admit, by now David is probably an expert on "controversial services"
 
Megadeth already posted in the election thread, by some dude.

Dave has already cleared his stance that it wasn't an "endorsement" just a "favoured candidate" because Dave apparently still like to cuddle up to a box of wine from time to time.

As far as Dave's millions are concerned, ever stop to wonder why Jackson and ESP dropped him from their endorsements? I'll give you a quick hint, don't expect to find many of them around the house if you ever stop by...
 
The birth control issue has been enjoyable. Say goodbye to the female vote! I guess they've still got the evangelical wharrgarbls.
 
They're not too far off from finding a candidate whose idea of compromise is in allowing insurance companies to cover chastity belts instead of birth control.
 
[quote name='dothog']The birth control issue has been enjoyable. Say goodbye to the female vote! I guess they've still got the evangelical wharrgarbls.[/QUOTE]

Exactly. One of the major news sites had a poll yesterday about whether the contraceptives issue had hurt Obama.

Totally a WTF? poll, since there's no way it's hurt him. The only people who care strongly about not forcing insurance companies to cover contraceptives are some on the religious right that would never vote for him (or any Democrat) anyway.

The vast majority of Catholics have used contraceptives at some point, so it won't hurt him at all in that bloc.

All it's done is for the Republicans to further marginalize themselves in this election. At this rate it's going to be a landslide for Obama, and Dems will get some house seats back.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Exactly. One of the major news sites had a poll yesterday about whether the contraceptives issue had hurt Obama.

Totally a WTF? poll, since there's no way it's hurt him. The only people who care strongly about not forcing insurance companies to cover contraceptives are some on the religious right that would never vote for him (or any Democrat) anyway.

The vast majority of Catholics have used contraceptives at some point, so it won't hurt him at all in that bloc.

All it's done is for the Republicans to further marginalize themselves in this election. At this rate it's going to be a landslide for Obama, and Dems will get some house seats back.[/QUOTE]

While I agree with your points (though undecided on how the house will go), just to point out - a Catholic that uses/has used contraceptives isn't equal to a Catholic that's okay with "Obamacare taking over our churches!!!". You're right though, as anyone who has that mindset wouldn't vote for Obama if he was the only one running and voting was mandatory. I just see a huge difference between someone using contraceptives being okay with it vs. not being okay with what they feel is an overreach of government authority - something that a lot of people seem to be glossing over in this thread.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']While I agree with your points (though undecided on how the house will go), just to point out - a Catholic that uses/has used contraceptives isn't equal to a Catholic that's okay with "Obamacare taking over our churches!!!". You're right though, as anyone who has that mindset wouldn't vote for Obama if he was the only one running and voting was mandatory. I just see a huge difference between someone using contraceptives being okay with it vs. not being okay with what they feel is an overreach of government authority - something that a lot of people seem to be glossing over in this thread.[/QUOTE]
Ummm...WUT?
 
The need for oral contraceptives as a way to regulate menstral cycles is more common than people may think. Irregular mentral cycles can lead to a wide variety of women's health issues. If someone should make an argument based on "principle," it should be that one and not that women shouldn't be sluts or the gub'ment is all up in our biz.

Does anyone here think that vacetomies shouldn't be covered by insurance? SHould the government dictate that we shouldn't cover viagra?
 
dohdough,

I don't smoke. I know that some folks do. I'm okay with that.
I'm also okay with private businesses determining that they don't want smoking allowed on their property.
I'm also okay with individual retailers or chains deciding that they do not want to sell cigarettes.
I'm not okay with the government determining that smoking indoors should be illegal.
I'm not okay with the government banning the sell of cigarettes.

I can be okay with the idea of myself or individuals choosing to do/not do something without being okay with the idea of government restrictions on it.

Insurance isn't a charity. It's a business. That is the primary issue here. If we want to make health care a charity or a service of the government, we need to do that - head on. Half measures like this serve only to empower the Federal Government and limit the freedoms of our citizens.

The very idea of the government coming in and forcing a private business to provide a particular service or sell a particular product isn't something I'm fond of.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top