posted
Lyr: Well, I can think of some ways that he might--if he was willing to go with some cutting-edge, radical approaches--that he could make up some of the money difference. I just don't think that the nation much cares about the stuff he stands for anymore.
Posts: 3658 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
What sort of cutting edge radical approaches can you think of that would raise massive sums of money without breaking his ideological opposition to campaign finance as it stands?
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not so much thinking of raising tons of money as getting around the need to. I think there are plenty of internet-based, grass-roots strategies that could be cobbled together that would reach the moderate demographic without needing to spend the millions of dollars a more conventional campaign requires.
Even then, keep in mind that I'm not sure it would work. For one thing, I think most of the voters that would be most effectively reached with that kind of tactical approach are either completely burned out/disillusioned or didn't care in the first place.
Posts: 3658 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Feingold would be incredible. However, he's flatly stated in two recent interviews that he has no interest in being president or doing what it takes to become president.
If Feingold were even slightly interested in the presidency, he should be running for the position of governor of Wisconsin in the upcoming recall, like pretty much everyone in Wisconsin wishes he would do.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: Question: Who do people think is likely to be Secretary of State if Obama is re-elected?
My guess is John Kerry. He wanted it back in 2008 and he wants it still. He's been hauling a lot of water on foreign policy as chairman of the Senate foreign relations committee, as well as taking an active role in Pakistan and the Middle East.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Feingold would be incredible. However, he's flatly stated in two recent interviews that he has no interest in being president or doing what it takes to become president.
If Feingold were even slightly interested in the presidency, he should be running for the position of governor of Wisconsin in the upcoming recall, like pretty much everyone in Wisconsin wishes he would do.
posted
From what little I've heard, Feingold is pretty burnt out on politics. He wants to help people, he definitely has a political agenda, but...he doesn't feel like there's much point in the current system, and I don't really blame him. He got smashed pretty hard by the Tea Party voters last time around.
Posts: 3658 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: From an outside perspective your moderate republicans never seemed to ever been willing to break with republicans to support a moderate cause.
I think one of the comments on the article is apropos, in that, for the Senate at least, the party unity of the Dems is impacted by the continued use of the filibuster by the GOP. All the "lack of unity" is built in to weaker legislation to get the necessary number of votes to reach the floor.
Posts: 7021 | Registered: Nov 1999
| IP: Logged |
Santorum's problem isn't so much that he wants to wage a religious war on Obama, it's that he's promoting an absolutely RIDICULOUS Victim Card in his discourse on religion. Have you heard the BS he's spewing lately about the separation of church and state? He's completely removed from reality. There's no secular test in this country, there's a RELIGION test. Americans are more likely to elect a Muslim than an atheist. There is exactly ONE atheist in Congress. There has never been a professed atheist president. His claims of victimhood are just a piece of his wackadoodle religious rhetoric.
He's not Khamenei, but it sure as hell seems like they both took the same Hyperbole 101 online course.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sorry, I forgot my winky face. That first part was supposed to be tongue in cheek. I totally meant the rest. Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: Santorum ought to declare a fatwah on Obama any day now.
The fact that Santorum isn't in a position of power to enforce his stated views whereas the Grand Ayatollah is, is kind of a strange defence.
Are we not supposed to point out things in advance?
Edit to add: Not sure what the later comments on calls for murder are responding to. Going through the statements in the article, none of the statements from either figure seem to deal with murder of political opponents.
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: From an outside perspective your moderate republicans never seemed to ever been willing to break with republicans to support a moderate cause.
I think one of the comments on the article is apropos, in that, for the Senate at least, the party unity of the Dems is impacted by the continued use of the filibuster by the GOP. All the "lack of unity" is built in to weaker legislation to get the necessary number of votes to reach the floor.
That's a good point; party loyalty for both parties has risen consistently since about 1970. I'd assumed that was just reflecting the post-Civil Rights ideological realignment as conservative Dems and liberal Republicans switched sides, but maybe the increased use of the filibuster (which really started its own continual growth in the mid-1980s, IIRC) is part of the story too. But keep in mind that, while the GOPs use of the filibuster has increased, so has the Democrats (although admittedly not to the same level). So whatever "watering down" effect you see in the Dems bills, there's a somewhat commensurate effect among the Republicans.
Furthermore, party loyalty in voting has been very similar between the parties for the last fifty years. That kind of persistent correlation indicates to me that the parties have had, and still have, roughly equivalent levels of cohesion and ideological purity.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: Lyr: Has he? So you're equating literal calls for murder to wackadoodle christian rhetoric?
Those are equivalent?
Really?
I think Santorum and Khamenei aren't the only ones who took that course, man.
Here's a question: how close to Khomeini levels of awfulness do you think Santorum would get, if he weren't inhibited by a whole lot of foundational laws as well as American politics-if he would get any farther along that spectrum than he is now?
I don't ask this because I think anything Santorum has done is comparable to a largely uncaring theocracy, or because I feel the question can be answered reliably. But...I just get a really strong vibe off Santorum, as socially conservative as he is and as totally uninterested in non-socially conservative, Christian right America as he seems to be, that 'religious freedom' is not actually something he believes in, or would keep if he could. If there were some way to actually use the power of government (be permitted to use, really) to just enact a bunch of things whereby Christianity is not just unofficially but across the board, publicly, acknowledged by government and afforded extra rights, powers, and voice in America...that I think he would do it. I mean 'think' in a cut sense sort of worry/fear/mistrust.
I think Santorum is about as far right as one can get in American politics and have a shot at anything meaningful, and I don't feel that he's not *further* right because he's in the position that he thinks is right and proper-I think he would probably be quite a lot further right if he could, and still have a national voice. That might be a clearer way of saying things.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's an interesting perspective, Rakeesh. You may be right. I generally try to assess people (left and right) based on what they say, rather than what I think they really mean or really wanted to say. Nevertheless, I think your interpretation is an understandable one.
Even accepting your premise, though, do I think he would reach the level of Khamenei? Not really, no. He might be a hell of a lot closer to that than I would ever like in a US elected official, but I still think the assertion is hyperbole.
Mucus: I think the point of conflating their quotes is to conflate the figures. No? So taking each person as a whole and deciding if the comparison is merited seems logical, to me.
Edit: I'll also come clean and admit that I at first mistakenly thought it was comparing Santorum to former Ayatollah Khomeini, as opposed to current Ayatollah Khamenei. I wonder if I'm the only one who did this (based on Rakeesh's spelling, I think I'm not, but I don't know for sure).
Anyway, the former explicitly called for the murder of various people (like Rushdie) because of what they had said, which is something I honestly don't think Santorum even secretly wants to do. I don't know offhand what fatwas the latter has issued, so I suppose it's possible he's a bit less insane, in which case the comparison is that much more warranted.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think he's out there, but I don't think he's motivated by religious beliefs as much as by power. He's showing that he'll say what he thinks needs to be said to gain more power. He's shooting the moon, alienating the moderates by affirming some pretty hardline stances to get cozier with the extreme right. I think the power motive came out pretty clearly when he tried to appeal to Michigan Democrats in the primary. He would do that for power.
That said, I wouldn't want him anywhere near the White House.
Posts: 5957 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: Mucus: I think the point of conflating their quotes is to conflate the figures. No? So taking each person as a whole and deciding if the comparison is merited seems logical, to me.
I didn't really read it like that, for two reasons. First, the author is Iranian-American (and looking further, his area of specialization is extremist religion, particularly Islam). So I was more thinking that this was supposed to be a cautionary message, as in "here's one man with this kind of views in my ancestral homeland, you know what he did with power. This guy here in America with the same views, you probably don't want to put him in power."
Second, I don't think that giving fatwas that command people to be killed is precisely a personality trait. Rather it's about what power a person has and what power a sizeable fraction of society has given him.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: From an outside perspective your moderate republicans never seemed to ever been willing to break with republicans to support a moderate cause.
I think one of the comments on the article is apropos, in that, for the Senate at least, the party unity of the Dems is impacted by the continued use of the filibuster by the GOP. All the "lack of unity" is built in to weaker legislation to get the necessary number of votes to reach the floor.
That's a good point; party loyalty for both parties has risen consistently since about 1970. I'd assumed that was just reflecting the post-Civil Rights ideological realignment as conservative Dems and liberal Republicans switched sides, but maybe the increased use of the filibuster (which really started its own continual growth in the mid-1980s, IIRC) is part of the story too. But keep in mind that, while the GOPs use of the filibuster has increased, so has the Democrats (although admittedly not to the same level). So whatever "watering down" effect you see in the Dems bills, there's a somewhat commensurate effect among the Republicans.
Furthermore, party loyalty in voting has been very similar between the parties for the last fifty years. That kind of persistent correlation indicates to me that the parties have had, and still have, roughly equivalent levels of cohesion and ideological purity.
A fair point in return I wonder though, if you could do an analysis of, say "landmark" bills", and see how many people bolt from the their side, controlling for the party of the president, and who holds which majorities in Congress.
EDIT: I think pinpointing "NO" votes would be the most interesting. Find bills were the minority party is strongly against the bill publicly (via leadership comments), and then see how many defect to "yes" votes.
Posts: 7021 | Registered: Nov 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Because there can be no other medical reason to take the pill except having lots of sex with random men? He clearly doesn't even know many women very well. (By contrast, in Britain, contraceptive pills even have a prescription charge waiver, so they're completely free at the pharmacy).
I hope this time people actually wake up to how hateful this guy is of women.
Posts: 1528 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Bella Bee: Because there can be no other medical reason to take the pill except having lots of sex with random men? He clearly doesn't even know many women very well. (By contrast, in Britain, contraceptive pills even have a prescription charge waiver, so they're completely free at the pharmacy).
I hope this time people actually wake up to how hateful this guy is of women.
Using contraceptive pills for other medical conditions is a totally different discussion. It's a red herring to suggest that's the reason for the controversy. The vast, vast majority of women use contraceptives for contraception.
Posts: 570 | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
It is, capax? So the GOP sides of this controversy, they say, "If you don't want the pill for contraception but for another reason, we say it should be covered." That's what they say, right, capax? Right? Because if they didn't, it's your response that is the red herring.
Tell me something, capax, do you think there might be a pretty good number of women needing medical attention for the sorts of things mentioned in that link? Huh?
But, hey, conservative base's wet dream calls a woman a slut and a prostitute, but let's talk about what the 'vast majority' of women-approximately what percentage do, then? Do you even know? If so, love to hear before you go look it up.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: It is, capax? So the GOP sides of this controversy, they say, "If you don't want the pill for contraception but for another reason, we say it should be covered." That's what they say, right, capax? Right? Because if they didn't, it's your response that is the red herring.
Check your tone as well as what I said: the most common reason for using contraceptives is contraception. I didn't say there weren't other reasons.
Posts: 570 | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
To start with, were taking about hormonal contraceptives, specifically the pill - an IUD, for example, does nothing for an ovarian cyct or heavy menstral periods, etc. According to the Guttmacher Institute, "14% of pill users—1.5 million women—rely on them exclusively for noncontraceptive purposes." So I take back my "vast, vast majority" comment. It's merely a significantly large majority.*
If a doctor has diagnosed a woman with a medical condition that could be remedied or aleviated using hormonal treatments - treatments which ALSO have contraceptive effects - that, as I stated, is a different discussion.
*According to this survey. The Guttmacher Institute is a know left-leaning institution and their bias shouldn't be discounted but for the sake of argument their study is the only one I felt incline to cite.
Posts: 570 | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
I read what you said. It referred to mention of non-contraceptive uses as red herrings, in response to someone else bringing them up. It would be fine if you'd only said that most uses are for contraception. You didn't, though-it's a 'red herring'.
You also didn't answer my question about whether or not Republicans are offering a compromise to handle this very substantial portion of women.
But hey, capax? While we're talking about bias? How's about that Rush Limbaugh calling a woman speaking on public policy a slut and a prostitute? Hmm? Or shall we just refer to liberal bias?
Man, keep your freaking party out of people's GD bedrooms. Ugh.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: I read what you said. It referred to mention of non-contraceptive uses as red herrings, in response to someone else bringing them up. It would be fine if you'd only said that most uses are for contraception. You didn't, though-it's a 'red herring'.
I have a feeling you're trying to make an argument out of this. I said it's a red herring to suggest that using contraceptive pills for other medical conditions is the reason for the controversy.
I don't think either side has sought to honestly address the use of hormonal contraceptives for other medical uses. I see viable solutions which could be reached if the debate stayed on track.
quote:Man, keep your freaking party out of people's GD bedrooms. Ugh.
The issue of contraception moves beyond the bedroom when it comes to who's paying for and providing the contraception. In addition to the medical and moral facets of this issue, there is the financial one.
Posts: 570 | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Really? How much do you want to examine the financial impact of easily accessed contraception, capax?
On the one hand, you're right about what you said about red herrings and the reason for the controversy. I misread you, and I apologize. On the other hand, your mention of a red herring was itself a straw man-Bella Bee didn't say or suggest that that was the reason for the controversy.
As for who's paying for it and who's providing it, strange, isn't it, the double-standard? When social conservatives insist government not do things they feel are morally awful, they cry foul of religious freedom. And yet, they're not the only members of society, and having a definition of morality thrust on others by what their own government can and cannot do for religious reasone-*that's* not an infringement.
Making a very loose comparison, when a Christian says, "Merry Christmas!" it is, to many, a kindhearted greeting or farewell. To some others, though, when someone days, "Happy Kwanzaa!" or "Happy Holidays!" or "Cheerful Equinox!", it's an attack.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:The issue of contraception moves beyond the bedroom when it comes to who's paying for and providing the contraception. In addition to the medical and moral facets of this issue, there is the financial one.
Not really.
Most insurance companies don't have a particular problem with providing contraceptives; it's employers who are throwing a hissy fit.
Covering pregnancies is a standard, established form of coverage. It's assumed that good coverage will include at least some form of basic care for checkups and the actual delivery, etc. Now, for the insurance company, what's cheaper, a pregnancy that goes all the way to delivery, or paying for a few pills? It a basic cost-benefit analysis, contraceptives are considerably cheaper than pregnancies.
So if you're going to make the argument that sexual choices as they relate to financial burdens on health care companies means society has a say in it, then you have to make the argument that larger forces be allowed to decide when you're allowed to have kids, how big your family will be, etc. And I think as a society we've already decided that the more kids the merrier, otherwise we wouldn't subsidize big families as much as we do. Regardless though, if someone told you to stop having sex because your child production was a larger societal financial concern, you'd be pretty roundly attacked from both sides.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I hate the birth control debate. I have been on birth control for most of my life not because I was sexually active but because I have endometriosis and my life is hell without it. But, nice to know that the only reason I take the pills is so I can have lots of consequence free sex.
Also, doesn't the pill decrease libido (or is that just me)? So, if we want to cut down on sex, we should put everyone on it. Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by capaxinfiniti: It's a red herring to suggest that's the reason for the controversy.
So, what's the reason for Limbaugh's take on the controversy? Noted how he doesn't even seem to know how the pill works?
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:because I have endometriosis and my life is hell without it.
That was kind of where I was going with this. Some employers would clearly rather pay sick leave every month than allow medication which would help deal with the problem.
Posts: 1528 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
So what exactly IS the problem with using contraception for contraception anyway? Nearly 7 billion people on a planet able to sustain less than half that number for any extended period of time. And that number is expected to double within this century. We are supposed to hate abortion, and contraception is an evil as well. What does the reasoning mind say this will lead to as far as population numbers go? Massive starvation, soil stripped to uselessness, global destruction due to GM crops, fertilizers, etc... trying to produce enough food, massive water shortages, more desperate wars for resources, poverty on scales never even dreamed of in history, on and on... Or a little tiny pill and discussions about the appropriateness of sexual choices left in the churches where it belongs.
Let me just vocalize what most of us know we feel. How many sexual encounters I choose to have is none of any other man or woman's business.
Libaugh has no children and has been married for many a year. Either hes impotent and has, as usual, no idea what he's talking about, or he's a hyppocritical jackass. I vote all of the above.
Posts: 7 | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lol, and here I am sitting on a computer on a saturday night, typing on a forum on a science fiction novel website. Sex? What is that again?
Posts: 7 | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged |
posted
Shanon, if you have sex, you must be punished for it by having a baby. If you want to have no babies, you should do the morally acceptable thing and have no sex.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Bella Bee: Because there can be no other medical reason to take the pill except having lots of sex with random men? He clearly doesn't even know many women very well. (By contrast, in Britain, contraceptive pills even have a prescription charge waiver, so they're completely free at the pharmacy).
I hope this time people actually wake up to how hateful this guy is of women.
Using contraceptive pills for other medical conditions is a totally different discussion. It's a red herring to suggest that's the reason for the controversy. The vast, vast majority of women use contraceptives for contraception.
I was going to challenge this, but I see lower down you correct it.
There's a couple of other bizarre mistaken ideas in Limbaugh's rants. First, as has been alluded to, hormonal birth control costs the same no matter how much sex with how many partners you are having. Second, monogamous couples have, on average, much more sex than non-monogamous singles. So, even if birth control did cost more per use, it would be the people having sex with the same person who would be pay more.
Honestly, this story started out bizarre and misogynistic. This started as part of a Republican dominated panel contraception. Said panel was made up of all men and all the witnesses were men. When the Democrats tried to bring one female to testify, she was barred...and then Rush Limbaugh - a man who has repeatedly cheated on and then divorced his wives and who doesn't seem to have a basic understanding of how birth control works - called her a slut and then demanded to be able to watch video of her having sex.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by scholarette: Shanon, if you have sex, you must be punished for it by having a baby. If you want to have no babies, you should do the morally acceptable thing and have no sex.
Or, you know, pay for contraception yourself (that's what I do). Or get it at a free clinic. Or wait until your not ovulating.
It's an absurdly simplistic discussion we're having. Rush Limbaugh's living up to his MO as a jerk, but the reflexive umbrage-taking has led to some ridiculous statements, even from people who are normally relatively rational. Witness Chuck Schumer saying the Blunt Amendment "amounts to a contraception ban." Since the Amendment would, for a limited number of employers, simply preserve the status quo Schumer's claim implies our current situation amounts to contraception ban, and has since, well, always! That's some clear-headed thinking from the third-ranking Democrat in the Senate.
Also, today Limbaugh released a statement that reads, in part, "In this instance, I chose the wrong words in my analogy of the situation. I did not mean a personal attack on Ms. Fluke...I sincerely apologize to Ms. Fluke for the insulting word choices." You can doubt the sincerity of his apology, but at least in this instance he did, in fact, say sorry for being a jerk. Although not for being wrong; that would be too much.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
In actual political news, Romney's having a surprisingly good night in Washington. Just two weeks ago a lot of smart people were betting on Washington's social conservatives to give Santorum a win there, but Romney's currently (with 59% of precincts counted) got 37% with Paul and Santorum essentially ties at 24.5%.
For all the hand-wringing about Romney's weakness, the truth is his win/loss record in the early primaries is better than either Obama or McCain in 2008. Of the 12 pre-Super Tuesday races he's won eight outright (5 by double digits if WA holds up), and effectively tied in a ninth. Not that there aren't real weaknesses there (the drop-off in participation levels from 2008 is troubling), but I think a lot of the concern is overblown.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think Tuesday is the final word, assuming Santorum can't tie up Oklahoma, Ohio, and Tennessee.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think Super Tuesday is likely to be a pretty rough day for Romney. I predict he'll win Vermont, Massachusetts, Idaho and Virginia, but he'll almost surely lose Georgia (to Gingrich), and Oklahoma and Tennessee (to Santorum) by large margins. I don't think he'll make it over the top in Ohio, which is what'll drive the media narrative as everyone spends another couple of cycles opining on contested conventions and whether Jeb Bush would accept the nomination. Alaska and North Dakota are harder to predict, but I'm guessing based on their demographic similarity to Minnesota that Santorum wins them as well. So my guess is he goes 4/10 on Tuesday (although he'll probably win the overall delegate battle for the day after collecting all the delegates from MA and VA).
Then the next week he'll probably lose Kansas, Alabama, and Mississippi (although I'm guessing he'll win in Hawaii and a handful of smaller territories like Guam and American Samoa). Which is all to say that the next two weeks will probably have a significant adverse impact on his (thus far pretty respectable) winning percentage. Still, I'm guessing he'll end up 150-200 ahead in the delegate race by the end of the month, and that that lead will slowly expand throughout the contest until he wraps up the nomination after winning the CA primary.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Don't know how important this sort of thing is anymore, but Romney did pick up a couple important newspaper endorsements in Ohio today, from the Cincinnati Enquirer and the Cleveland Plain Dealer.
I do think that winning Ohio and keeping things close (mid-to-low single digits) in Oklahoma and Tennessee will go a long way to shaping the narrative. I think if that happens he'll be perceived as having 'won' Super Tuesday, regardless of what happens elsewhere.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
quote:Originally posted by capaxinfiniti:
quote:Originally posted by Bella Bee: Because there can be no other medical reason to take the pill except having lots of sex with random men? He clearly doesn't even know many women very well. (By contrast, in Britain, contraceptive pills even have a prescription charge waiver, so they're completely free at the pharmacy).
I hope this time people actually wake up to how hateful this guy is of women.
Using contraceptive pills for other medical conditions is a totally different discussion. It's a red herring to suggest that's the reason for the controversy. The vast, vast majority of women use contraceptives for contraception.
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: Honestly, this story started out bizarre and misogynistic. This started as part of a Republican dominated panel contraception. Said panel was made up of all men and all the witnesses were men. When the Democrats tried to bring one female to testify, she was barred...and then Rush Limbaugh - a man who has repeatedly cheated on and then divorced his wives and who doesn't seem to have a basic understanding of how birth control works - called her a slut and then demanded to be able to watch video of her having sex.
Yes. I agree. The real story here started with the contraception panel. Limbaugh's vocalization of a misogynistic narrative is just the frosting at the top.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I know I'm new here, and this subject is likely getting old already, but the two sides of the debate are whether or not we should all be paying for contracptives for the masses through our taxes. Some argue that its not the taxpayers responsibility to provide a means to allow people to procreate without consequence. Some argue that its immoral to refuse to help someone who takes contraceptives for health concerns. And others argue that it is against their religious beliefs to use contraception, and therefore they should not be forced by the state to support it.
Now, the argument about providing contraceptives to women for health concerns is silly. That should be a given from any moralistic point of view and legislation could easily be attached to ensure any women with health requirements for contraception are covered. If republicans and even most democrats now were interested in anything but keeping us arguing while corporations take control of our lives, that would have already been established.
But the moralistic issues..... again, where is the reasoning here? The intellegent thought before knee jerk decisions based on superstition and bull headed flat-earth thinking?
The world is overpopulated. We are literally losing multiple species each day due to overtaxing pruduction of food and housing as well as fuel and clothing and plastics, etc.... We were charged with being good caretakers of the Earth, and should have the intellegence to understand that there is a reason behind this. It is going to effect every tax payer more and more in the future if we dont take some responsibility for how many more people we put on the Earth, and laws are going to be forced down our throat whether we like it or not, violating our faiths or not.
Rush Limbaugh is helping keep us divided in petty arguments while those at the top take more and more control over our lives both nationally and globally. And once they have enough control, they will enact laws, buth brutal and immoral, and those who disagree will have no possibility of challenging it.
Im sorry if this post is too long, but these are things no one should have to explain to an intellegent and informed person to begin with.
Posts: 7 | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Noted how he doesn't even seem to know how the pill works?
Limbaugh has long been confused about how pills of all kinds work. Dosage, when to stop taking them, etc.
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep: Or, you know, pay for contraception yourself (that's what I do). Or get it at a free clinic. Or wait until your not ovulating.
Option #1 makes little sense to me, if you have insurance coverage that covers other prescriptions, why should it not cover this one? Leaving aside those of us with endometriosis, PCOS, and the various other medical conditions that require "contraceptive" pills for reasons other than contraception.
#2 is fine, if that's how you get all your medical care. Otherwise, back to my answer for #1.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
I wonder though, if you could do an analysis of, say "landmark" bills", and see how many people bolt from the their side, controlling for the party of the president, and who holds which majorities in Congress.![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
