PDA

View Full Version : The Republican race to the bottom continues unabated



SoonerPride
2/16/2012, 01:31 PM
http://desmond.yfrog.com/Himg36/scaled.php?tn=0&server=36&filename=wg35.jpg&xsize=640&ysize=640

From today's hearing on contraception.

Contraception. Not abortion.

But contraception.

Not. One. Woman.

http://news.yahoo.com/video/politics-15749652/democrats-scold-issa-at-contraception-hearing-28332723.html#crsl=%252Fvideo%252Fpolitics-15749652%252Fdemocrats-scold-issa-at-contraception-hearing-28332723.html

Really?

This is par for the course, since women's reproductive health is an area of great interest to men (especially clergy) and women are seemingly incapable of having an opinion on it.

How the Republicans think this does them any good with the electorate boggles the mind.

Don't they have more important matters to worry about than contraception? Like jobs jobs jobs?

Carry on.

Midtowner
2/16/2012, 01:47 PM
Meh. I agree with Issa. The witness is a law student. What qualifies her to speak to this issue? Having a vagina?

The Dems on the panel would have had a leg to stand on if they were wanting to call some published PhD type person, but the best they could come up with was some 20-something Georgetown Law student.

dwarthog
2/16/2012, 04:05 PM
http://desmond.yfrog.com/Himg36/scaled.php?tn=0&server=36&filename=wg35.jpg&xsize=640&ysize=640

From today's hearing on contraception.

Contraception. Not abortion.

But contraception.

Not. One. Woman.

http://news.yahoo.com/video/politics-15749652/democrats-scold-issa-at-contraception-hearing-28332723.html#crsl=%252Fvideo%252Fpolitics-15749652%252Fdemocrats-scold-issa-at-contraception-hearing-28332723.html

Really?

This is par for the course, since women's reproductive health is an area of great interest to men (especially clergy) and women are seemingly incapable of having an opinion on it.

How the Republicans think this does them any good with the electorate boggles the mind.

Don't they have more important matters to worry about than contraception? Like jobs jobs jobs?

Carry on.

Confusing huh?

I'll try to clear it up for you.




1st Amendment

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Nice try on the obfuscation though.

SoonerPride
2/16/2012, 04:13 PM
Confusing huh?

I'll try to clear it up for you.



Nice try on the obfuscation though.

http://liberalvaluesblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/war-on-religion.jpg

dwarthog
2/16/2012, 04:28 PM
http://liberalvaluesblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/war-on-religion.jpg

Have you no intelligent thoughts on the issue or is the image of a TV personality where someone has edited a .jpg adding some really "cool words" or the miscellaneous ramblings of DNC shills is what passes for your sole scope of understanding with regards to subject matter?

C&CDean
2/16/2012, 04:39 PM
http://desmond.yfrog.com/Himg36/scaled.php?tn=0&server=36&filename=wg35.jpg&xsize=640&ysize=640

From today's hearing on contraception.

Contraception. Not abortion.

But contraception.

Not. One. Woman.

http://news.yahoo.com/video/politics-15749652/democrats-scold-issa-at-contraception-hearing-28332723.html#crsl=%252Fvideo%252Fpolitics-15749652%252Fdemocrats-scold-issa-at-contraception-hearing-28332723.html

Really?

This is par for the course, since women's reproductive health is an area of great interest to men (especially clergy) and women are seemingly incapable of having an opinion on it.

How the Republicans think this does them any good with the electorate boggles the mind.

Don't they have more important matters to worry about than contraception? Like jobs jobs jobs?

Carry on.

Well, it looks like our discussion on this matter is over.

SoonerPride
2/16/2012, 04:58 PM
Have you no intelligent thoughts on the issue or is the image of a TV personality where someone has edited a .jpg adding some really "cool words" or the miscellaneous ramblings of DNC shills is what passes for your sole scope of understanding with regards to subject matter?

My thoughts? hmmm they pretty much synch up with what Stewart said in his rant on the Daily Show.

The right and the church lose all credibility when saying there is a 'war on religion' and especially in light of the fact that churches are exempt from the regulation. This canard that religiously-affiliated organizations are being coerced to do something which deeply offends them is hogwash. Tell that to the other 28 states which have the mandate already.

But if you want my thoughts on deference to churches and their opinion on anything it would be a rather short reply.

Fairy tales are for children and children aren't capable of making adult decisions.

StoopTroup
2/16/2012, 05:03 PM
My penis itches.

Ike
2/16/2012, 11:58 PM
One day, the Catholic church will wake up and realize that if sex was intended only for procreation, then we would have been made such that it would be plainly obvious when a woman was ovulating, and that whatever it was that made it obvious would be the only thing that aroused men, and then the sexing would happen. But as it is, we have no idea. We can only really tell when its over. If God made us this way, then he must have meant for sexual activity to accomplish more than just procreation. And if people are getting it on for those other intended purposes, then there is no reason for birth control should be taboo. If God really wanted that woman to be pregnant, would it matter if she was on birth control?

I'm not holding my breath on that one though. This is the same organization that took 350 years to admit that Galileo wasn't wrong.

AlboSooner
2/17/2012, 01:51 AM
Yet another thread where the band nerd tries to shout everybody down who doesn't agree with him. This time though, the rant is marginally funny as it is borrowed from Stewart.

dwarthog
2/17/2012, 08:31 AM
My thoughts? hmmm they pretty much synch up with what Stewart said in his rant on the Daily Show.

The right and the church lose all credibility when saying there is a 'war on religion' and especially in light of the fact that churches are exempt from the regulation. This canard that religiously-affiliated organizations are being coerced to do something which deeply offends them is hogwash. Tell that to the other 28 states which have the mandate already.

But if you want my thoughts on deference to churches and their opinion on anything it would be a rather short reply.

Fairy tales are for children and children aren't capable of making adult decisions.


As with everything else you regurgitate, the "28 state requires" obfuscation is patently false as well.

http://capsules.kaiserhealthnews.org/index.php/2012/02/catholic-contraception-controversy-the-state-of-pay/


Two Democratic governors — Gov. Dannel Malloy of Connecticut and Gov. Martin O’Malley of Maryland — tried to tamp down the controversy over contraception coverage at Catholic institutions this week by quoting the same number: 28 states already require insurance coverage of contraception.

That’s true and it’s mentioned in a state policy brief by the reproductive health think tank, the Guttmacher Institute. But it’s not the whole story.

The same report shows that 20 of those 28 states have exemptions from the coverage policy for religious employers and insurers. Guttmacher categorizes eight of those exemptions as “expansive” – and both Connecticut and Maryland are in that category.

For Maryland, that means that most Catholic schools, universities and hospitals are not required to cover contraception for their employees. In Connecticut, religious insurers are required to offer contraceptive coverage through a subcontract, according to the report.


The truly sad part about you and your ilk is how easily you are led toward surrendering your rights and freedoms under a stream of false pretenses.

okie52
2/17/2012, 10:09 AM
Fairy tales are for children and children aren't capable of making adult decisions.

Have you seen Obama's/the dems energy policies?

SoonerPride
2/17/2012, 10:35 AM
As with everything else you regurgitate, the "28 state requires" obfuscation is patently false as well.

Oh really?

hmmm. Seems that Huckabee, Romney, Pataki, and pretty much the whole Republican establishment enacted the exact same policy that was part of the Affordable Care Act.

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/feb/15/nation/la-na-gop-contraceptives-20120216


In Massachusetts in 2006, then-Gov. Mitt Romney signed a healthcare overhaul that kept in place a contraceptive mandate signed by his Republican predecessor. Now the GOP presidential candidate is calling the Obama rule an "assault on religion."


Congressional Republicans are pushing legislation to exempt all employers from providing contraceptive coverage if it goes against their beliefs.

In 2000, when Iowa became one of the first states to enact a contraceptive mandate, the Republican Legislature overwhelmingly backed the bill, which has no exemption for religious employers of any kind.

Even one of the law's few opponents did not move to exempt religious employers at the time, records show. Republican Rep. Steve King, a leading conservative who was then a state senator, instead proposed to exempt employers who did not cover Viagra. "We were not fighting the battle over conscience protection then," King said in an interview this week.

In Arizona, state Rep. Linda Binder, a pro-choice Republican, formed a bipartisan coalition to push her bill, which exempted churches but not other church-affiliated institutions, through the Republican-controlled Legislature. Then-Gov. Jane Hull, a Republican and a Catholic, signed the measure into law.

In New York, a similar law also won GOP support in the Legislature. It was signed in 2001 by Gov. George E. Pataki, another Republican.

Four years later, the Arkansas law easily cleared that state's Legislature, with help from Republican lawmakers, including two GOP cosponsors. Huckabee signed it in April 2005.

He defended the law in a statement. "Religious employers are not required to comply with this policy," he said. "My position is, and always has been, that religious entities shouldn't be forced to pay for contraception."

But like the original federal regulation proposed by Obama, the Arkansas law did not exempt church-affiliated hospitals and universities. It exempts only "religious employers" that are nonprofit organizations whose primary mission is "the inculcation of religious values," and primarily employ people who share the same religion, a standard few Catholic hospitals meet.

dwarthog
2/17/2012, 10:41 AM
Oh really?

hmmm. Seems that Huckabee, Romney, Pataki, and pretty much the whole Republican establishment enacted the exact same policy that was part of the Affordable Care Act.

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/feb/15/nation/la-na-gop-contraceptives-20120216

Well, since you seem challenged at both reading and counting I'll help you out, that doesn't add up to 28 states.

SoonerPride
2/17/2012, 10:42 AM
Well, since you seem challenged at both reading and counting I'll help you out, that doesn't add up to 28 states.

Ignore.

sappstuf
2/17/2012, 10:58 AM
Oh really?

hmmm. Seems that Huckabee, Romney, Pataki, and pretty much the whole Republican establishment enacted the exact same policy that was part of the Affordable Care Act.

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/feb/15/nation/la-na-gop-contraceptives-20120216

Those states that do not have any exemptions for religious organization allow them to "opt out" of the program and provide their own health insurance. The ACA has no such "opt out" option. That is the difference.


Moreover, many religious employers (including EWTN) “self-insure.” This means the religious organization acts as its own insurance company — paying for care directly and using insurers only to manage benefits and process claims. Many religious organizations took this step so they could opt out of state mandates to provide morally-objectionable services. As a result, in the case of religious employers like EWTN, there is no insurance company to provide the “free” abortion drugs and contraceptives Obama has mandated.

sappstuf
2/17/2012, 11:53 PM
http://desmond.yfrog.com/Himg36/scaled.php?tn=0&server=36&filename=wg35.jpg&xsize=640&ysize=640

From today's hearing on contraception.

Contraception. Not abortion.

But contraception.

Not. One. Woman.

http://news.yahoo.com/video/politics-15749652/democrats-scold-issa-at-contraception-hearing-28332723.html#crsl=%252Fvideo%252Fpolitics-15749652%252Fdemocrats-scold-issa-at-contraception-hearing-28332723.html

Really?

This is par for the course, since women's reproductive health is an area of great interest to men (especially clergy) and women are seemingly incapable of having an opinion on it.

How the Republicans think this does them any good with the electorate boggles the mind.

Don't they have more important matters to worry about than contraception? Like jobs jobs jobs?

Carry on.

Not. One. Woman. You say? Here are links to two women that testified.

http://oversight.house.gov/images/stories/Testimony/2-16-12_Full_HC_Mandate_Champion.pdf

http://oversight.house.gov/images/stories/Testimony/2-16-12_Full_HC_Mandate_Garrett.pdf

I guess they aren't really women in your opinion if their views differ from yours...

And if you look at the top of both pages, you will see what the hearing was about. Neither abortion nor contraception is in the title.


“Lines Crossed: Separation of Church and State. Has the Obama Administration Trampled on Freedom of Religion and Freedom of Conscience?”

But hey, who cares about facts when the spin is so great?

StoopTroup
2/18/2012, 12:53 AM
^ LMFAO....

So is the thread officially over?

hawaii 5-0
2/18/2012, 01:48 AM
I think the Republicans just lost half their voters on this one.

All the women.

5-0

KantoSooner
2/20/2012, 10:01 AM
If a religious institution owns more than 51% of a publically traded company's stock, then would that company qualify as a religious institution itself and therefore be exempt from these insurance requirements? Or all other regulation?
I think an argument could be made in favor of that position. The Catholic Church and the LDS Church could be be making some serious shekel if so and if they figure out how to market their immunity a la Indian gaming.
This could be one of the biggest shake ups in American corporate history. Hell, some companies, say a Johns Manville (bancrupted by asbestos claims and fines even though what they did was fully in line with the science of the times), who are in trouble could even gift 51% of themselves to a church to avoid all governmental regulation.
Dayum! This could be great!

Midtowner
2/20/2012, 10:21 AM
I think the Republicans just lost half their voters on this one.

All the women.

5-0

My wife will be voting for the first time for a Democrat. She's not liberal at all. In fact, she's a teacher whose colleagues are a bit to the left of Karl Marx. She just doesn't talk politics with them. She was one of the only McCain/Palin voters in '08. Now she's a solid Obama vote.

--not that it matters, this state's electoral votes will be cast for whatever fundie kook comes out of the Republican primary/carnival.

badger
2/20/2012, 10:44 AM
http://liberalvaluesblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/war-on-religion.jpg

Chalk it up to the fact that political parties are often the rah-rah go team crap that causes people to blindly follow that which their PARTY LINE tells them to.

Why doesn't the ACLU come to the defense of Westboro Baptist Church as often as they do when an Oklahoma county decides to put up a Ten Commandments monument in front of a courthouse?

Why did most Republicans never complain about earmarks until the Democrats were back in majority power?

Why did Democrats never complain when Clinton sent troops off to be world police, but complained heartily when W. did the same?

The examples are endless. It's all politics and it sucks.

Midtowner
2/20/2012, 11:30 AM
Why doesn't the ACLU come to the defense of Westboro Baptist Church as often as they do when an Oklahoma county decides to put up a Ten Commandments monument in front of a courthouse?

Many of your queries are valid rhetorical questions which point out the truth that both sides are full of (you know).

This example, however, is something you should have done more research on.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/22/AR2006072200643.html


ACLU Sues for Anti-Gay Group That Pickets at Troops' Burials

By Garance Burke
Associated Press
Sunday, July 23, 2006
KANSAS CITY, Mo. -- A Kansas church group that protests at military funerals nationwide filed suit in federal court, saying a Missouri law banning such picketing infringes on religious freedom and free speech.

The American Civil Liberties Union filed the lawsuit Friday in the U.S. District Court in Jefferson City, Mo., on behalf of the fundamentalist Westboro Baptist Church, which has outraged mourning communities by picketing service members' funerals with signs condemning homosexuality.

badger
2/20/2012, 11:34 AM
Many of your queries are valid rhetorical questions which point out the truth that both sides are full of (you know).

This example, however, is something you should have done more research on.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/22/AR2006072200643.html

I can point to my qualifier "as often as." :)

Another example of my cleverly placed qualifiers was that Coburn has done nothing but complain about earmarks regardless of who is in power. :)

Ike
2/20/2012, 01:55 PM
Why doesn't the ACLU come to the defense of Westboro Baptist Church as often as they do when an Oklahoma county decides to put up a Ten Commandments monument in front of a courthouse?


While Midtowner has pointed out that at least once, the ACLU has come to their defense, I think the reason they don't do it more often is that the WBC probably doesn't really need them. Many of them are lawyers, and they apparently fund most of their operations by suing people that try to get in their way.

okie52
2/20/2012, 01:57 PM
I can point to my qualifier "as often as." :)

Another example of my cleverly placed qualifiers was that Coburn has done nothing but complain about earmarks regardless of who is in power. :)

Actually he voted to have them removed but the measure failed.

47straight
2/20/2012, 04:54 PM
Why doesn't the ACLU come to the defense of Westboro Baptist Church as often as they do when an Oklahoma county decides to put up a Ten Commandments monument in front of a courthouse?


I think you're mistaken. The ACLU will readily come to the defense of whack-o's. For more mainstream expressions? No.

It's a safe play. Noone takes the Westboro's seriously. In fact, the Westboro's make other Christians look bad.

However, any mainstream Christian, pro-life, or right-of-center group is SOL. Someone might actually listen to them.

Midtowner
2/20/2012, 04:57 PM
I think you're mistaken. The ACLU will readily come to the defense of whack-o's. For more mainstream expressions? No.

It's a safe play. Noone takes the Westboro's seriously. In fact, the Westboro's make other Christians look bad.

However, any mainstream Christian, pro-life, or right-of-center group is SOL. Someone might actually listen to them.

Do you just make this stuff up as you go along?

http://www.aclufightsforchristians.com/

TUSooner
2/20/2012, 05:02 PM
Do you just make this stuff up as you go along?

http://www.aclufightsforchristians.com/

Stop disturbing peoples' comfortable prejudices with your annoying facts!

Midtowner
2/20/2012, 05:17 PM
Stop disturbing peoples' comfortable prejudices with your annoying facts!

If he'd just have Googled ACLU & Christians & Defending, he'd have not said what he said. I'm sure he just heard it on talk radio... ACLU = bad/evil/liberal (all three of which are synonymous).

badger
2/20/2012, 05:27 PM
:( wow I just derailed the train of thought by mentioning the evil ACLU. my apologies. I'll try to make my bland examples more bland in the future. Here goes:

Did you know that combing salt and flour with water is a good base for a paper mache project?

Midtowner
2/20/2012, 05:34 PM
:( wow I just derailed the train of thought by mentioning the evil ACLU. my apologies. I'll try to make my bland examples more bland in the future. Here goes:

Did you know that combing salt and flour with water is a good base for a paper mache project?

Did you know that huffing bath salts is wonderful?

47straight
2/22/2012, 10:20 PM
Do you just make this stuff up as you go along?

http://www.aclufightsforchristians.com/

Oh yeah, suing to remove churches' tax examption-for it's pro-life positions-while being fine and dandy with the ACLU and other's tax exemption-despite their pro-choice positions-sure is friendly! With friends like that, who needs enemies?

47straight
2/22/2012, 10:23 PM
Stop disturbing peoples' comfortable prejudices with your annoying facts!

My prejudice on that matter is based in fact.

BTW, you're not the perfect centrist you believe yourself to be.

Midtowner
2/22/2012, 10:24 PM
Oh yeah, suing to remove churches' tax examption-for it's pro-life positions-while being fine and dandy with the ACLU and other's tax exemption-despite their pro-choice positions-sure is friendly! With friends like that, who needs enemies?

Are you talking about the bullcrap tax exemption status granted to church teachers in Alaska?

47straight
2/22/2012, 10:25 PM
If he'd just have Googled ACLU & Christians & Defending, he'd have not said what he said. I'm sure he just heard it on talk radio... ACLU = bad/evil/liberal (all three of which are synonymous).

Oh yeah. I heard it own talk radio. I'm incapable of reading briefs or position papers myself.