General Politics Thread

[DayWalker]

What do you think the pressing issues are then? I am unwaiveringly pro life. It is a minor issue in it's overall numerical impact, but one of the most important issues in it's moral standing. The catholic church doesn't want to end contraception, just it's use among Catholics. The govt has no right to mandate plan b in catholic churches because it fundamentally challenges the free expression of their religion. You don't want a fiscal conservative, you want a blue dog who thinks the same as you.

Oh i dunno...reforming social security, medicare, military spending, the tax code, welfare, rebuilding are infra structure, energy independence, energy research, funding/reforming public education... etc etc. ya know, some of the stuff the tea bags claimed they were going to do before they spent 2 years going after NPR, planned parenthood, pretending like we weren't going to raise the debt ceiling...

I am personally pro-choice but mostly b/c I don't think crack whores (for example) should be reproducing. Doesn't mean I think it should be a common practice... nor does it mean I think "you" should have to pay for someone elses... nor do i think that only the affluent should have access to said procedure...

As for the catholic church- 98% of sexually active women admit to using some form of contraception. 75% of catholic women use some form of contraception. over 50% of catholics support said mandate. The church is just in denial that once again it has been left in the stone age. Rick Santorum believes that ALL FORMS of contraception are wrong... and that sex is for making babies ONLY. In any case the whole thing was a political calculation on Obama's part- both sides just used this issue as a fund raiser... and the same people fell for the same song and dance and opened up their checkbooks.

and yeah... and blue dog dem is essentially a fiscal conservative minus the abortion rhetoric... what's your problem with that?

[Morganator]

See you're talking about how you think things SHOULD be under the constitution. And I don't necessarily disagree with you but I'm talking about things as they ARE.-

Okay. Fair enough. But, how things SHOULD be is the whole point of the elections. It's about what one candidate or another thinks what should be not how things are. Also as it stands now, with the statement you yourself just made, you no longer have any excuses for why you CAN'T vote for Ron Paul.

1) abortion- federal gov says its legal. large % of people would like to see a constitutional amendment making illegal. I don't care what side of it you're on- I'm tired of hearing about it. And it would be nice to see a fiscal conservative who doesn't have to pander to those folks and could focus on REAL issues. Abortions are not ruining this country.

Except, Ron Paul isn't pandering to anyone and he's the only fiscal conservative on any side of the isle. Can you name one person that does anything remotely close to what Ron Paul proposes on year one of his presidency? I'd say, cutting $1 Trillion dollars from the federal budget, dispensing of five departments and drawing all our troops home immediately is pretty fiscally conservative. Actually, there is no one else who proposes anything half as good.

2) marriage again- a certain sect of the population would love to have a constitutional amendment defining marriage. Again- its a waste of time and distracts from REAL issues. Homosexual relationships are not ruining this country.

Except, Ron Paul isn't pandering to anyone on this either. By making marriage a personal liberty issue (which it really is as no has the right to legislate morality) he is in effect, pandering to no one.

3) Scribbles doctrine- a certain sect is uppity b/c they can't write commandments all over public buildings (schools, court houses, government offices)... again- this is a stupid issue and its stupid to spend over a second talking about it given the REAL issues we have. The Lack of bible verses in public view is not what's wrong with this country.

Except, Ron Paul doesn't even give this issue the time of day because he is the only proponent of the constitution. As a matter of fact, he oftentimes cites the 1st amendment in regards to government not showing any respect, in one way or another, to any religion. He's made his stance very clear and he doesn't waste his time on fluff issues like this.

4)Contraception ban- yeah well you also thought it was unconsitutional for the government to require you to purchase healthcare or.... how's that working for ya? Catholics for example, believe all forms of contraception is wrong... not hard to imagine that they (or like minded peeps) would move to make it harder to get your hands on condoms... Rubbers and the pill are not what's wron with this country. In fact I would much rather pay for condoms and plan B or the pill than an orphan for 18 years...but thats just me. People fucking safely is not a problem with this country.

Considering the cost of healthcare, it's pretty bad. Government sponsored healthcare has made healthcare less accessible, not more. You may think the opposite, but the numbers don't lie.

As for the rest, with exception to your last sentence, I disagree to an extent and so does Ron Paul. Why should the government be there to bail out the individual when the individual is irresponsible. What Ron Paul proposes is to make this an individual liberty issue. He doesn't propose to ban condoms or the pill. He proposes that individuals be responsible for their actions. As for plan B, it's in violation of an individuals right to life. It's a violent act and should be treated as such.

5) Creationism in public schools- I mean its obvious that there is/was a push for this going on in congress... And on this one- yeah we have too many people who give up rational thought for religious doctrine.... this is a problem with our country... we should try not to make it worse.

Considering Ron Paul's stance on education (he is offering to get rid of the DOE) and his love for the constitution, (another issue regarding the 1st amendment) you need not worry unless you vote for someone other than Ron Paul.

6) Liberals tried to remove slavery from history? do tell...

Okay. You had me being civil up until this comment. Not cool man and you do yourself a great disservice by it.

As for the issue of slavery, liberals made it out to be more than what it was and conservatives wanted to make it more about states rights and government interventionism in states' affairs. (Ironically, both are valid to a degree) Now, don't read this as, "Morganator is a closet racist" or anything like that because that isn't true in the slightest. The problem is, both sides have tried to alter history to be seen in a better light. This isn't an issue about political correctness or even an issue about rewriting history. It's an issue of political grandstanding with both parties trying their hardest to be seen in a favorable light. It all boils down to votes and expanding the respective parties. I'm actually surprised no one sees it this the way I do.

[DayWalker]

I think I have stated numerous times that rp is unique in the field. Buy he won't be in the race so the point is moot.
And why would you become un civil at that particular point?

[DayWalker]

Also plan b is not an abortion pill...

[SchaffinOSX]

Ron Paul simply doesn't have the support necessary to get him the nomination. The conservative goal isn't to put forth the best candidate, which could, as you've suggested, be Ron Paul, but to get President Obama out of office. Mitt Romney has always been the candidate with the best chance of beating the President, polling more or less the same as Obama.

The irony is that the reason he isn't getting many votes is because they don't think he'll get many votes. People generally want to vote for someone they think can win. Now, if everyone who was reluctant to vote for Paul voted, I'd expect he'd have a landslide victory. But there's just too much voter reluctance with Paul.

[DayWalker]

Im not so sure. He's even under performing in caucus states which were spose to be his nitch ...

[SchaffinOSX]

Im not so sure. He's even under performing in caucus states which were spose to be his nitch ...

That's true. Santorum is definitely stealing some of the steam that would have otherwise gone to Paul, or one of the other candidates.

[Bigdoggy]

Ron Paul simply doesn't have the support necessary to get him the nomination. The conservative goal isn't to put forth the best candidate, which could, as you've suggested, be Ron Paul, but to get President Obama out of office. Mitt Romney has always been the candidate with the best chance of beating the President, polling more or less the same as Obama.

The irony is that the reason he isn't getting many votes is because they don't think he'll get many votes. People generally want to vote for someone they think can win. Now, if everyone who was reluctant to vote for Paul voted, I'd expect he'd have a landslide victory. But there's just too much voter reluctance with Paul.

which is why A LOT/majority most likely, of people throughout the USA is stupid. If they vote for a guy winning just because he is winning, it's no wonder everything in this world that could potentially come down to the people as a whole is all messed up to begin with. o.O I wish I could look at this world and say to myself "there are a lot of smart people" but it's not the case and it's obvious.

People will vote democrat just because they supported democrat in the past and the same goes for republican, it's so stupid that people think they have to stay to one side no matter how wrong it is depending on the person running. Quite baffling actually. in which case brings me to the fact that there are not a lot of smart people in this world.

So basically if you support taxes you will vote for the others, mitt, santorum, or whoever. If you don't support taxes and are against taxes you will vote RP. it really doesn't get any more simple then that. o.O

[Blacksite]

People will vote democrat just because they supported democrat in the past and the same goes for republican, it's so stupid that people think they have to stay to one side no matter how wrong it is depending on the person running. Quite baffling actually. in which case brings me to the fact that there are not a lot of smart people in this world.

Exactly.

People still hold this black and white view on politics i.e. all Republicans are evil and all Democrats are goody two-shoes. Just because Obama is a charismatic speaker doesn't mean he can't do anything wrong. Hell, most people I know voted for him because "he was black". Now look what that left us; an inexperienced President who says one thing but does another.

[Bigdoggy]

what really pops my eye's wide open is that these people procreate and then they raise their young ones to think just like them. o.O that's just messed up. These are the same type of people that if you prove them wrong, they will throw a chair at you.

they say "ugh, I hate these taxes, they take to much out of my paycheck" then it comes time to vote for the best between Ron Paul, Romney, Santorum, Gingrich, and right away Ron Paul makes his views perfectly clear and I mean PERFECTLY clear about taxes and the Federal, then these same people that bitched and moaned about taxes vote for the other guy that wants to keep the income tax and the federal. Honestly, it doesn't get any more stupid then that. The Neurological problem in the United States is beyond EPIC!

[Blacksite]

what really pops my eye's wide open is that these people procreate and then they raise their young ones to think just like them. o.O that's just messed up. These are the same type of people that if you prove them wrong, they will throw a chair at you.

That's why I don't talk about politics much. Often times it seems like everyone else is right.

[SchaffinOSX]

Well, in defense of American politics, I must say... wait... I don't have any defense.

[Sub-stance1]

Exactly.

People still hold this black and white view on politics i.e. all Republicans are evil and all Democrats are goody two-shoes. Just because Obama is a charismatic speaker doesn't mean he can't do anything wrong. Hell, most people I know voted for him because "he was black". Now look what that left us; an inexperienced President who says one thing but does another.

lol...all presidents are initially inexperienced. We will never have a perfect one because of the people of this country never totally agree on all issues. Conservatives want a republican in the white house and liberals want a democrat. Saying one thing and doing another is something all politicians are guilty of. Obama hasn't been perfect but he has come through on some important issues. This isn't the first time people have voted for someone because of race. There are some people who voted for Obama because he is black just like there are people who voted for Mcain because he isn't. Next election will be no different. People like to say it isn't about race but race does play a role in today's politics.

[btbam]

Oh i dunno...reforming social security, medicare, military spending, the tax code, welfare, rebuilding are infra structure, energy independence, energy research, funding/reforming public education... etc etc. ya know, some of the stuff the tea bags claimed they were going to do before they spent 2 years going after NPR, planned parenthood, pretending like we weren't going to raise the debt ceiling...

I am personally pro-choice but mostly b/c I don't think crack whores (for example) should be reproducing. Doesn't mean I think it should be a common practice... nor does it mean I think "you" should have to pay for someone elses... nor do i think that only the affluent should have access to said procedure...

As for the catholic church- 98% of sexually active women admit to using some form of contraception. 75% of catholic women use some form of contraception. over 50% of catholics support said mandate. The church is just in denial that once again it has been left in the stone age. Rick Santorum believes that ALL FORMS of contraception are wrong... and that sex is for making babies ONLY. In any case the whole thing was a political calculation on Obama's part- both sides just used this issue as a fund raiser... and the same people fell for the same song and dance and opened up their checkbooks.

and yeah... and blue dog dem is essentially a fiscal conservative minus the abortion rhetoric... what's your problem with that?

The issue with the mandate is constitutional. The fact that a majority of catholic women use contraception isirelevent. What matters is the church says no to contraception, but the government is mandating they must provide services on medical plans at catholic hospitals and schools. They are placing an undue burden on the free exercise of religion. I would also appriciate if everyone stopped using the term tea bag or tea baggers. All you are doing is mocking those with different political thought process

[DayWalker]

The issue with the mandate is constitutional. The fact that a majority of catholic women use contraception isirelevent. What matters is the church says no to contraception, but the government is mandating they must provide services on medical plans at catholic hospitals and schools. They are placing an undue burden on the free exercise of religion. I would also appriciate if everyone stopped using the term tea bag or tea baggers. All you are doing is mocking those with different political thought process

then they shouldn't be in the healthcare business. I think its immoral to DENY birth control soley on the grounds that YOU don't think they should not be allowed to use.

Sometime those religiously affiliated hospitals are the only ones in a community. NOT EVERYONE THAT GOES THERE IS CATHOLIC... or agrees with the catholic view on contraception.

It would be like me denying you a flu vaccination b/c its against my beliefs. And if they're gonna do that... then I say they forfeit ALL THE FEDERAL TAX DOLLARS that are the sole reason they are even in operation.

Now if you wanna discuss whether or not it should be free... we can. But deny it completely? GFY

And they referred to themselves as tea baggers before it was pointed out that there was a duel definition thing going on. so....

tea baggers.

Frankly I think they've more than earned the title over the past 2.5 years.

[btbam]

You're not even understanding my argument. It's against the constitution! The fact that non catholic people go to these hospitals or schools does not matter because the government has no right to interfer in religion. Secondly, teabaggers is a derogatory term. It doesn't matter what it meant in the past because now it is designed to mock the movement.

[DayWalker]

You're not even understanding my argument. It's against the constitution! The fact that non catholic people go to these hospitals or schools does not matter because the government has no right to interfer in religion. Secondly, teabaggers is a derogatory term. It doesn't matter what it meant in the past because now it is designed to mock the movement.

you're not understanding my argument. Give back the federal tax money and then you can pretend t practice what you preach. Period.

and Yes- I/we are mocking the "movement"

[btbam]

you're not understanding my argument. Give back the federal tax money and then you can pretend t practice what you preach. Period.

and Yes- I/we are mocking the "movement"

The best hospital in my state is a catholic run hospital. You would essentially be destroying the best institution for health care and lives would be lost. Which do you think is more important? The right to life, or the so called right to contraception.

[DayWalker]

The best hospital in my state is a catholic run hospital. You would essentially be destroying the best institution for health care and lives would be lost. Which do you think is more important? The right to life, or the so called right to contraception.

if they are denying basic healthcare to people then shut'er down.
(I have no doubt that they could re-open one with some sense in hours)

if you don't believe in contraception... then don't use it. You are not allowed to impose your beliefs on other people. Period. It's really that simple.

pretty good op-ed that I think sums it all up nicely:

“Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s; and unto God the things that are God’s”

It’s the old categorical confusion again, doubly so in this debate. Religious freedom is protected in religious practice. Once cannot reasonably extend the umbrella of religious exception to the public sphere. The limited exemption (human sacrifice is frowned upon) of recognized religions from having to bend their practice to secular belief is properly confined to the religious sphere – the personal or ceremonial expression of one’s faith. When a religious individual or faith-based organization crosses boundaries into the public and commercial world, to which secular law applies, it should not be able to demand that different rules apply to it. More importantly, it should not be allowed to discriminate against its employees or the public it serves.

If any religious institution enters the health field, by running hospitals, if it becomes an insurance company, a manufacturer or service company, it has crossed into the secular commercial realm and must be held accountable to the common laws that apply to all others. This application is not a punishment of the commercial or other enterprise – it is a protection of the rights of those who work for and do business with it. Imagine if religiously affiliated public-serving and employing enterprises grew as big as Wal-Mart and Exxon and other such behemoths. Granted an exemption from the laws that apply to all others, they could carve out of the United States, or any liberal democracy, their own separate society in which the civil protections and government benefits available to all others could be withheld from a discriminated segment of society.

It is not sufficient to say that no one need work for a Catholic, or any other religious hospital. On the contrary, organized religions need not venture into Caesar’s domain. No one forces them. They are free – they have the choice – to absent themselves from that domain, if its rules offend them, while continuing to enjoy all the freedom of religious faith and practice. What is sufficient, and necessary, is that all Americans enjoy the same benefits of liberty and government. That latter now includes mandated contraception coverage. No individual is forced to use it. Any Catholic or other religiously-objecting person may abjure the practice of contraception and not avail herself of the coverage. Religious freedoms, like all those we prize, are individual freedoms. Corporate and organization programs of belief should not prevail over individual rights. The freedoms we speak of in such debates are individual and personal, not corporate and organizational.

When someone like George Will, on today’s This Week, argues that liberals are contradicting their belief in “choice” by “mandating” that a faith-based hospital abide by the same laws as any others, he is possessed of, and passing off, a fundamental confusion. The choice is the choice of individuals – it is of, by, and for the people – and the organizations, such as governments and employers, which hold power over individuals are, indeed, mandated to permit and even enable that choice. Without the government’s power to mandate behavior from states, corporations, and other organizations, the liberties and rights of individuals would have no meaning. The government mandated that stores serve all customers, regardless of race, that colleges and universities admit all eligible students, regardless of race or religion. They will mandate that the gay or lesbian husband or wife of an ill person be admitted to that person’s room and be respected in the exercise of his or her rights as a spouse. They will mandate it even for hospitals administered under the umbrella of religions that object to homosexual practice and marriage.

The claim that the President’s decision is anti-Catholic is preposterous on its face. The mandate applies to hospitals run by any religious group. If it is a problem for Catholics, it is only because it is a problem for Catholics. But it isn’t, anyway. The overwhelming majority of Catholic women use contraception, and the Catholic Health Association, of nuns, has offered its endorsement. The problem seems to exist, in reality, once more, among a hierarchy of males attempting to assert privilege and impose their system of belief both on the government that already supports them with tax exemptions and the individuals – women, in this case – who could live without them.

http://sadredearth.com/why-obamas-co...tals-is-right/

[btbam]

if they are denying basic healthcare to people then shut'er down.
(I have no doubt that they could re-open one with some sense in hours)

if you don't believe in contraception... then don't use it. You are not allowed to impose your beliefs on other people. Period. It's really that simple.

pretty good op-ed that I think sums it all up nicely:



http://sadredearth.com/why-obamas-co...tals-is-right/

That implies contraception is a right, it isn't contraception is not basic healthcare. It's additional services, but the church frowns upon it so it shouldn't be forced to provide it. This is the government imposing it's viewpoin on the church which is a protected right.

[DayWalker]

That implies contraception is a right, it isn't contraception is not basic healthcare. It's additional services, but the church frowns upon it so it shouldn't be forced to provide it. This is the government imposing it's viewpoin on the church which is a protected right.

how is wrapping your dick in latex before you screw not BASIC healthcare?

additional services? please.

and no this is the church imposing its will on society. don't get it twisted.

nobody is forcing them to take the shit... but they are trying to deny a basic heath service to people based on their beliefs.

jesus christ (pun intended) if the government came out and said you weren't allowed to buy/use condoms y'all would flip your shit!!!

[btbam]

They aren't denying basic services. You can go right now to planned parenthood and get free condoms. You can probably get subsidized birth control, the catholic church shouldn't be forced to provide it when it is against their beliefs because there are readily available alternatives. If it comes down to a church imposing it's will or the govt. I will always be against the government.

[DayWalker]

They aren't denying basic services. You can go right now to planned parenthood and get free condoms. You can probably get subsidized birth control, the catholic church shouldn't be forced to provide it when it is against their beliefs because there are readily available alternatives. If it comes down to a church imposing it's will or the govt. I will always be against the government.

yeah the church as a much better track record...

anyways i'm done.
"Can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink"

condoms = "additional" services... GTFOH...

[Beast of Bourbon]

Just a thought but condoms are not (just) good for contraception.
Theres a thing called HIV you know...

A condom is as basic as it gets.

[F34R]

There's a right to contraception? When did that happen?