PDA

View Full Version : Are you happy with the country?



RodB
12-02-2013, 02:13 PM
Bill can't be wrong all the time....

RodB






Are you happy with your country?



By Bill O'ReillyNo question we live in a divided nation. After five years of President Obama who wants to change America and impose social justice many Americans have had enough. The economy is all wrong. The only reason we are not in a recession is because the Fed is printing money to prop things up and that is eroding the value of the dollars we are holding.
Also the national healthcare situation is chaotic to say the least. A recent Fox News poll asks are you satisfied with how things are going in America. Just 26 percent said yes and a whopping 73 percent no. Similar result came from a CBS poll which usually leans Democratic. In that one 27 percent of Americans say we are on the right track; 68 percent wrong track.
And so you can see that there is deep disenchantment in the USA. Part of that is the harsh rhetoric that is being used in the arena of ideas. The far left now on the defensive is lashing out.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
FLUKE: If a corporation picking and choosing which types of laws they want to comply with and our belief in this society has always been that we protect the religious liberty of individuals in their private lives. It is absolutely an attack on women's healthcare.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
O'REILLY: Miss Fluke objecting to some religious business owners filing suit which would be held -- heard I should say -- by the Supreme Court because they are being forced to fund the morning after pill and other forms of birth control. Apparently she sees sincere religious convictions as an attack on American women.
On the right there is also no shortage of anger.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, REAL ESTATE MOGUL: The fact is we're run by either very foolish or very stupid people. What's going on in this country is unbelievable. Our country is a total mess. A total and complete mess and what we need is leadership.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
O'REILLY: The divide between Democrats and Republicans is so great that only a huge event will be able to breach it. We had that on 9/11 when Americans united against the terror attack.
And now we have another shock -- the impending collapse of Obamacare. If that happens and that's a big if because the President will use all his power to prevent the law from imploding, but if he fails, independent voters will swing to the right. And the Republican Party will reemerge with a powerful mandate. That will not stop the political hatred but it will give another philosophy a chance to turn America around economically and solve some vexing problems like healthcare and immigration.
And so while Thanksgiving should be a day of reflection, big change may be in the air. Some of us will be thankful if that change happens. And some of us will not be. And that's "The Memo."

Mrleft8
12-02-2013, 02:20 PM
It's better than the city.... But I prefer the beach.

StevenBauer
12-02-2013, 02:24 PM
Even better than the beach - open ocean! That's the ticket.

bogdog
12-02-2013, 02:26 PM
Bill can't be wrong all the time....

RodB


Bill hasn't been right anytime, isn't being wrong all the time sort of his shtick?

Keith Wilson
12-02-2013, 02:32 PM
Bill can't be wrong all the time . . . You underestimate him. Maybe not absolutely all the time, but he's doing his level best, and he's a very industrious fellow.

LeeG
12-02-2013, 02:38 PM
The collapse of ACA will bridge the partisan divide like a terrorist attack?

WTF?

TomF
12-02-2013, 02:40 PM
You think Bill is channelling a younger Michele Obama, and isn't feeling proud of his country?

You think Bill's supporters will understand (and remark on) the irony of that?

hokiefan
12-02-2013, 02:40 PM
I'm pretty much happy with the country. Although it would be a significantly better place if the Republicans weren't trying to do everything in their power to continue the massive screwing up job that Bush Jr started.

Cheers,

Bobby

Paul Pless
12-02-2013, 02:44 PM
Am I the only one who reads threads like this, and says to himself, "surely this is just a flame job, no one really takes this stuff seriously, right???"

Tom Montgomery
12-02-2013, 02:44 PM
No you are not.

LeeG
12-02-2013, 02:45 PM
You think Bill is channelling a younger Michele Obama, and isn't feeling proud of his country?

You think Bill's supporters will understand (and remark on) the irony of that?

That just goes to show how bad things are, even Bill O'Reilly is unhappy with the country, and it's Obama's fault!

Keith Wilson
12-02-2013, 02:49 PM
Apparently at least one person took it seriously enough to change the fonts, change the text size, emphasize some of the sillier bits, and post it HERE.

John of Phoenix
12-02-2013, 02:50 PM
I'm pretty much happy with the country. Although it would be a significantly better place if the Republicans weren't trying to do everything in their power to continue the massive screwing up job that Bush Jr started.

Cheers,

BobbyMy thoughts exactly.

John of Phoenix
12-02-2013, 02:51 PM
Am I the only one who reads threads like this, and says to himself, "surely this is just a flame job, no one really takes this stuff seriously, right???"I guess it's time to remind you guys how much reds love to Celebrate Stupid.

Rum_Pirate
12-02-2013, 02:53 PM
I'm not happy with the USA as the $ is swiftly sinking against the £. :pmad:

skuthorp
12-02-2013, 02:54 PM
Like yours, the country is fine, a beautiful place. The governance not so and the population of humans a very mixed bag.

Rum_Pirate
12-02-2013, 02:55 PM
Like yours, the country is fine, a beautiful place. The governance not so and the population of humans a very mixed bag. So very true.

Joe Dupere
12-02-2013, 02:57 PM
Bill O'Reilly parrots a perennially dumb-assed question:
Among those who answer that they are NOT satisfied, how many are progressives who think that the GOP congress is screwing the country via obstructionism, versus the number of conservatives who think that Obama's 'socialist' agenda is ruining the country?

After all, they BOTH answer the question exactly the same way.

Of all the poll questions asked, the ones that ask about 'right track / wrong track', just like the question posed above, are the most useless polling questions ever devised.

Not only that, but you could be a left wing neo-commie pinko, who thinks the ACA didn't go far enough, corporations have too much power, the M-I-C is bloated beyond belief, there are too many guns around, and you could answer the question exactly the same way.

John of Phoenix
12-02-2013, 03:04 PM
I'm not happy with the USA as the $ is swiftly sinking against the £. :pmad:Swiftly? From .62 to .615 over the last two years. YTD from .667 to .615. Swiftly?

slug
12-02-2013, 03:23 PM
Current Bbc podcast on world anger...the media, politics......

http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/worldservice/whys/whys_20131202-1905a.mp3


"is the world becoming an angry. Place "

worth a listen

RodB
12-02-2013, 03:27 PM
Apparently at least one person took it seriously enough to change the fonts, change the text size, emphasize some of the sillier bits, and post itHERE.

Keith... this brought a smile to my face... I appreciate a good sense of humor.

For the rest of you...With poll numbers so askew... I'd think you would at least offer some defensive remarks for Obama...but you completely discount such polls which go against your side... and rejoice about a couple of points above 40 % for Obama's approval rate. One thing that continually is affirmed on this forum every day.... you's guy's political philosophy trumps all things from commonsense to rational thinking. The funny thing is more millions of our citizens will be losing their insurance in the near future... people with insurance at a job.... so the end result will be... Obamacare in trying to provide healthcare to about 30 million will have taken it away from 150 million ...ie., taken away insurance they were happy with...

This forum is drowning in left wing cool aid.

If Keith keeps his sense of humor... at least the debates will be more civil.

RodB

Paul Pless
12-02-2013, 03:31 PM
One thing that continually is affirmed on this forum every day.... you's guy's political philosophy trumps all things from commonsense to rational thinking.

You know what, this is a very fair point Rod. I often look at what some people post here and if they are either 100% right or 100% left, which there are a number that are, those people are as much a part of our political problem as anything. If you can't look at across the political divide and find something on the other side that you can agree with on some level, there might be something wrong with you, <cough John Smith>

does this post need a winking smiley?

Canoeyawl
12-02-2013, 03:32 PM
at least the debates will be more civil

What debate?
The Orielly is an idiot debate? snicker...

bogdog
12-02-2013, 03:33 PM
This forum is drowning in left wing cool aid.


RodBSorry, yous guys didn't leave any Kool-aid for the rest of us... Kraft Foods has always been a big supporter of rightwing nuts and why not, nuts are part of their business.

RodB
12-02-2013, 03:35 PM
Paul,
I thought I'd post the following link because I this it is a fair unbiased source and the information is interesting and pertinent to this discussion. Many times, I post articles that contain much truth... but many here like you describe don't bother to read them and personally attack the source.

This link is for at minimum Tom, Keith, Norm... and Paul... I don't know if many others could even look at it open minded.

RodB

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll

slug
12-02-2013, 03:38 PM
Polls ?

who cares ?

All politicians smell like dead sardines after they take office.

what is new is the polarization of society. It seems permanent

it was not like this in the past.

i attribute this new anger ..to the media.

in the past you had one channel of evening news , with walter kronkit telling you that everything is going to be ok. After the news it was..my three sons, followed by gadabout gadis the flying fisherman, then. the watons

now you have hundreds of tv channels with crazy talking heads telling you how bad things are...then add in the internet, twitter , hollywood violence.....and whatnot and...oh my..the sky is falling

ccmanuals
12-02-2013, 03:40 PM
Paul,
I thought I'd post the following link because I this it is a fair unbiased source and the information is interesting and pertinent to this discussion. Many times, I post articles that contain much truth... but many here like you describe don't bother to read them and personally attack the source.

This link is for at minimum Tom, Keith, Norm... and Paul... I don't know if many others could even look at it open minded.

RodB

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll

You really think that article is "unbiased and fair?"

RodB
12-02-2013, 03:41 PM
Paul,
I thought I'd post the following link because I this it is a fair unbiased source and the information is interesting and pertinent to this discussion. Many times, I post articles that contain much truth... but many here like you describe don't bother to read them and personally attack the source.

This link is for at minimum Tom, Keith, Norm... and Paul... I don't know if many others could even look at it open minded.

RodB

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll

I wanted to add another link which usually has a left wing slant... to further show current trends... http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/25/obama-poll_n_4337643.html

Keith Wilson
12-02-2013, 03:44 PM
Rod, you might be interested in this one. Link here. (http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/obama-job-approval) Yes, it's Huffington Post, but only because they bought Pollster.com, which was the best poll data aggregator I know of. It includes the results from all credible polls. The unusual thing is how steady Obama's polls have held over time, compared to most other presidents. Lots of ups and downs within a fairly narrow range, but not much change.

RodB
12-02-2013, 03:46 PM
Perhaps they wanted the questions to not be affected by partisanship... perhaps. You are right that qualifiers for questions can be very specific to accumulate more accurate information. Lets just say the trends are not good for the Obama administration.

RodB

Paul Pless
12-02-2013, 03:46 PM
I'm not really a fan of Rasmussen. But, no one can deny that Obama has taken a hit in public opinion lately, a big hit. and for the most part, its been his fault. I've always thought, and still do think that Obama is an admirable and honest political leader. At the same time I've also felt that he allowed himself to be outplayed by the right time after time, and that he was quite naive politically. But this failure of the implementation is something different, this shouldn't have happened there really is no excuse for it. If this part of the ACA had been implemented during Obama's first term, he wouldn't have been re-elected. . .

TomF
12-02-2013, 03:47 PM
As I read that, Rod, a majority of the Dems still prefer Obama to the alternatives they've seen ... but of them, about half feel somewhat let down. Some because they feel he didn't go anything like far enough, and others becaue they feel he should have been more decisive dealing with Rep obstructionism. That describes what you've seen on offer here in the WBF too.

And true to form, the Reps virtually to a person think that Obama's the AntiChrist. Combine that with a bunch of Independents and the most let-down of the Dems (probably the furthest Left), and you'll hit the numbers Rasmussen found.

The real question is not so much about Presidential approval, as whether there'll be any impact on next year's mid-term election, or further down the road to 2016. My sense is no, since the approval ratings for Congressional Republicans are not just hitting the floor, but are through the basement and drilling into the bedrock.

Glen Longino
12-02-2013, 03:49 PM
Oh boy, another unbiased, clear-headed, sane, bipartisan, non-judgemental thread from Rod B! Ha!:D

RodB
12-02-2013, 03:50 PM
The unusual thing is how steady Obama's polls have held over time, compared to most other presidents. Lots of ups and downs within a fairly narrow range, but not much change.

You are right.. its interesting and good for Obama.... but bad for the country... because if the left supporters continue to support Obama no matter what the administration has done... along with almost zero transparency... then making a change in the country will be much more difficult. Perhaps it can be said that both hi info voters and many of the lower information voters on both sides do harm to our system.

We need a commonsense consensus ... with an assessment of all the facts in an honest fashion.

RodB

RodB
12-02-2013, 03:53 PM
Oh boy, another unbiased, clear-headed, sane, bipartisan, non-judgemental thread from Rod B! Ha!:D

Glen, Glen, Glen... how about meeting the opposition half way at least once every 10 years...

This link is for you ...

RodB

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tag/obama-approval-rating (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/22/rob-ford-obama-congress-toronto_n_4326169.html)

Soooo Crack-Smoking Mayor Rob Ford Is More Popular Than Obama

PhaseLockedLoop
12-02-2013, 03:54 PM
...now you have hundreds of tv channels with crazy talking heads telling you how bad things are...then add in the internet, twitter , hollywood violence.....and whatnot and...oh my..the sky is falling

I guess you missed the little set-to in 2008, huh? The sky did fall on many many millions of people in the US, and many more millions around the world, due to the wonders of "free" trade.

bogdog
12-02-2013, 03:55 PM
We need a commonsense consensus ... with an assessment of all the facts in an honest fashion.

RodBConsidering the conservative's national social agenda I see little chance of common sense entering any dialog with them.

TomF
12-02-2013, 03:56 PM
Rod, you keep saying stuff like "lies" and "almost zero transparency."

Forgive me, but I really don't see a whole lot to judge the difference in style in anyone who's held that office since ... well, maybe Kennedy? Reagan looks like an outlier (maybe Carter too, though he was also ineffective because of it), but one can argue that Reagan's "transparency" wasn't quite so transparent in actuality as in legend too.

How do you see Obama's "lies' and lack of transparency being so distinct from his various predecessors?

Captain Intrepid
12-02-2013, 03:56 PM
Apparently at least one person took it seriously enough to change the fonts, change the text size, emphasize some of the sillier bits, and post it HERE.

Lol! :d

Glen Longino
12-02-2013, 03:56 PM
You are right.. its interesting and good for Obama.... but bad for the country... because if the left supporters continue to support Obama no matter what the administration has done... along with almost zero transparency... then making a change in the country will be much more difficult. I think many of the lower information voters on both sides do harm to our system.

RodB

Do you consider yourself a "lower information voter", since you get most of your information from Faux News?
"no matter what the administration has done"

Exactly what has the administration done that you find so troublesome?
And how the hell would you know about it if there is "almost zero transparency"?

Tom Montgomery
12-02-2013, 03:57 PM
I'm less bothered by the President's approval rating than by the poll result that showed that "37% of voters think America does not spend enough on the military and national security. (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/november_2013/37_believe_u_s_doesn_t_spend_enough_on_military_na tional_security) That’s the highest level measured since tracking began in February 2011."

This despite the fact that the “United States spends more on defense annually than the next 10 countries combined.”

No doubt the majority of these folks are also seriously concerned about the budget deficit and would like to see drastic cuts in Federal social welfare programs as well as cuts in other areas of the Federal Government apart from defense.

Canoeyawl
12-02-2013, 03:58 PM
Obama is black, not transparent...

Maybe I'm beginning to see the problem

ccmanuals
12-02-2013, 04:09 PM
As long as there is a significant number of people in this country that really believe the President is muslim or from Kenya or is a socialist/Marxist/communist out to destroy the country and there are plenty of support for this thinking on the internet, radio and TV then I think we will have a problem with division.

Peerie Maa
12-02-2013, 04:10 PM
Do you consider yourself a "lower information voter", since you get most of your information from Faux News?
"no matter what the administration has done"

Exactly what has the administration done that you find so troublesome?
And how the hell would you know about it if there is "almost zero transparency"?

Just another way of saying prejudice. Finding something troublesome when you have no facts to tell what is troubling you.


prejudice

ˈprɛdʒʊdɪs/
noun
noun: prejudice; plural noun: prejudices
1.
preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience.

Steve McMahon
12-02-2013, 04:18 PM
Am I happy with the country?

The country Yes, The current leadership NO.
We have a prime minister that is a right wing megalomaniac who is waging war against the science community, the environment, and the population in the less populated areas that are dependant on seasonal work to survive and to provide food for their families and indeed food for the rest of the country. He acts like the capitol is Calgary, in the center of oil country, and he's giving away our precious resources to China for a little short term profit. Our veterans are being treated like dirt. The government is rife with scandal despite the fact he keeps his puppets on a tight string. In the best case some of the scandal will stick and we can turf his sorry butt. In the worst case we will have to wait until 2015 and can finally be clear of him.

Thanks for asking.

Glen Longino
12-02-2013, 04:21 PM
Just another way of saying prejudice. Finding something troublesome when you have no facts to tell what is troubling you.

Yep, Rod hated Obama from the first day he saw him six years ago.
He's hated him every single day since and will likely hate him forever.
Rod underestimates how transparent Rod is.
He tries to put forth a reasonable argument based upon bias, unreasonableness, anger, and fear, and he has no idea that we can see through him like a pane of glass.

slug
12-02-2013, 04:27 PM
I'm less bothered by the President's approval rating than by the poll result that showed that "37% of voters think America does not spend enough on the military and national security. (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/november_2013/37_believe_u_s_doesn_t_spend_enough_on_military_na tional_security) That’s the highest level measured since tracking began in February 2011."

This despite the fact that the “United States spends more on defense annually than the next 10 countries combined.”

No doubt the majority of these folks are also seriously concerned about the budget deficit and would like to see drastic cuts in Federal social welfare programs as well as cuts in other areas of the Federal Government apart from defense.


I wonder how many people in the US are employed in the military industrial complex, serving in the military or retired from the military ?

thirty percent ?

TomF
12-02-2013, 04:45 PM
Am I happy with the country?

The country Yes, The current leadership NO.
We have a prime minister that is a right wing megalomaniac who is waging war against the science community, the environment, and the population in the less populated areas that are dependant on seasonal work to survive and to provide food for their families and indeed food for the rest of the country. He acts like the capitol is Calgary, in the center of oil country, and he's giving away our precious resources to China for a little short term profit. Our veterans are being treated like dirt. The government is rife with scandal despite the fact he keeps his puppets on a tight string. In the best case some of the scandal will stick and we can turf his sorry butt. In the worst case we will have to wait until 2015 and can finally be clear of him.

Thanks for asking.I'm channelling Steve McMahon, apparently. :D

RodB
12-02-2013, 04:47 PM
Considering the conservative's national social agenda I see little chance of common sense entering any dialog with them.

Bogdog... have you ever considered the perspective of conservatives and Republicans after watching the current administration the past 6 years? First off, the left's SOP is to lie about the "right" and they have a very large political machine to push the lies on the nation. ... (mainstream media, Hollywood entertainment industry, etc, etc). Even incidents like the IRS scandal or the lies related to Benghazi are ignored by the majority of the press and most involved with the IRS scandal just took the 5th.

To address your comment more direct.... the Obama administration has created false social issues to demonize the right... like a "war on women" or republicans pushing an old woman in a wheelchair off of a cliff... to push for Obamacare. How may millions were spent to demonize the right... with the help of the mainstream media. With the bias of the press and all of entertainment, our system no longer works like it was intended. If the press is an active participant in the process to push one side... that is dangerous. In relation to Benghazi for example... a democratic political contributor (professor) on Fox said... Well the gist of his remarks were.. that if the news media failed to report the facts to the citizens... our democracy was in serious jeopardy. This has been the case in the recent scandals within the Obama administration and has continued to happen since Obama first ran for president.

RodB

Steve McMahon
12-02-2013, 04:49 PM
I'm channelling Steve McMahon, apparently. :D

Oops, Sorry TomF. We can't have that.;)

Flying Orca
12-02-2013, 05:08 PM
the left's SOP is to lie about the "right" and they have a very large political machine to push the lies on the nation. ... (mainstream media, Hollywood entertainment industry, etc, etc).

To say nothing of reality itself, with its well-known liberal bias.

I have to confess I don't closely follow the politics of the land of my birth and other citizenship, but judging by what I see here in the Bilge and in the stuff that gets e-mailed from south of the border, the American right seems to have a great many more pants-on-fire moments than the American centre (is there an "American left" other than Noam Chomsky?).

I think you righties are still deflecting madly because your boy lied to start a war which totally pooched an entire country, killed hundreds of thousands of people, and screwed your own economy. What's Obama done to compare? "The ACA website doesn't work very well... waaaaaahhhhhhh!"... "The IRS gave special scrutiny to charities that might break the lobbying rules, across the political spectrum! *sniff* *whine*"


the lies related to Benghazi

The lies spread by a discredited source with the enthusiastic support of the mainstream media? Are those the lies you now claim were "ignored"? Sadly, they weren't although they should have been. Maybe you could try ignoring them instead of bringing them up all the time.


the Obama administration has created false social issues to demonize the right... like a "war on women" or republicans pushing an old woman in a wheelchair off of a cliff... to push for Obamacare.

Oh, horrors. Of course, the lily-white (and I used the term advisedly) right would never dream of such a-- what's that you say? "Death panels"?


if the news media failed to report the facts to the citizens... our democracy was in serious jeopardy. This has been the case in the recent scandals within the Obama administration and has continued to happen since Obama first ran for president.

Just try this on for size: maybe the people who make up the mainstream media actually know more about this stuff than you do, and realize there's no actual wrongdoing in these imaginary scandals?

Keith Wilson
12-02-2013, 05:09 PM
Oy. Rod, with all respect, your post is the most exquisitely perfect example of projection I've seen in a very long time. So if people don't think imaginary "scandals" are real, or if women think abortion should be legal and insurance should cover birth control (used at one point or another by 99% of sexually active women, BTW) it's because they've been deceived? Right. http://www.reduser.net/forum/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif Obama beat Romney among women 55-44; what's it going to take, 20 points? 35?

One more time, with feeling:

Benghazi!! Benghazi!! Benghazi!! Benghazi!! Benghazi!! Benghazi!! Benghazi!! Benghazi!! Benghazi!! Benghazi!! Benghazi!! Benghazi!! Benghazi!! Benghazi!! Benghazi!! Benghazi!! Benghazi!! Benghazi!! Benghazi!! Benghazi!! Benghazi!! Benghazi!! Benghazi!! Benghazi!! Benghazi!! Benghazi!! Benghazi!! Benghazi!! Benghazi!! Benghazi!! Benghazi!! Benghazi!! Benghazi!! Benghazi!! Benghazi!! Benghazi!! Benghazi!! Benghazi!! Benghazi!! Benghazi!! Benghazi!! Benghazi!! Benghazi!! Benghazi!! Benghazi!! Benghazi!! Benghazi!! Benghazi!! Benghazi!! Benghazi!! Benghazi!! Benghazi!! Benghazi!! Benghazi!! Benghazi!! Benghazi!! Benghazi!! Benghazi!! Benghazi!! Benghazi!! Benghazi!! Benghazi!! Benghazi!! Benghazi!! Benghazi!!

RodB
12-02-2013, 05:11 PM
Rod, you keep saying stuff like "lies" and "almost zero transparency."

Forgive me, but I really don't see a whole lot to judge the difference in style in anyone who's held that office since ... well, maybe Kennedy? Reagan looks like an outlier (maybe Carter too, though he was also ineffective because of it), but one can argue that Reagan's "transparency" wasn't quite so transparent in actuality as in legend too.

How do you see Obama's "lies' and lack of transparency being so distinct from his various predecessors?




Tom, if you are seriously objective you will have to admit the Obama administration ran the majority of their campaign on lies and falsehoods. This was especially true with the false narrative they pushed on Romney. Pretty much every speech Obama gives has numerous lies about the Republicans.... and he never misses a chance to blame them in some way for his failures. The aggravating thing about this is that over 80% of the press support his lies either by not even reporting on the story or just asking minimal softball questions.

When a scandal has popped up (IRS, Benghazi, NSA,Fast and Furious... etc) , this administration is guilty of stalling with minimal cooperation at best... with those who are empowered to investigate and ask questions. They know the longer they can use stalling strategies the more likely the issue will become less important. If the Dems even thought the Reps had used the IRS to target liberal political groups... the story would have been front page for months and months. This administration is not only dishonest but flaunts the obvious fact that they can get away with murder with the majority of the press. By get away with murder I mean over 80 percent of the press actively works to protect this president with soft or non-existent reporting.

The fact that you even ask about lies is symptomatic of just how insidious your bias is, although you try harder than most to be objective and fair.

A good example... a state of the union speech was filled with many false claims not to mention the false political remarks meant to demonize the right. IF you know anything about whats going on, watching such a speech is difficult at best. The fact that you seem to not notice any of this speaks volumes about political polarization in this nation.

RodB

LeeG
12-02-2013, 05:23 PM
RodB, 1/3 of Texas clinics that used to provide abortion now cannot because of Republican politicians. Explain how that benefits women in Texas.

TomF
12-02-2013, 05:26 PM
I really don't agree, Rod.

It's true, isn't it, that the Republicans have blocked every action he's tried to make in Congress since the first mid-term election? It's true, isn't it, that the use of the filibuster has expanded to include virtually all substantive bits of legislation - and until recently, all appointments. It's also true that RomneyCare is the prototype for ObamaCare. And that it's successful. Romney's Presidential campaign was focused on abandoning his own signature policy initiative, the single thing which has been his largest positive political legacy from his time as Governor.

These are not lies, they're in the public record.

The scandals have hurt Obama, but in the great scheme of things ... there's very little about any of them which is actually scandalous. Here in Canada we have the opposite occurring - there have been years of actual scandals ... culminating in a current investigation by the RCMP into fraud and bribery reaching into the Prime Minister's own office ... with very little public traction. In contrast, the Benghazi "scandal" is far less scandalous than other Embassy attacks under previous Presidents. The IRS "scandal" has proved to be rather bi-partisan in terms of the groups targeted ... and reflects what in most civil services would be appropriate attempts to treat consistent groups consistently. Sorry, but true.

I just don't put Obama in the same class as those who claim he's a Socialist, or refuse to silence their own fringe claiming he's a Kenyan, or supports Death Panels. Orders of magnitude different, from where I sit. Even though personally, I'd far prefer an actual Dem in the house ... compared with the Dems of previous decades, Obama's a moderate Republican.


.

Romney's narr

RodB
12-02-2013, 05:40 PM
Oy. Rod, with all respect, your post is the most exquisitely perfect example of projection I've seen in a very long time. So if people don't think imaginary "scandals" are real, or if women think abortion should be legal and insurance should cover birth control (used at one point or another by 99% of sexually active women, BTW) it's because they've been deceived? Right. http://www.reduser.net/forum/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif Obama beat Romney among women 55-44; what's it going to take, 20 points? 35?


The SCOTUS took a recent case where a company is fighting for their religious rights to not pay for the morning after pill because it goes against their beliefs. The discussion I heard seemed to imply they have a very good chance of winning this because the constitution says specifically the Gov has no right to favor a religion or to impede peoples right to practice their religion (my paraphrased...but you get the point). Obama beat Romney with women because they spent a billion dollars to create a false narrative about the Rep candidate. Social issues were created that did not really exist.

I'm wondering what the FRICK you will say if the SCOTUS rules companies do not have to pay for something they believe is wrong... i.e.., against their religious beliefs.

Be honest, Keith... you libs are trying to twist any and all your political goals into "equity arguments" while at the same time ignoring people's freedom of religion. As we have discussed in the past... same sex marriage will likely end up being legalized by the SCOTUS for civil court's jurisdiction but. Some of the issues being pushed by the progressive movement in this country border on infringing on religious freedom... and a line is being approached where a large portion of the country may flatly refuse to go along.... i.e., civil disobedience.

I doubt you can find anything in the constitution that supports forcing taxpayers to pay for women's birth control or abortion... A recent new law is being considered by progressives in New York I think, where they want to pass a law as to the type of diet a pregnant woman should adhere to. Imagine that...!!!! A party that will fight to the death for the right of women to kill babies... ABORTION... but now want to force women who are PG to eat a diet the left feels if appropriate. Can you spell hypocrisy.

The people who do not think the scandals are an issue are likely exposed to the 80% of the mainstream press where those stories are purposely not reported on. Have you ever wondered why married women vote much higher in conservative numbers than single women?

RodB

bogdog
12-02-2013, 05:44 PM
The social agenda of the right was very obvious in Virginia during the recent gubernatorial election. Every one of the Republican candidates was quite comfortable expressing their ideas. The voters of a very conservative state rejected them. Some prominent state Republicans rejected them too, publicly.
There has never been a need for centrists or liberals in this country to create "false social issues to demonize the right" they do fine all on their own.

PeterSibley
12-02-2013, 05:49 PM
The SCOTUS took a recent case where a company is fighting for their religious rights to not pay for the morning after pill because it goes against their beliefs. The discussion I heard seemed to imply they have a very good chance of winning this because the constitution says specifically the Gov has no right to favor a religion or to impede peoples right to practice their religion (my paraphrased...but you get the point). Obama beat Romney with women because they spent a billion dollars to create a false narrative about the Rep candidate. Social issues were created that did not really exist.


RodB

I'm wondering what the FRICK you will say if the SCOTUS rules companies do not have to pay for something they believe is wrong........ like paying taxes for the war machine ?

A company with religious beliefs !?? Only in America!

You guys REALLY need Medicare , Oz style, and forget all the religious corporations BS.

Flying Orca
12-02-2013, 05:50 PM
The SCOTUS took a recent case where a company is fighting for their religious rights to not pay for the morning after pill because it goes against their beliefs.

Er, companies don't have religious beliefs. Corporations are a fictive persona, a legal construction, and they are not equipped with the wetware required to believe anything. The owners of the company may have beliefs, but that doesn't give them the right to impose their beliefs on their employees.

bogdog
12-02-2013, 05:50 PM
I doubt you can find anything in the constitution that supports forcing taxpayers to pay for women's birth control or abortion... A recent new law is being considered by progressives in New York I think, where they want to pass a law as to the type of diet a pregnant woman should adhere to. Imagine that...!!!! A party that will fight to the death for the right of women to kill babies... ABORTION... but now want to force women who are PG to eat a diet the left feels if appropriate. Can you spell hypocrisy.


RodBI couldn't begin to count the number of Republicans who have called for forcing anyone on government assistance to eat only what they are told to eat. Anyway I couldn't find anything about "progressives in New York I think, where they want to pass a law as to the type of diet a pregnant woman should adhere to." Got a reference?

Keith Wilson
12-02-2013, 05:50 PM
A recent case where a company is fighting for their religious rights to not pay for the morning after pill because it goes against their beliefsHow can a corporation possibly have religious beliefs? The entire point of a corporation is create a legal entity that separates the owners from the corporation, so that they don't have liability beyond the price of their stock.

delecta
12-02-2013, 06:08 PM
Simply morons trying to enforce their beliefs on employees. A corporation is formed to distance it's share holders from liability and take advantage of all the tax loop holes that exist. It really is amazing how numb some people are, you have so many benefits already, why try and screw up a good system.

I'm truly disappointed with religious capitalist, the point of the game is to screw the government out of every tax dollar possible, not make a political statement. There are plenty of pacs to do such.

Osborne Russell
12-02-2013, 06:13 PM
I'm wondering what the FRICK you will say if the SCOTUS rules companies do not have to pay for something they believe is wrong... i.e.., against their religious beliefs.

Wonder no fricking longer -- I will say they have lost their minds.


I doubt you can find anything in the constitution that supports forcing taxpayers to pay for women's birth control or abortion...

Doubt no more:


Article One, Section Eight

The Congress shall have power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common defence and general Welfare of the United States . . .

John Smith
12-02-2013, 06:18 PM
Am I the only one who reads threads like this, and says to himself, "surely this is just a flame job, no one really takes this stuff seriously, right???"

No! I believe you've got a lot of company. The sad thing is people listen to O'Reilly and actually believes he knows what he's talking about.

ccmanuals
12-02-2013, 06:50 PM
The SCOTUS took a recent case where a company is fighting for their religious rights to not pay for the morning after pill because it goes against their beliefs. The discussion I heard seemed to imply they have a very good chance of winning this because the constitution says specifically the Gov has no right to favor a religion or to impede peoples right to practice their religion (my paraphrased...but you get the point). Obama beat Romney with women because they spent a billion dollars to create a false narrative about the Rep candidate. Social issues were created that did not really exist.

I'm wondering what the FRICK you will say if the SCOTUS rules companies do not have to pay for something they believe is wrong... i.e.., against their religious beliefs.

Be honest, Keith... you libs are trying to twist any and all your political goals into "equity arguments" while at the same time ignoring people's freedom of religion. As we have discussed in the past... same sex marriage will likely end up being legalized by the SCOTUS for civil court's jurisdiction but. Some of the issues being pushed by the progressive movement in this country border on infringing on religious freedom... and a line is being approached where a large portion of the country may flatly refuse to go along.... i.e., civil disobedience.

I doubt you can find anything in the constitution that supports forcing taxpayers to pay for women's birth control or abortion... A recent new law is being considered by progressives in New York I think, where they want to pass a law as to the type of diet a pregnant woman should adhere to. Imagine that...!!!! A party that will fight to the death for the right of women to kill babies... ABORTION... but now want to force women who are PG to eat a diet the left feels if appropriate. Can you spell hypocrisy.

The people who do not think the scandals are an issue are likely exposed to the 80% of the mainstream press where those stories are purposely not reported on. Have you ever wondered why married women vote much higher in conservative numbers than single women?

RodB

Rod, how can a company have religious rights?
The SCOTUS took a recent case where a company is fighting for their religious rights

RodB
12-02-2013, 09:21 PM
Rod, how can a company have religious rights?


Hello, wake up... its not a corporation... but a family owned business... Hobby Lobby. Obviously none on this forum have seen the story because you limit your sources of news.



http://www.thenewamerican.com/culture/faith-and-morals/item/17055-supreme-court-will-consider-hobby-lobby-contraception-mandate-case


Kyle Duncan, general counsel of the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty (http://www.becketfund.org/), which is representing the Green family and Hobby Lobby/Mardel, expressed confidence that the High Court would rule for religious liberty, allowing his clients — and other religious-minded business owners — to refuse ObamaCare's notorious contraception mandate. “This is a major step for the Greens and their family businesses in an important fight for Americans’ religious liberty,” said Duncan. “We are hopeful that the Supreme Court will clarify once and for all that religious freedom in our country should be protected for family business owners like the Greens.




http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/12/02/high-court-ends-liberty-u-lawsuit-over-health-law/

The Supreme Court on Monday refused to hear a challenge to ObamaCare brought by a Virginia-based Christian university, ending for now one of the biggest remaining legal fights against the health care law.
The justices, in turning away the lawsuit from Liberty University and leaving in place a federal appeals court ruling dismissing it, did not comment on their decision. The decision comes less than a week after the high court agreed to hear a separate challenge from Hobby Lobby and one other company to the law's so-called contraception mandate -- the requirement on most employers to provide access to contraceptive coverage. ...

....But the issue of the contraception mandate will come before the Supreme Court, perhaps as early as March. The court last week said it would hear the challenge from Hobby Lobby and Pennsylvania company Conestoga Wood Specialties Corp.
The court is set to weigh in on the dispute over whether businesses can use religious objections to avoid a requirement in the law to cover birth control for employees.







Yep, Rod hated Obama from the first day he saw him six years ago.
He's hated him every single day since and will likely hate him forever.
Rod underestimates how transparent Rod is.
He tries to put forth a reasonable argument based upon bias, unreasonableness, anger, and fear, and he has no idea that we can see through him like a pane of glass.


Glen... I don't hate anyone... I despise policies that can destroy our nation.... if you don't think continuing to print money to shore up the economy is not a very dangerous policy... your brain dead. Most rational people have a problem with continual lying and deceit.

I'm a pretty direct person... I am transparent on purpose...

Take an aspirin Glen...

RodB

Cuyahoga Chuck
12-02-2013, 09:34 PM
Paul,
I thought I'd post the following link because I this it is a fair unbiased source and the information is interesting and pertinent to this discussion. Many times, I post articles that contain much truth... but many here like you describe don't bother to read them and personally attack the source.

This link is for at minimum Tom, Keith, Norm... and Paul... I don't know if many others could even look at it open minded.

RodB

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll

In the polling industry Rassmussen is noted for having a right-wing bias. Real Clear Politics is better because it uses everyone else's polling to craft a consensus. RCP was put together by Nate Silver. He is seen as the big kahuna of polling analysis. I don't imagine he would give you a rush like Rassmussin.

RodB
12-02-2013, 09:39 PM
In the polling industry Rassmussen is noted for having a right-wing bias. Real Clear Politics is better because it uses everyone else's polling to craft a consensus. RCP was put together by Nate Silver. He is seen as the big kahuna of polling analysis. I don't imagine he would give you a rush like Rassmussin.

I beg to differ.. Rassmussin does a good job in formulating polls and accuracy is a high priority for them. If anything, I'd say many other polling sources are biased.. RCP is pretty good from what I have seen and read.

RodB

Cuyahoga Chuck
12-02-2013, 09:40 PM
Hello, wake up... its not a corporation... but a family owned business... Hobby Lobby. Obviously none on this forum have seen the story because you limit your sources of news.



http://www.thenewamerican.com/culture/faith-and-morals/item/17055-supreme-court-will-consider-hobby-lobby-contraception-mandate-case






http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/12/02/high-court-ends-liberty-u-lawsuit-over-health-law/






Glen... I don't hate anyone... I despise policies that can destroy our nation.... if you don't think continuing to print money to shore up the economy is not a very dangerous policy... your brain dead. Most rational people have a problem with continual lying and deceit.

I'm a pretty direct person... I am transparent on purpose...

Take an aspirin Glen...

RodB

If the government was minting too much money there would be monetary inflation. As was already stated our inflation rate is about 1%.

RodB
12-02-2013, 09:44 PM
What you spew here, Rod, will certainly pass for hate until real hate comes along.
As for... "policies that can destroy our nation"...where is your outrage toward the outrageous Congress you helped elect?
Your blaming Obama for every ill in the country and ignoring the damage done by the pack of outlaws you helped elect is hypocritical and disgusting!

Glen, those republicans were voted in to represent their constituents... and they have done that well. Anything that can stop the damage caused by the current administration is worthwhile. Obama has always had the choice to meet them half way and stop spending so much, and perhaps allow the healthcare bill to be a bipartisan process... Obama basically has said..." I won the election (I don't care if you won one) ... and I'm going to force my vision of a progressive nation on the country... republicans be damned".


If the government was minting too much money there would be monetary inflation. As was already stated our inflation rate is about 1%.

IT will get worse... the economy improvement is dismal. Obamacare is a job killer... the worse is yet to come.


http://www.nationalreview.com/campaign-spot/359708/designed-fail-or-not-outlook-obamacare-grim-jim-geraghty

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303460004579192081764514664


R

RodB
12-02-2013, 09:55 PM
Absolute Gobbledygook, Gibberish, and Balderdash!
There is not one ounce of truth in your entire post, only Regressive Troglodytic Spew!
You should be ashamed! Try to do better!

Wow... such a witty and complex response. You are so articulate in expressing yourself.... and you said so little..

R

Keith Wilson
12-02-2013, 10:09 PM
its not a corporation... but a family owned business... Hobby Lobby. This is totally incorrect. They are both corporations. Hobby Lobby is a closely-held corporation with only a small number of shareholders, but still a corporation. I don't know about the shareholders in Conestoga (which is owned by Mennonites), although it's certainly a corporation. A corporation has a specific legal meaning, where the owners are isolated form liability, The law has always held that shareholders are separate from the company itself. How can a corporation have religious convictions?

And this ignores completely the issue of under what circumstances should religion permit even a human being to be exempt from following the law, and, in fact, to impose one's religious beliefs on one's employees.

CWSmith
12-02-2013, 10:12 PM
No one is happy with the country. The right wing has been whipped into a froth of unthinking doom and gloom until they are foolish enough to vote against their own best interests. The left wing has lost its faith and courage. Business can't see beyond the next quarter's profit and investors demand returns that the economy can not sustain. There is hardly a leader that is worth spit because the voters mistake pandering for leadership. There is an awful lot of work to do.

Gerarddm
12-02-2013, 10:16 PM
No I am not happy. Too many ignorant voters are still voting regressive, and Obama hasn't been progressive enough. But as I cannot think of a superior alternative, I guess it is OK as far as it goes.

BrianW
12-02-2013, 10:32 PM
I'm happy with the USA. Not overly impressed with Obama's ACA handling. I hope it leads to universal health care soon, but I don't think Obama is up to that. Not now.

Wish the Republicans would have run someone better than McCain and Romney the last two times out. Don't see much hope for 2016 either. But I'm glad the Republicans in Congress are there, and making sure all sides are represented.

Benghazi happened, so if it's discussed, I'm fine with that too.

RodB
12-02-2013, 11:34 PM
This is totally incorrect. They are both corporations. Hobby Lobby is a closely-held corporation with only a small number of shareholders, but still a corporation. I don't know about the shareholders in Conestoga (which is owned by Mennonites), although it's certainly a corporation. A corporation has a specific legal meaning, where the owners are isolated form liability, The law has always held that shareholders are separate from the company itself. How can a corporation have religious convictions?

And this ignores completely the issue of under what circumstances should religion permit even a human being to be exempt from following the law, and, in fact, to impose one's religious beliefs on one's employees.


Last edited by Keith Wilson; 12-02-2013 at 09:19 PM.

Keith, I was sure I heard this was a family owned company and that their religious beliefs were their motivation for this suit. Whether a corporation or not... obviously the SCOTUS decided to take on the case... which could be good or bad... we will see. I still think SCOTUS screwed up not throwing out the mandatory part of ACA...

RodB

RodB
12-02-2013, 11:37 PM
No one is happy with the country. The right wing has been whipped into a froth of unthinking doom and gloom until they are foolish enough to vote against their own best interests. The left wing has lost its faith and courage. Business can't see beyond the next quarter's profit and investors demand returns that the economy can not sustain. There is hardly a leader that is worth spit because the voters mistake pandering for leadership. There is an awful lot of work to do.

The right wing has plenty of reason to be concerned by the damage this administration has done to our country. Lots of work to straighten hundreds of regulations and of course Obamacare will be a mess until the country can get it together and replace it.

RodB

MiddleAgesMan
12-02-2013, 11:39 PM
This is totally incorrect. They are both corporations. Hobby Lobby is a closely-held corporation with only a small number of shareholders, but still a corporation. I don't know about the shareholders in Conestoga (which is owned by Mennonites), although it's certainly a corporation...

Conestoga was wholly owned by the Hahn family last I heard. If there are shareholders outside the family I can assure you they are in a tiny minority.

skuthorp
12-02-2013, 11:41 PM
If you believe that is the case then the 'right wing' better think about getting it's house in order eh Rod?

PeterSibley
12-02-2013, 11:48 PM
If you believe that is the case then the 'right wing' better think about getting it's house in order eh Rod?

You mean come up with policies that the majority of Americans find sensible and worthy of support ? A interesting proposition !

Keith Wilson
12-03-2013, 08:54 AM
Conestoga was wholly owned by the Hahn family last I heard. If there are shareholders outside the family I can assure you they are in a tiny minority.I think this is correct; IIRC it's still organized as a closely-held corporation, not a partnership or other arrangement, thus isolating the owners from liability. The law is that shareholders are separate from the company itself. Again, how can a corporation have religious convictions?

However,the religious beliefs of the few shareholders are indeed the motivation for the lawsuit. this brings up the larger issue which circumstances should religion permit even a human being to not follow the law, and to impose religious beliefs on employees. There are only a very few cases where religion exempts one from compliance with the law, and they're generally written into the statute - conscientious objection to active military service, for example. Somehow I think requirements for insurance coverage are not in the same class.

beernd
12-03-2013, 10:21 AM
Apparently at least one person took it seriously enough to change the fonts, change the text size, emphasize some of the sillier bits, and post it HERE.

:cool: Y>

LeeG
12-03-2013, 10:52 AM
The social agenda of the right was very obvious in Virginia during the recent gubernatorial election. Every one of the Republican candidates was quite comfortable expressing their ideas. The voters of a very conservative state rejected them. Some prominent state Republicans rejected them too, publicly.
There has never been a need for centrists or liberals in this country to create "false social issues to demonize the right" they do fine all on their own.

That's what's so bizarre about RodB statement that Obama is creating false social sissues, the Repubs have been running on so called family values and social issues since the Christian Right got onboard 35yrs ago peaking in GW and his appointees.

Keith Wilson
12-03-2013, 11:07 AM
For example, Jehovah's Witnesses oppose blood transfusion. Could a corporation owned by a JW adherent legitimately be exempt from paying for blood transfusion services in their employee health plan?Could Christian Scientists refuse to pay for insurance that covers any medical care but prayer?

Canoeyawl
12-03-2013, 11:19 AM
I'm happy, very happy.
I went to Texas once and I understand...

BrianW
12-03-2013, 11:35 AM
Other than rape, getting laid without using birth control is hardly a medical condition. Hobby Lobby is not saying their employees can't have sex, they're saying they don't want to pay for the more expensive form of birth control when another forms are more readily available, and some even prevent sexually transmitted disease. (Okay, maybe they don't say that, but it makes sense.)

It could be considered similar to smoking I guess. Although corporations are allowed to disqualify potential employees based on smoking.

So here's the deal... if you're depending on your employer to be your family planner, you need to rethink your priorities.

Flying Orca
12-03-2013, 11:41 AM
Other than rape, getting laid without using birth control is hardly a medical condition.

I could have sworn that pregnancy is a medical condition, and one which people might want to use medication to avoid.

Furthermore, birth control medication is prescribed for other conditions, too. The point is that employers don't have the right to intrude in personal health decisions, and if medications are typically covered by insurance, birth control medication should be no different.


So here's the deal... if you're depending on your employer to be your family planner, you need to rethink your priorities.

So here's the deal - if you're required to offer your employees health insurance, you don't get to arbitrarily exclude certain treatments because you wouldn't use them yourself. Employers don't have the right to make health decisions for their employees.

Keith Wilson
12-03-2013, 11:47 AM
Employers neither get to impose their religious beliefs on their employees, nor get to pick and choose which laws they'll obey based on religious objections. And again, how can a corporation have religious beliefs? The stockholders of a corporation are not the company, they're separate legal entities.

FWIW, having insurance pay for birth control saves money overall.

LeeG
12-03-2013, 11:51 AM
Other than rape, getting laid without using birth control is hardly a medical condition.

This is worth saving

Cuyahoga Chuck
12-03-2013, 11:57 AM
I beg to differ.. Rassmussin does a good job in formulating polls and accuracy is a high priority for them. If anything, I'd say many other polling sources are biased.. RCP is pretty good from what I have seen and read.

RodB

Believe what you like. The New York Time jumped at the chance to get Silver to do their polling analysis. Rassmussen might be hired by some right-wing rag like the Mooney newspaper, The Washington Times.

BrianW
12-03-2013, 12:08 PM
I could have sworn that pregnancy is a medical condition, and one which people might want to use medication to avoid.

The reason I support universal care, is because people shouldn't go bankrupt because they broke a leg, not so people can make poor decisions that require more expensive treatments. In most cases, unprotected intercourse is a completely voluntary decision made based on urgency and lack of prior planning. There are better and cheaper ways to avoid pregnancy than "Plan-B."


Furthermore, birth control medication is prescribed for other conditions, too.

Can you point out some alternative uses for "Plan-B" or other "morning after" drugs? A quick search didn't show any?


The point is that employers don't have the right to intrude in personal health decisions, and if medications are typically covered by insurance, birth control medication should be no different.

So here's the deal - if you're required to offer your employees health insurance, you don't get to arbitrarily exclude certain treatments because you wouldn't use them yourself. Employers don't have the right to make health decisions for their employees.

I'm fairly certain insurance companies, even ACA policies, have spending limits when it comes to patient care. If there are equally effective means of birth control, for a cheaper price, you can bet they will always be the first choice. It's simply good public policy to use cheaper methods of birth control than more costly versions.

BrianW
12-03-2013, 12:15 PM
Other than rape, getting laid without using birth control is hardly a medical condition.


This is worth saving

:D

I stand by that statement.

It's like riding a motorcycle without a helmet. It's not a medical condition, until you wreck. ;)

Risky behavior has possible consequences.

BrianW
12-03-2013, 12:19 PM
Should point out, the "morning after" pill is not the abortion pill.

We're not talking about denying the right to an abortion here, we're talking about preventing a possible pregnancy.

Flying Orca
12-03-2013, 12:26 PM
In most cases, unprotected intercourse is a completely voluntary decision made based on urgency and lack of prior planning.

Sure. However, failure of a responsibly chosen, non-medicinal birth control method is not.


There are better and cheaper ways to avoid pregnancy than "Plan-B."

Certainly there are, and none of them are 100% foolproof. "Plan-B" is just one more tool for those who would prefer to avoid pregnancy. Why should they be denied access to it?


Can you point out some alternative uses for "Plan-B" or other "morning after" drugs?

I'm not aware of any, but since you've only brought up Plan-B subsequent to that post, I don't see any need to provide additional support to my already-factual statement. Again, why should people be denied the option of Plan-B when they need it?


I'm fairly certain insurance companies, even ACA policies, have spending limits when it comes to patient care. If there are equally effective means of birth control, for a cheaper price, you can bet they will always be the first choice. It's simply good public policy to use cheaper methods of birth control than more costly versions.

Spending limits on drug plans are generally in the four- to five-figure range. Do you really think that a dose of Plan-B, or even several of them, are going to break the bank? Nobody is arguing that only Plan-B be allowed - just that it should be an available option.

bogdog
12-03-2013, 12:28 PM
I willing to do anything to put pregnancy prevention into the hands of as many people as need it, especially that age group between 13-25 years. Almost half of them in the whole country display risky sexual behavior that is a threat to themselves and society. The right appears to be incapable of understanding or accepting that reality. I suspect they believe humans are something other than animals.

Keith Wilson
12-03-2013, 12:29 PM
Brian, you're letting your residual puritanism get in the way of dealing with the issue. The Hobby Lobby folks don't have any trouble at all with insurance covering the most expensive consequence of unprotected sex, i.e. a child. This has nothing to do with money. Having insurance pay for birth control saves money in the long run. The point is that they think their religious convictions objecting to birth control on principle should make them exempt from the law.

The results of many, many millions of years of evolution induce us to do things that make it likely we'll have kids; that's not going to change. One of the benefits of civilization is that sometimes we can avoid the negative consequences of thoughtlessness, carelessness, or even stupidity; that is a very good thing.

Kevin T
12-03-2013, 12:57 PM
[QUOTE=BrianW;3989123]. . . There are better and cheaper ways to avoid pregnancy than "Plan-B."



Can you point out some alternative uses for "Plan-B" or other "morning after" drugs? A quick search didn't show any?



The condom broke, might be a legitimate reason for a morning after pill. Plan B seems like it was perfectly named, as in;
"Uh oh, the condom broke, better go with Plan B!"

ccmanuals
12-03-2013, 01:01 PM
Other than rape, getting laid without using birth control is hardly a medical condition. Hobby Lobby is not saying their employees can't have sex, they're saying they don't want to pay for the more expensive form of birth control when another forms are more readily available, and some even prevent sexually transmitted disease. (Okay, maybe they don't say that, but it makes sense.) It could be considered similar to smoking I guess. Although corporations are allowed to disqualify potential employees based on smoking. So here's the deal... if you're depending on your employer to be your family planner, you need to rethink your priorities. This is what happens when a bunch of men start talking about women's health issues. They really have no clue as to what they are talking about. Myself included. I do remember that that are lots of other medical reasons for women to take birth control other than the obvious. http://www.webmd.com/sex/birth-control/features/other-reasons-to-take-the-pill

LeeG
12-03-2013, 01:29 PM
:D

I stand by that statement.

It's like riding a motorcycle without a helmet. It's not a medical condition, until you wreck. ;)

Risky behavior has possible consequences.

Intercourse is not a medical condition, pregnancy is. Maybe your insurer could restrict coverage for injuries incurred while hunting but not while going shopping, or injuries from holding wrenches over your head instead of crawling on the floor.

One thing's for sure, it's a condition you'll never have.

BrianW
12-03-2013, 01:33 PM
. . . There are better and cheaper ways to avoid pregnancy than "Plan-B."



Can you point out some alternative uses for "Plan-B" or other "morning after" drugs? A quick search didn't show any?



The condom broke, might be a legitimate reason for a morning after pill. Plan B seems like it was perfectly named, as in;
"Uh oh, the condom broke, better go with Plan B!"

I suspect you are right about the name. :)

However that's the primary reason. Flying Orca proposed there might be alternative reason to use it, and so we searched, and didn't find any.

BrianW
12-03-2013, 01:34 PM
This is what happens when a bunch of men start talking about women's health issues. They really have no clue as to what they are talking about. Myself included. I do remember that that are lots of other medical reasons for women to take birth control other than the obvious. http://www.webmd.com/sex/birth-control/features/other-reasons-to-take-the-pill

Pretty sure most of us have a handle on the basics. Enough to discuss this aspect.

Maybe someone will be nice enough to take you aside and fill you in on the details. :)

BTW, we're not discussing normal birth control pills as per your link.

Flying Orca
12-03-2013, 01:36 PM
we're not discussing normal birth control pills as per your link.

I think most of us have been, despite your attempts to limit the discussion...?

(ETA: never mind, just saw that the external links refer to emergency contraception like Plan-B.)

bogdog
12-03-2013, 01:40 PM
Pretty sure most of us have a handle on the basics. Enough to discuss this aspect.

Maybe someone will be nice enough to take you aside and fill you in on the details. :)

BTW, we're not discussing normal birth control pills as per your link.How do you think Plan B works?

BrianW
12-03-2013, 01:42 PM
Intercourse is not a medical condition, pregnancy is.

Thanks. That's what I was saying. The pill is not for pregnancy, it's for intercourse gone wrong. So we agree that a "morning after pill" is not for medical conditions.

The morning after pill is taken before there's a chance of pregnancy. It's not taken after you know you're pregnant, that would be RU-486 (or whatever that pill is called.) So the pill is taken in response to intercourse, not knowledge of pregnancy.


Maybe your insurer could restrict coverage for injuries incurred while hunting but not while going shopping, or injuries from holding wrenches over your head instead of crawling on the floor.

Don't give them any ideas!


One thing's for sure, it's a condition you'll never have.

Pregnancy, planned or not, is something any responsible man if affected by. Every pregnancy I've been involved with was very much a condition I had too.

BrianW
12-03-2013, 01:46 PM
How do you think Plan B works?

Pretty sure it's nanonites that seek out and destroy every sperm cell that may join with the egg.

BrianW
12-03-2013, 01:47 PM
You seem to continually try to pose this question in terms of economic justifications. From what I have read, this isn't about economics whatsoever... it's about religious conviction.

True. As I said in my first post, they aren't saying that, but they should be.

Typical thread drift.

My apologies.

bogdog
12-03-2013, 01:53 PM
Pretty sure it's nanonites that seek out and destroy every sperm cell that may join with the egg.So you don't really know anything about it.

BrianW
12-03-2013, 02:45 PM
So you don't really know anything about it.

You'll have to troll better than this to get me to bite.

If you have a point about how it works, just man up and say it.

Tom Montgomery
12-03-2013, 02:47 PM
You're forgiven, but you still haven't answered the question.
It is an uncomfortable question to answer for any social conservative.

Flying Orca
12-03-2013, 02:48 PM
If you have a point about how it works, just man up and say it.

I have a point about how it works: it prevents ovulation, if a quick scan of Wikipedia is to be believed. Is there a biblical injunction against preventing ovulation?

Tom Montgomery
12-03-2013, 02:48 PM
Do you still support the notion that an employer could withhold payment for a medical procedure on a religious objection basis? If so, would the same be true for Jehovah's Witnesses, or Christian Scientists?
You're forgiven, but you still haven't answered the question.
It is an uncomfortable question to answer for any social conservative.

CWSmith
12-03-2013, 02:55 PM
Do you still support the notion that an employer could withhold payment for a medical procedure on a religious objection basis?

Norman, while Brian contemplates I'd be happy to answer it. As a Catholic, the answer is "Hell, no!" The question is beyond the slippery slope.

Osborne Russell
12-03-2013, 02:55 PM
Hello, wake up... its not a corporation... but a family owned business... Hobby Lobby. Obviously none on this forum have seen the story because you limit your sources of news.

If it's not a corporation, their argument is even weaker.

BrianW
12-03-2013, 03:16 PM
It is an uncomfortable question to answer for any social conservative.

It is indeed.

While I respect a persons right to work in an environment free of extreme religious stipulations, I also respect the fact that when someone starts a business, their personal religious values may be a guideline for their business code of conduct.

Corporations may not be individuals, but they do have personalities. If as an employee, you don't like the personality of a corporation, you have the choice to move on and find one in which you feel more comfortable. In that way, everyone has the ability to do what they feel is right.

Back in the good old days, when insurance was a choice, and not a mandate, the 1st Amendment wasn't an issue. But now that insurance is being mandated by the Federal government, the part about...

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…"

…could get more tricky. If the owners of a corporation are enjoying the free exercise their religious beliefs, by not paying for certain insurance related expenses, is it a violation of the owners 1st Amendment rights to require them to do so?

It's all a bit messy.

BrianW
12-03-2013, 03:17 PM
One thing to remember in this case about the "morning after pill", is that it's an OTC product that can be bought by anyone for $30-$65 in a drug store. No prescription, no explanation, no age restriction. It's like being asked to be reimbursed for buying NyQuil and some cough drops.

This is hardly a medical procedure.

Flying Orca
12-03-2013, 03:18 PM
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…"

But Congress is not prohibiting the stockholders from freely exercising their religion - it is preventing the stockholders from imposing their religion on others.

John of Phoenix
12-03-2013, 03:40 PM
. and you said so little..But he didn't lie.

elf
12-03-2013, 03:41 PM
Norm, you don't understand American business morality. There's no reason Hobby Lobby would have to raise the salaries of its workers if it dropped health care. Most of its workers are part time salespeople, probably mostly being paid minimum wage anyway. If Wally-O can save the equivalent of $400K per store by paying slave wages without benefits, surely Hobby Lobby can follow its example.

Keith Wilson
12-03-2013, 03:45 PM
The law has always said a corporation is distinct from its shareholders. That's why we have corporations in the first place, as opposed to partnerships; to allow them to act as a independent entity and shield the shareholders from liability. You can't have it both ways; a corporation cannot be distinct from the shareholders regarding debts, but identical to them when it comes to religious convictions about birth control.

The larger issue is being exempt from a law when one has religious objections. Why should we allow this at all? To whom? The law applies equally to everybody, right? Should we allow a business owned by Muslims to require that women wear the hijab? Or, God helps us, the full black-tent-and-veil costume?

ccmanuals
12-03-2013, 04:11 PM
I agree, and it's one of the reasons why early on, in the fight for the ACA, the Obama administration advocated some alternative plan for people working for corporations with religious objections... but I don't know if it was ever implemented, is currently in force, or was rejected during negotiations to pass the bill.

One thing is unquestionably true: corporations are under NO obligation to provide health insurance to their employees, so corporations like Hobby Lobby are free to drop their insurance benefits completely, thereby avoiding the dilemma.

That's not a practical solution, of course; corporations provide health insurance benefits to attract and retain employees.... not having a plan is a serious discouragement to prospective employees.

However, consider this: if Hobby Lobby were to drop it's health insurance benefit, it would have to raise its compensation to employees, to make up the difference... and the employees would then buy insurance on one of the exchanges, which would cover precisely the services Hobby Lobby objects to paying for.... thereby defeating the entire point.

Just how far can/should an employer be able to reach into the private lives of its employees, without running afoul of constitutionally guaranteed freedoms? The 'net effect' of permitting Hobby Lobby to deny abortion benefits on their health plan runs afoul (in a very practical sense) of their employee's constitutionally guaranteed right to obtain an abortion. Whose rights are pre-eminent? The Employer, or the Employee?

And if a religious basis for an exception is granted, could it possibly be restricted to large widely recognized religions, or could some small minority religion, even smaller than Jehovah's Witnesses or Christian Scientists, be permitted to claim the SAME exceptions?


" corporations are under NO obligation to provide health insurance to their employees"

Unless they have more than 50 employees

CWSmith
12-03-2013, 04:17 PM
Unless they have more than 50 employees

Which they can circumvent if their employees are part time.

Durnik
12-03-2013, 06:44 PM
I willing to do anything to put pregnancy prevention into the hands of as many people as need it, especially that age group between 13-25 years. Almost half of them in the whole country display risky sexual behavior that is a threat to themselves and society. The right appears to be incapable of understanding or accepting that reality. I suspect they believe humans are something other than animals.

I'd more say the (esp, but not solely, ridiculous) right not only understand that, but are 'banking' on it. A pregnant 13 yr old loses many of her options when it comes to education & travel (the best educator?) - and 'bare foot & pregnant in the kitchen' is a meme with history behind it.

Here is where I completely disagree with Keith - "never attribute to ignorance that which is obviously intentional" is a much more apt statement.

enjoy
bobby

RodB
12-03-2013, 08:18 PM
The law has always said a corporation is distinct from its shareholders. That's why we have corporations in the first place, as opposed to partnerships; to allow them to act as a independent entity and shield the shareholders from liability. You can't have it both ways; a corporation cannot be distinct from the shareholders regarding debts, but identical to them when it comes to religious convictions about birth control.

The larger issue is being exempt from a law when one has religious objections. Why should we allow this at all? To whom? The law applies equally to everybody, right? Should we allow a business owned by Muslims to require that women wear the hijab? Or, God helps us, the full black-tent-and-veil costume?

Keith, what do you think about the wedding photographer who declined to do a same sex wedding ... and was sued... and lost the case. I fail to understand the logic of the New Mexico judge here... The photographer (gal ) should just have said she was busy.

RodB

PeterSibley
12-03-2013, 08:26 PM
The law has always said a corporation is distinct from its shareholders. That's why we have corporations in the first place, as opposed to partnerships; to allow them to act as a independent entity and shield the shareholders from liability. You can't have it both ways; a corporation cannot be distinct from the shareholders regarding debts, but identical to them when it comes to religious convictions about birth control.

The larger issue is being exempt from a law when one has religious objections. Why should we allow this at all? To whom? The law applies equally to everybody, right? Should we allow a business owned by Muslims to require that women wear the hijab? Or, God helps us, the full black-tent-and-veil costume?

You didn't answer the question Rod.

RodB
12-03-2013, 08:35 PM
Should we allow a business owned by Muslims to require that women wear the hijab? Or, God helps us, the full black-tent-and-veil costume?

Nope... That would be enforcing their religion on others and its a stupid question. But... can a Hooter's girl sue to not have to wear the orange shorts/sexy top etc that is standard fare for the waitresses at Hooters? What about the idiot Muslim who sued the school district because they would not let her take off during the school year to go to Meca? By the way.... our stupid attorney general, Eric Holder, joined her in this suit...

RodB

PeterSibley
12-03-2013, 08:37 PM
What the difference between various religions under your constitution Rod?

RodB
12-03-2013, 08:42 PM
Nope, she should have said she's a Bigot!

Glen... you are really suffering from extreme tunnel vision and of course a bad case of being a goofy goofy liberal. ... people are not bigots because they think same sex marriage is wrong.

RodB

Steve McMahon
12-03-2013, 08:49 PM
Glen... you are really suffering from extreme tunnel vision and of course a bad case of being a goofy goofy liberal. ... people are not bigots because they think same sex marriage is wrong.

RodB

What would you suggest? What do you call people who are against same sex marriage and the rights that go along with it?

TomF
12-03-2013, 08:50 PM
Nope... That would be enforcing their religion on others and its a stupid question. ...Help me understand how you distinguish this from the business owners who will, on religious principle, try to avoid providing health insurance which includes contraception or abortion. Different religion, different religious principle being promoted, same theme.

BrianW
12-03-2013, 08:55 PM
But Congress is not prohibiting the stockholders from freely exercising their religion - it is preventing the stockholders from imposing their religion on others.

They are not way restricting women from taking the 'morning after pill.'

There's no policy (I'm assuming here to be sure) that says "While employed by Hobby Lobby, no female employee will use the Plan-B pill for the purpose of avoiding pregnancy, or acne."

PeterSibley
12-03-2013, 08:55 PM
What the difference between various religions under your constitution Rod?

Rod ?

bogdog
12-03-2013, 08:55 PM
RodB, Please answer the question about who is proposing legislation to require pregnant women to eat a specific diet? I doubt this claim is true but if you have information that contradicts that I'd be interested in seeing a reference.

RodB
12-03-2013, 09:00 PM
What the difference between various religions under your constitution Rod?

No difference that I know of. But... I will say there are many traditions in this country that are likely based on christian ideology from the past... we have "In God We Trust" on our money for example... Now, as the population has shifted more and more to a mixed religious society including atheists... or if a few atheists decide to sue because they are offended by a prayer at a football game.. etc... Do we have to eliminate all traces of our beliefs in the event someone may be offended?

I know if I had come to a country that had a "free society" and offered anyone who worked hard a good life... a country that had more than 200 year old unique history of people leaving tyranny to live iives of self-determination... I'd not be all that worried that children said the pledge of alliegence in class and said "Under God"... or that some cheerleaders put up a banner with a bible quote during a football game.. or if children sang christmas carols at their school... or if the birth of Christ was demonstrated in a manger scene in the town square...

I do not think it is ok for people of non-christian orientation to be discriminated against... perhaps I just think a couple hundred years of history means something when you look at the nation that has formed from such a fantastically lucky start.

RodB

.

PeterSibley
12-03-2013, 09:00 PM
RodB, Please answer the question about who is proposing legislation to require pregnant women to eat a specific diet? I doubt this claim is true but if you have information that contradicts that I'd be interested in seeing a reference.

Australia has campaigns attempting to convince women that alcohol consumption during pregnancy is a Very Bad Idea, another socialist plot of course.

PeterSibley
12-03-2013, 09:07 PM
No difference that I know of. But... I will say there are many traditions in this country that are likely based on christian ideology from the past... we have "In God We Trust" on our money for example... Now, as the population has shifted more and more to a mixed religious society including atheists... or if a few atheists decide to sue because they are offended by a prayer at a football game.. etc... Do we have to eliminate all traces of our beliefs in the event someone may be offended?

I know if I had come to a country that had a "free society" and offered anyone who worked hard a good life... a country that had more than 200 year old unique history of people leaving tyranny to live iives of self-determination... I'd not be all that worried that children said the pledge of alliegence in class and said "Under God"... or that some cheerleaders put up a banner with a bible quote during a football game.. or if children sang christmas carols at their school... or if the birth of Christ was demonstrated in a manger scene in the town square...

I do not think it is ok for people of non-christian orientation to be discriminated against... perhaps I just think a couple hundred years of history means something when you look at the nation that has formed from such a fantastically lucky start.

RodB

.

I think you're looking for another Constitutional amendment, one that favours Christianity over other belief systems and that does seem to run against the current Constitution.

Good Luck.

BrianW
12-03-2013, 09:15 PM
I'm going to differ from RodB on this topic about wearing of the Hajib or Burqa in a Muslim run business.

If that's the dress code for working in that company, and it doesn't violate law (such as in France) then that's what the employees should wear if they wish to work there.

It's not much different from dress codes in many businesses. Fast food employees worldwide would feel their pain. ;)

Even our public officials wear them when it's appropriate...

http://theflyingcameldotorg.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/obama-hijab.jpg

Art Read
12-03-2013, 09:50 PM
I'm going to answer this without even reading the OP or any responses.

Yes!

I am also fully aware that I am riding on the cusp of the most fortunate generation, materially speaking, that has ever existed, (so far). And that I happen to live in country that by many metrics is, if no longer unique in that respect, a partial catalyst for this worldwide improvement in standards of living over the years. (Many will disagree, but the vast majority prefer not to be socially isolated, politically impotent and economically insignificant. America played a significant part in changing that, along with many other enlightened countries throughout history, for millions of people around the world, regardless of your politics.) More than once.

I'm "happy" with my country. Not 'cause we're "better" or blessed with "Exceptionalism." We have had the gifts of geography, geology, abundance and a few damn good policies and principles. I'm happy with my country because, despite our seemingly interminable internecine squabbling, we will always, as a people, want to do what is right. Our politicians may disappoint us, (and our neighbors), but the American people, as an entity, naive and provincial as we may seem, really only wish to go about our lives and prosper.

Ian McColgin
12-03-2013, 09:59 PM
I'm not far from Art's position. I've opposed almost all our military actions that happened in my lifetime, I'm horrified by the racist rightwing pseudo populism that the oligarchs have learned to manipulate, and utterly dismayed at our national retreat from social and economic justice on all fronts over the last three or four decades, but I still take pride in our democratic heritage, in our rights of dissent, and our freedoms. We are far far from even good and many nations have one thing or another that's more desirable, but as a whole, being an American is quite a blessing and privelege.

So, just as I'm happy to be myself even though I've no illusions about my many failings and even though I try to work on them . . . well work on one or two at a time. So also, I'm happy with my country because I can be part of trying to make it better.

Canoeyawl
12-03-2013, 10:48 PM
I will say there are many traditions in this country that are likely based on christian ideology from the past
.

This country was started by refugees from a too powerful church. There is a strong tradition is to resist that power even today...

edit;
Most religious "holiday" traditions are carried down from pagan traditions based on the seasons and the harvest, long before Christianity adopted them.

RodB
12-03-2013, 11:06 PM
By
(http://forum.woodenboat.com/member.php?33-Ian-McColgin)Ian McColgin (http://forum.woodenboat.com/member.php?33-Ian-McColgin)... I'm horrified by the racist rightwing pseudo populism that the oligarchs have learned to manipulate, and utterly dismayed at our national retreat from social and economic justice on all fronts over the last three or four decades,

Ian... How twisted can you be. I have known thousands of conservatives you might refer to as "right wing" but to just throw in the word " racist " is downright wrong. Your type of thinking is exactly why the country is so polarized. You actually believe all the left wing propaganda. I guess its easier to hate than get to know people. I have seen raw racism... I have a feeling your experience with racism is mostly from a book or in some left wing political dialogue... simply propaganda.

Your comments on social and economic justice even further illustrate your delusional perspective on our society. No matter how you design your "ideal" system some people will always work harder, longer and want more out of life. Some people will always be more self-reliant. Some will want to be taken care of from cradle to grave. This is the essence of our political differences... but for you to think you can force people to have similar outcomes is ludicrous. Your comments discriminate against an entire group of people that you really know nothing about. I guess I will have to view you as the ultra extreme left from now on.

RodB

Keith Wilson
12-03-2013, 11:13 PM
I guess I will have to view you as the ultra extreme left from now on.Ian?!?! :d Rod, with all respect, you wouldn't know an 'ultra extreme leftist" if one came up and bit you on the leg.

Care to take a stab at answering my question about which laws religious convictions should allow one to ignore? Why insurance regulations and not, say, tax laws? Banking regulations? Drug laws? Pollution control laws? How do we decide?

bogdog
12-03-2013, 11:15 PM
Ian... How twisted can you be. I have known thousands of conservatives you might refer to as "right wing" but to just throw in the word " racist " is downright wrong. Your type of thinking is exactly why the country is so polarized. You actually believe all the left wing propaganda. I guess its easier to hate than get to know people. I have seen raw racism... I have a feeling your experience with racism is mostly from a book or in some left wing political dialogue... simply propaganda.

Your comments on social and economic justice even further illustrate your delusional perspective on our society. No matter how you design your "ideal" system some people will always work harder, longer and want more out of life. Some people will always be more self-reliant. Some will want to be taken care of from cradle to grave. This is the essence of our political differences... but for you to think you can force people to have similar outcomes is ludicrous. Your comments discriminate against an entire group of people that you really know nothing about. I guess I will have to view you as the ultra extreme left from now on.

RodBRodB, Please answer the question about who is proposing legislation to require pregnant women to eat a specific diet? I doubt this claim is true but if you have information that contradicts that I'd be interested in seeing a reference.

RodB
12-03-2013, 11:27 PM
This country was started by refugees from a too powerful church. There is a strong tradition is to resist that power even today...

edit;
Most religious "holiday" traditions are carried down from pagan traditions based on the seasons and the harvest, long before Christianity adopted them.

So... pick and choose the history you wish to remember.... pick and choose how far to go back... I think the secular changes we are seeing nowadays are bad for the country. It certainly seems reasonable to me to value some traditions.

The secular movement wants to crap on everything that has had any traditional value to our country. The family is in decline... millions of children have poor parenting and do not end up as healthy adults. The fricking liberals are determined to change us into an entitlement society... How can the country improve for our children with entitlement rather than self reliance as the goal. (have you seen the latest results of our 15 years olds compared to many other top tier nations... our children did not do very well especially in math).

This criticism of defending Christmas and Christianity ( in a general way) is just a symptom of how the insidious secular movement certainly cannot be seen as a good thing for our society.

There is an old saying ... "Dance with the one that brung ya". America got here with a great constitution, hard work, self reliance, christian ideals.. etc, etc.. if all traditions are forgotten and demonized... this country will not be the same.. it will be another failed nation completely broke and destitute.

RodB

bogdog
12-03-2013, 11:31 PM
So... pick and choose the history you wish to remember.... pick and choose how far to go back... I think the secular changes we are seeing nowadays are bad for the country. It certainly seems reasonable to me to value some traditions.

The secular movement wants to crap on everything that has had any traditional value to our country. The family is in decline... millions of children have poor parenting and do not end up as healthy adults. The fricking liberals are determined to change us into an entitlement society... How can the country improve for our children with entitlement rather than self reliance as the goal. (have you seen the latest results of our 15 years olds compared to many other top tier nations... our children did not do very well especially in math).

This criticism of defending Christmas and Christianity ( in a general way) is just a symptom of how the insidious secular movement certainly cannot be seen as a good thing for our society.

There is an old saying ... "Dance with the one that brung ya". America got here with a great constitution, hard work, self reliance, christian ideals.. etc, etc.. if all traditions are forgotten and demonized... this country will not be the same.. it will be another failed nation completely broke and destitute.

RodBRodB, Please answer the question about who is proposing legislation to require pregnant women to eat a specific diet? I doubt this claim is true but if you have information that contradicts that I'd be interested in seeing a reference.

PS the US was founded on the ideals of the Enlightenment not Christianity...

PeterSibley
12-03-2013, 11:32 PM
The fricking liberals are determined to change us into an entitlement society... How can the country improve for our children with entitlement rather than self reliance as the goal. (have you seen the latest results of our 15 years olds compared to many other top tier nations... our children did not do very well especially in math).

RodB

Um Rod, those "other societies " are all entitlement societies in your parlance, every OECD nation is more "socialistic " than the USA.

Can you explain that away ?

RodB
12-03-2013, 11:36 PM
RodB, Please answer the question about who is proposing legislation to require pregnant women to eat a specific diet? I doubt this claim is true but if you have information that contradicts that I'd be interested in seeing a reference.

PS the US was founded on the ideals of the Enlightenment not Christianity...

I heard in on a radio show yesterday... they guy was illustrating how goofy it was to push for a law on the diet for pregnant women...while at the same time being absolutely devoted to the right for women to have abortions at will.

When I find it, i'll post it.

RodB

Keith Wilson
12-03-2013, 11:40 PM
I heard it on a radio show yesterday...Well, THAT's the problem. Rod, I promise you'd feel better about the world, and be far better informed, if you'd listen to nothing but All Things Considered on NPR for a month or two. :d

RodB
12-03-2013, 11:41 PM
Um Rod, those "other societies " are all entitlement societies in your parlance, every OECD nation is more "socialistic " than the USA.

Can you explain that away ?

Whats to explain... This county is better than all of em.... even with the economic problems... if you are willing work hard, get an education, then anyone in this country can have as nice of a life as they are willing to work for.

I fail to see the advantage of a more socialistic society than we have already. Hopefully this country will make a serious change in direction in 2016 and will be better off for it.

RodB

bogdog
12-03-2013, 11:54 PM
I heard in on a radio show yesterday... they guy was illustrating how goofy it was to push for a law on the diet for pregnant women...while at the same time being absolutely devoted to the right for women to have abortions at will.

When I find it, i'll post it.

RodB

I suggest you have misunderstood or someone on the radio was fabricating a story, a faux news story as it were. No states are proposing that kind of legislation, yet you have let yourself get upset about something that doesn't exist to the point that you make disparaging remarks to folks that question the validity of your information.

Keith Wilson
12-04-2013, 12:03 AM
Whats to explain... This county is better than all of em.... even with the economic problems... if you are willing work hard, get an education, then anyone in this country can have as nice of a life as they are willing to work for.That's a great ideal, but may I point out that the US has significantly less intergenerational social mobility that most other developed countries - in other words, careful choice of one's parents has a considerably larger effect on one's chances in life here than elsewhere, and individual effort less. Really.


http://globalsociology.com/files/2010/02/Intergenerational-Mobility-OECD-Graph1.png

And, surprise surprise, it varies a great deal by region. In general, the most conservative parts of the country have the lowest social mobility.

http://media.wbur.org/wordpress/12/files/2013/07/0723_mobilitymap.gif

RodB
12-04-2013, 01:08 AM
http://reflectionsofarationalrepublican.com/2012/01/14/are-liberals-more-educated-than-conservatives/

Are Liberals More Educated Than Conservatives? (http://reflectionsofarationalrepublican.com/2012/01/14/are-liberals-more-educated-than-conservatives/)Posted on Saturday, January 14, 2012 (http://reflectionsofarationalrepublican.com/2012/01/14/are-liberals-more-educated-than-conservatives/) by Sean Patrick Hazlett (http://reflectionsofarationalrepublican.com/author/seanpatrickhazlett/)
Update: Click here (http://reflectionsofarationalrepublican.com/2013/01/05/are-liberals-more-educated-than-conservatives-2012-election-update/) for the most recent statistics.A surprising amount of anti-conservative bigotry on the web asserts that conservatives are inherently less intelligent than liberals. Admittedly, some prominent conservatives make statements that go against the mainstream scientific consensus on topics such as global warming and Darwin’s theory of evolution. That said, these examples do not mean that being a conservative automatically implies a lower IQ or education level than being a liberal does.I decided to run the numbers to test this assertion, and it turns out it is not true. However, a far more interesting pattern emerges that confirms a theory I have always held, but had never taken the time to test.In my opinion, certain liberal policies appear to have an underlying paternalistic tone. They hold that the poor and uneducated need the help of wiser government bureaucrats to protect them from themselves. Many liberals believe it is unfair for society to hold people accountable for their own condition. Therefore, the ignorant and benighted conservative voter should just fall in line and let the ivory tower intelligentsia dictate how society ought to run people’s lives. The intellectual is, after all, so much smarter than the average working stiff.Of course, average working stiffs and/or business owners who have some college or are college graduates have made their own way in the world, have taken risk, and have a strong desire to control their own fates. They resent fiats from a central authority led by a group of over-educated individuals with little or no prior business experience.To implement this idealistic worldview, mainstream liberalism needs muscle, and that muscle comes from the undereducated masses who stand to benefit from a dogma seeking to redistribute the income earned by others directly to them.As such, the distribution of liberal and conservative education levels should differ sharply. Liberal education levels should have fatter tails at the low and high ends of the educational spectrum, while conservative education levels should be more concentrated in the middle.To test my theory, I looked at education levels by voter in the 2000, 2004, and 2008 presidential elections, as well as the 2006 and 2010 midterm elections. In every case, the share of people with no high school education was higher among people voting for Democratic candidates than it was among people voting for Republican candidates. On the opposite end of the spectrum, in every case, the share of people with a postgraduate education was higher among people voting for Democratic candidates than it was among people voting for Republican candidates.The voting trends by party and education for each of these elections are listed below:The 2000 Presidential Election
http://reflectionsofarationalrepublican.files.wordpress.c om/2012/01/2000-presidential-education.jpg?w=640 (http://reflectionsofarationalrepublican.files.wordpress.c om/2012/01/2000-presidential-education.jpg)Source:http://abcnews.go.com/sections/politics/2000vote/general/exitpoll_hub.html

The 2004 Presidential Election
http://reflectionsofarationalrepublican.files.wordpress.c om/2012/01/2004-presidential-education.jpg?w=640 (http://reflectionsofarationalrepublican.files.wordpress.c om/2012/01/2004-presidential-education.jpg)Source:http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.0.html

The 2006 Midterm Election
http://reflectionsofarationalrepublican.files.wordpress.c om/2012/01/2006-midterm-education.jpg?w=640 (http://reflectionsofarationalrepublican.files.wordpress.c om/2012/01/2006-midterm-education.jpg)Source:http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2006/pages/results/states/US/H/00/epolls.0.html

The 2008 Presidential Election
http://reflectionsofarationalrepublican.files.wordpress.c om/2012/01/2008-presidential-education.jpg?w=640 (http://reflectionsofarationalrepublican.files.wordpress.c om/2012/01/2008-presidential-education.jpg)Source: http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls/#USP00p1

The 2010 Midterm Election
http://reflectionsofarationalrepublican.files.wordpress.c om/2012/01/2010-midterm-education.jpg?w=640 (http://reflectionsofarationalrepublican.files.wordpress.c om/2012/01/2010-midterm-education.jpg)Source: http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2010/results/polls/#val=USH00p1

Based on the above data, it seems clear that people at both the high and low ends of the educational spectrum tend to favor Democratic candidates. Therefore, the assertion that liberals are smarter than conservatives is an overly simplistic notion with little basis in the actual data.

RodB
12-04-2013, 01:10 AM
I suggest you have misunderstood or someone on the radio was fabricating a story, a faux news story as it were. No states are proposing that kind of legislation, yet you have let yourself get upset about something that doesn't exist to the point that you make disparaging remarks to folks that question the validity of your information.

I did not misunderstand anything... This story is too good for you not to hear about it.... I'll be sure to post it.

R

PeterSibley
12-04-2013, 05:12 AM
Whats to explain... This county is better than all of em.... even with the economic problems... if you are willing work hard, get an education, then anyone in this country can have as nice of a life as they are willing to work for.

I fail to see the advantage of a more socialistic society than we have already. Hopefully this country will make a serious change in direction in 2016 and will be better off for it.

RodB

You were bemoaning education rating Rod,


The secular movement wants to crap on everything that has had any traditional value to our country. The family is in decline... millions of children have poor parenting and do not end up as healthy adults. The fricking liberals are determined to change us into an entitlement society... How can the country improve for our children with entitlement rather than self reliance as the goal. (have you seen the latest results of our 15 years olds compared to many other top tier nations... our children did not do very well especially in math).
You will find that every country that beats the US in educational scores has a "socialist" ( from your perspective 0 society and economy . There are lessons there for anyone who cares to learn them.

Art Read
12-04-2013, 07:50 AM
http://reflectionsofarationalrepublican.com/2012/01/14/are-liberals-more-educated-than-conservatives/




graphs!!!!

Art Read
12-04-2013, 07:56 AM
That's a great ideal, but may I point out that the US has significantly less intergenerational social mobility that most other developed countries - in other words, careful choice of one's parents has a considerably larger effect on one's chances in life here than elsewhere, and individual effort less. Really.


http://globalsociology.com/files/2010/02/Intergenerational-Mobility-OECD-Graph1.png


And, surprise surprise, it varies a great deal by region. In general, the most conservative parts of the country have the lowest social mobility.

http://media.wbur.org/wordpress/12/files/2013/07/0723_mobilitymap.gif

Sorry, Rod. Graphs!!!!

Keith Wilson
12-04-2013, 08:33 AM
Rod: That's quite an example of an enormous towering superstructure of sneering narrative built on a tiny foundation of data. I have never claimed that those who disagree with me politically are on average less intelligent or well-educated; stupidity knows no part. IMO that's a very silly article.

Any response to the information showing show that economic success in the US is much more dependent on who one's parents are than in many other deveoped countries? Any idea why that might be?