Santorum on separation of church and state Pages PREV 1 2 | |
Well there was the remark he made about not wanting to give black people welfare because that would give them an entitlement complex then claiming he didn't actually say "black." That was during this primary, by the way.
This guy is to science what a Swiss Army knife is to open heart surgery.
First of all, attendance at the polls are down, so his popularity is only relative. Second, part of the Republican base is evangelical Christians. With Michelle Bachmann, Mike Huckabee, and Rick Perry out of the race, that leaves Santorum as the only real evangelical in the race. Regardless of what you personally think of Romney's faith, there are a lot of people out there who still don't know that much about Mormonism and keep them at arm's length. Gingrich is having a really hard time selling himself as a born-again Christian. And Ron Paul... well, Ron Paul was never going to be president anyway. So basically, Santorum hasn't burnt out yet. He's about all the evangelicals have at this point.
The government has a long history of that, actually. Google it sometime. Regardless, what the fuck do I care? The insurance companies haven't done anything good since they stopped being non-profit.
From the Washington Post. He's claimed he's not in favor of banning it outright. But his suggestions would effectively do that anyway. Slicky Ricky wants to have his cake and eat it too, methinks.
CNN article about his 2003 remarks on homosexuality. Dude actually said that your bedroom is not protected by a right to privacy. Here's the followup. Right in the first paragraph it says that he claims to have been taken out of context... and then says he's still totally right that gay sex is the same as dog fucking.
Mostly pandering, I imagine. I wasn't of voting age when he first got in.
He authored language for the Workplace Religious Freedom Act that was so authoritarian it came under really heavy fire. It was suggested he was simply pandering, which makes it more sleazy than anything. He supported teaching intelligent design in science class. In fact he was responsible for the amendment for the No Child Left Behind Act that made the whole thing such a clusterfuck. I think we all know how that ended. He authored the National Weather Service Duties Act of 2005 that would prevent the National Weather Service from providing free data in areas where private sector weather forecasting corporations were set up and charging for their services. This didn't sit well when it was discovered that a Pennsylvania-based company called AccuWeather contributed more than $10k to his PAC. He believes the Bush Doctrine isn't fucking bullshit. Not only did he support the Iraq War, he sponsored the Iran Freedom and Support Act appropriating $10 million toward instigating regime change in Iran, but curiously voted against the Lautenberg amendment that would have closed the loophole that allowed companies like Halliburton to do business in Iran through their foreign affiliates. And on that note when John McCain said he didn't support torture, Santorum accused him of "not understanding." There are also persistent rumors that he's involved in the K Street Project. Nothing's been proven either way, but it did raise a few eyebrows.
Agreeing with him, I would imagine. But enough of his were tired of his crap and voted him out.
Cute.
Just make it harder to do so. You know, after he's finished his lawsuit.
I tell one joke and suddenly I'm the asshole. I'm not going to mince words. This man makes me physically ill. I'd call him a sellout, but he never any integrity to sell. He's a moralizing hypocrite, a corporatist pig, and a bigot. I've given you the information you asked for. Now give me a reason to like him. | |
Separation of Church and State 1. State does not interfere with the affairs of any religious organization. 2. Religious Organizations do not interfere with the affairs of the government. Tragically, the actual wording is about as vague as that. Which means that you can tell people that homosexuality is morally wrong because the Bible tell so, and make a law on that, despite it violating the second part. | |
You got a source for that quote?
He's not in charge of Iran. http://www.cracked.com/article_19461_6-b.s.-myths-you-probably-believe-about-americas-enemies.html
One Nation under God, In God We trust. They aren't recent but they are ongoing. | |
Tell you what; get rid of the U's and we'll finally start using the metric system. Deal?
I listened very carefully to that video, there are many things I question here. Firstly: It's really a stretch to conclude he meant to say 'black', I didn't even pick it up the first time listening. I thought he just accidentally said 'lives' with a 'b' sound in the front in the imperfect manner than any human being speaks. Secondly: Let's just say for the sake of argument that he absolutely meant to say 'black' and then he lied about it. Here's a more extended transcript of what he said, "...they're just pushing harder and harder to get more and more of you dependant upon them so they can get your vote. That's what the bottom line is. I don't want to make blike people's lives better by giving them somebody else's money, I want to give them the opportunity to go out and earn the money." Notice the words 'you' and 'your'? "...they're just pushing harder and harder to get more and more of you dependant upon them so they can get your vote." So it's obvious that when he's talking about welfare and dependancy on government, he's talking to the audience listening to him, which the video itself even said is all white. So... there's a conflict here. He doesn't want white people dependant on politicians, but he also doesn't want to give black people other people's money.
So you want to get into the climate change discussion? Do you feel up to handling that?
Uh... you are aware that he's a Catholic, right? Yes, he does seem to have the biggest lead among evangelical voters, but he's not one himself. I REALLY don't want to get all snarky on your ass already, but I really lose faith that I'm talking to someone who knows much about Rick Santorum when they don't know what his religion is. But hey, let's continue.
So because it's happened before, that makes it okay to keep doing?
Explain to me what you mean by 'not doing anything good'. Do they benefit their customers in any way?
So what do youthinks he means when he says this, "that's a different position than I have with respect to public policy. You know, public policy, women should have access to contraception. I have no problem with that at all." He has no problem with legal access to contraception at all... or does he? *lightning strike*
Where exactly did he say that? I didn't pick that up in the article you provided.
What was that about dogs? Again, I don't see any of that in the article.
You imagine? So you don't really know, huh?
What was authoritarian about it?
Could you explain a little more on what it was he supported? Like would it have forced teachers to talk about intelligent design, and require disregarding evolution?
Rick has actually said multiple times that he regrets supporting it, what do you think of that?
How much tax money was/is spent for the NWS to provide this data?
So what do you think happened here?
So what I get as the points here are: 1: The bill Rick wrote that ended D&X-Ball would end up requiring women with critical illnesses to weed through red tape before getting a life-saving abortion 2: It's made it to where a woman being crippled will be allowed for the sake of saving the life of the baby So... 1: How much trouble has this red tape caused? 2: Does that fetus have human rights or not? If it does, then the only thing that can justify killing it is to save the life of the mother. If it doesn't, then we can suck them out whenever we want
So the obvious point of that article was: 1: Rick supports a bill capping the malpractice lawsuits at $250,000 Okay well, according to that article, however, 1: He didn't necessarily agree with his wife So he's being a hypocrite for kiiiiinda putting a law out against doing something that his wife did?
It's just I read, "He's a bigot and a holier-than-thou hypocrite" All in one post and I get a sense of anger coming from you. But oh I shouldn't worry, you said you were just joking about that last comment, hardy har.
He's kind of a nerd.
Here you go:
So what does putting that text on our money and our anthem do? In terms of helping certain faiths over others?
So the Church and government never talk to one another? | |
You sir, drive a hard bargain. But alas, the lure of finally eliminating the dastardly metric system is a mighty appealing one. You have a deal, sire. I drop the "u", and you get rid of that nonsense you call a measuring system. Then the world lived happily ever after, just like those guys (and gals) in Hetalia. | |
They don't really have a document or anything to point to for that. I checked on wikiquotes and they put it as misattributed.
It's an endorsement by the American government, a government that's supposed to have "no law respecting an establishment of religion". | |
And this is all supposed to make what he said okay? Even if I go along with everything you said, it's still fucking bullshit.
I think we have a thread for that already. But I like the tone of arrogance you used there.
Yeah, I know he's a Catholic. Are you saying that Catholics can't be fundamentalist whackjobs with the same agenda as the fundamentalist Protestants? As for being snarky, don't let me stop you. By all means, act like a bigger douchebag than me and see what happens. Although, I do have to wonder how many people know about the comments he's made about Protestants in the past...
If it worked, yeah.
By going for-profit, they have literally put a price on human life. I find that morally indefensible.
You don't have to make something illegal to make it way too difficult to get.
"If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual (gay) sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything," Those are his words. He is saying that he has a right to police what goes on in the bedroom between consenting adults. I thought conservatives were about smaller government and keeping the feds out of people's business. What happened to that?
An excerpt from his 2003 AP interview. He was effectively saying that we shouldn't normalize gay people for the same reason we don't condone bestiality, which in his mind is because it's not heteronormative.
And I suppose you'll use this as proof that my whole argument against the man is void?
The legislation he proposed is very similar to the current anti-birth control proposal. Basically, he wanted to erode the rights of workers and protect religion in ways it doesn't deserve under the constitution. The way he wrote it, an employer who was Christian could refuse a gay man a day off for an anniversary with his boyfriend or refuse a Pagan worker time off for one of the seasonal festivals because of an objection to that person's religion. You expect me to support that?
He couldn't outright ban teaching evolution. The Scopes trial made sure of that. What he wanted instead was to require science teachers to tell students that evolution is "only a theory" because he apparently doesn't know what theory means in a scientific context and "teach the debate" even though there isn't one. He wanted intelligent design to be taught alongside evolution and regarded as an equally plausible scientific theory even though it's actually Creationism with a slightly more erudite name. The judge in Pennsylvania ruled that this was crap, it was just trying to sneak religion into the classroom again. It had nothing to do with education in the sciences and everything to do with Christians pushing their beliefs on everyone else.
Either he's lying or he regrets it because he lost. That's my guess. Regardless, I'm not one of those Christians who believes that asking for atonement is enough to get it. I'm an atheist who believes that if you are contrite for your actions, you do something to make up for it. To my knowledge, Santorum is still anti-evolution and does not accept the theory commonly held by many theologists that evolution does not automatically disprove the existence of a creator and can be interpreted as a mechanism that he built into life to help us.
I think I know where this is going but I first want to ask: why?
Same thing that happens all the time in Washington. A lobbyist or private interest contributes to your campaign and you're expected to legislate in favor of them, damn the consequences. Campaign contributions are the new bribe. That's why politicians are more corrupt than ever. There's too much damn money in politics. Would you argue otherwise?
Are you suggesting that making it harder to get abortions has not caused any problems at all? Are you suggesting that a woman whose life is in danger should have to jump through extra hoops to appease you?
I'm pro-choice. What does that tell you?
Excuses, excuses.
That was a serious challenge to you. Is that really the best you've got? Still it comes down to this: the man is anti-abortion and anti-gay marriage. That is enough for him to lose my vote because those subjects are important to me. All the other shit he's done is just icing on the cake. | |
Just a quick question (not trying to attack you or anything). Anyway, just being a bit of a grammar Nazi by challenging the term "anti-abortion". I like to talk in terms of pro-choice and anti-choice; because pro-life suggests that there is an anti-life crowd opposing them, and that's not the case. Or if you find anti-choice to be touchy, then we can go for quality vs quantity. Do we want a higher quality of life for fewer people, or higher quantity of people at lower quality of life? And yeah, I'm against any anti-gay marriage candidate. To me, it just seems like the only existing reason for being against gay marriage is being an asshole. There's really no justification available for banning it and it's a really asshole-ish thing to do. | |
True. Let me rephrase: any candidate who wants to do away with a woman's right to have access to the option of abortion has automatically lost my vote.
In short, tradition is not a valid basis for discrimination. | |
They already do that though, don't they now. If Wal-Mart wanted to sell beef that was rancid and 45% rat droppings, the government steps in and tells them not to, that they have to provide something more healthy, or get out of that business. Even if it's less profitable (and I think that you can make a strong argument that forcing businesses to sell clean food is much less profitable to them). If some sandwich shop doesn't want to provide services to a select religion, race, sexual orientation, gender, sex, national origin, etc., they get served court orders or shut down. You have the issue here, that religious based companies don't want their employees to spend their earned benefit money on things they don't agree with. That's exactly the same as if the employee cut you a check, and was like "OK, but this money can only be spent on X, Y and Z"; can you see why that's not very good? If you open a business in the United States, you do so on the understanding that you're going to follow their laws and regulations. If you apply for a doctor's license and think it's your moral right to give bad health advice to people because they don't follow your religion, then you're in the wrong business and/or country. If I apply for a license to make sandwiches and I think it's my moral duty to not serve black people or something, then I'm in the wrong business and/or country too. If I run a convenience store and I think that it's my moral duty to maximize my profits while selling expired milk to families, then I'm in the wrong business and/or country as well. I don't care if in any of those above situations you claim it's your 'religious right'. If I open a business and can't handle the fact my employees are going to spend their benefit money on shit I don't want them to have, then I probably shouldn't hire people period. | |
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/528.352477-The-Problems-with-the-Global-Warming-Debate Wanna deny climate change? Go there. ^_^ Thanks. | |
I'm not so sure, if Santorum can get his political game together, and this video has actually convinced me that he's doing just that, he may be able to squeeze an unlikely win out of a few primaries and manage to barely get the nomination. Doubly so if Romney manages to fuck something up really badly. If Santorum can keep up this "We of strong faith, sound mind, and seemingly moderate socio-economic ideology" crap through to August and, God-forbid, November, I feel like he could really pose a serious threat to Obama, especially given that Obama's agenda is significantly more left wing than many Americans are comfortable with. I feel like come November we'll see a fair number voting against Obama because they've bought into what I hesitantly call the 'propaganda'(which is a word I use mostly for lack of a better word). | |
he'd probably label them all as terrorists and send them to gitmo. | |
Haven't we learned already that the church should not be given power. Santorum is the most brainless moron I have ever seen in politics. The churches power is waning, let's keep it that way people. | |
Another thing to point out is that Santorum isn't a very good Catholic. He's anti-evolution despite the fact that the Pope actually said to stop denying evolution as a theory. The Vatican actually employs scientists now. In Religulous Bill Maher actually interviewed one of these scientists. An astronomer in fact, who said that he believes God created the universe, but he also embraces science because understanding that universe lets us appreciate it even more. | |
It's bullshit to say you want to give people the opportunity to earn their own money?
I know I just would like to hear the argument fresh, partially because it's easier than reading several pages of forum posts, and also because I often hear different versions of it from different people.
Sorry for that, what I intended was to set the tone for what would almost certainly be an extremely lengthy, eye-straining discussion were it to start.
Okay, then I guess you meant, As,
I did actually talk to someone who went on a rant about Rick's 'crazy religious views' and called him a 'protestant'. I just wanted to make sure I wasn't talking to another one.
How has the government telling insurance companies what to cover worked?
So should anything that sustains human life be offered for free at all times?
So what is he planning to do?
Where in that quote did he say that the government has a right to control any sexual activity within your home? Reading the quote, it sounds more to me like he's saying what the government doesn't have a right to control.
Your argument about how he got elected those first two times is certainly void.
So if someone hires an employee of a faith they disagree with, the employer must conform to that person's religion or lifestyle decisions? To what extent? What if someone's religion includes taking off the entire month of February?
Well that makes perfect sense. Evolution being a 'theory' is a misunderstanding I find the dumbest second only to 'why are there still monkeys?'. Another factor to this, I would point out, is that as I may have already mentioned, Santorum has taken a clear position on taking the educational system away from the federal government and giving it back to the states (as he said in the same video linked to at the top of this page), so in all fairness, what he really wants is to let individual states decide on their own.
If he's lying: Why is it, then, the only thing he lies about regretting?
I would like to know how efficient the government-run NWS is.
I think conservatives are the ones arguing that point more than anyone.
Has it? What effect has the bill Rick fought for been?
That would go back to the issue of when the right to life begins. Which I will dig into now.
What kind of pro-choice? I know three. 1: Those who say the right to life starts at the fetal stage; that a zygote is not a person, but a fetus is, so sometime around the first trimester, an abortion would be a murder. 2: Those who say the right to life starts at viability; that a fetus is not a person until it can survive without the mother's body, but it does suddenly become a person when it can survive on its own (newborn babies are natural expert hunter-gatherers), and therefore sometime after the third trimester, an abortion would be murder. 3: Those who say that if you try to kill it but fail, it somehow continues to not be a person even after being born; I am referring specifically to Barack Obama here, who supported and fought for a bill saying that a failed abortion could be followed by disposing of it afterwards. The people in categories 1 and 2 are technically saying--indirectly--that President Obama supported murder. However, every single one of those people I've talked to support him and don't seem to mind. I even brought this up with a friend of mine in category 1, and he said 'I'm not going to decide my vote based on one issue', so murder isn't important enough to him. Okay okay, snark off, snark off. Like I said, I try to keep my comedian levels down, but it's become progressively harder to do so on the issue of abortion. Please tell me what you have to say about it, I genuinely am very curious.
So you're Rick Santorum, your wife just got injured by her chiropractor, what should you do?
I haven't told anyone who to vote for at any point in time. Presenting the case for Rick Santorum as an awesome guy who would be a great president is a quest that you have tried to bestow upon me, but it isn't one I ever had any desire of taking. My goal here is to scrutinize the accusations that have been thrown at him, and see how well or how poorly most of them hold up.
So the issue of abortion is important enough for you to decide your vote based on it? Or does it have to be paired with the issue of gay marriage? That latter issue may not matter a hugely lot in this election, because Barack Obama has taken a pretty clear 'traditional marriage' position as well.
It's all just Santorum on the cake. | |
I'm still crossing my fingers for the ultimate political junkie's dream: a brokered convention. It probably won't happen, but then I thought they'd have had this thing sewn up by now. Will Republicans learn their lesson? No, I don't think so. The party is basically in schism right now-- the Teavangelists can't win without the establishment, and the establishment has so screwed themselves in the hearts and minds of people who aren't part of their base that they can't win without the Teavangelists. They've run so far to the right that it's actually starting to penetrate the shield of apathy +1 of some voters. The only thing that could possibly save them-- think I said this somewhere else on here-- is if the economy starts to trend down in a big way. Gas prices, maybe, if Romney manages to sew up the nomination and starts tacking back to the center. But you're talking long-term, and long-term, I think they've numerically screwed themselves. (It shows with these voting restriction laws in states, too. They know they're not only not growing the party, they're shrinking the party, and they're trying to eliminate new voters as a factor.) | |
He's really not a mainstream Catholic at all-- not only the evolution thing and the obsession with gays thing, but his lack of concern for the poor and his embrace of war. He's evidence of Dominionist ideas leaking into Catholicism through steeplejacked churches and "charismatic Catholic" groups. I hope he keeps talking, actually, because most American Catholics aren't where he is on most of the issues that matter most to him. The more they hear of him, the more they'll hopefully remember why their families have always voted for Democrats. | |
The really interesting thing about what is happening with the Republicans at the moment is that it is the opposite of what normally happens in a two party system. Generally when you get a two party system the parties tend to move closer together, not further apart. From a political point of view what the Republicans are doing is what you would expect a right wing party to do in a system with several parties after losing some ground. By moving to the right they can ensure their core group of voters remains with them. However in a two party system this makes no sense. Generally speaking the left will vote for the party that is more left and the right will vote for the party that is more right. The votes that really matter are those in the middle of the two parties, the swing voters. When you move further left or right though you are just getting further away from those swing voters, thus you normally see the two parties get closer together as they compete for those swing voters. It really shows how stupid what they are doing is. The question is why are they doing it? It makes zero sense politically so it really must be an ideological push from powerful members and groups within the Republicans. | |
Well, they've been doing it for years, and last time they won a majority. Theoretically you are right, indeed, but in the US of the US, the stupid part may be with the voter instead of the party, because apparently US voters vote against their self-interest and things they find important. Something which I find sensible, seeing as for instance people rag on about illegal immigrants stealing jobs, while it's the wealthy business owners who back the ultra right wing in the US who want immigrants without rights so they can better exploit them. Those people who blame immigrants proceed to vote on people that are against giving immigrants into the US any form of rights, thus reinforcing the system that works against themselves. Apparently US voters just don't realise how things work. That's normal for the lower classes in a democracy to some degree, but the US seems to be an exception. | |
Can you cite me some evidence for that? I'm not challenging, I'm genuinely interested in learning more. All of the countries I know with parties that are similar have more than two parties. And they're also parliamentary governments with a weak President or no President.
I've got two pet theories: My ideology theory is that the Bush II years and the initial support for Republicans after 9/11 left a mistaken impression in many Republicans' minds about why Americans supported them. While yes, Americans do trend toward being more conservative than many European countries, we're still ultimately center-right as a country. We just get nervous when we think we're under attack. My pragmatic theory is that Republicans know that it all comes down to the economy and their game of trying to blame the economy on Obama hasn't fooled anyone. So they're letting the crazy candidates throw up a smoke screen and are hoping that if they just change the subject, people will forget that the economy is ever so slowly improving under Obama. | |
No. The problem is that he claims to be a capitalist and even if we assume he didn't say "black people" he's still wrong. Any good capitalist should have familiarized himself at the very least with the works of Adam Smith, who said that we need social safety nets to preserve capitalism. Smith asserted that the greatest threat to a capitalist economy is concentrated wealth and lower class with no mobility upward. Will some people exploit these safety nets? Yes. But that is the price you must be willing to pay to avoid living in feudalism. Santorum may imagine he sounds reasonable with that rhetoric, but talk is cheap. He hasn't done the homework. Or he doesn't care.
I don't have the space to go into it here. Though I will ask this: What do we have to lose by cutting back on pollution and switching to clean, renewable energy? If we make this switch and it turns out that there was no climate change, what have we lost?
I said it worked before. We had similar measures with the phone companies in the 50's and that's why phones became as prolific as they did in the US in the first place. Sometimes what's in the country's best interest isn't the most profitable to a private corporation. At which point, I say, "Hard luck."
Did I say that? The insurance companies used to be non-profit. I would be perfectly happy with a Medicare Part E. I opt into it, pay an extra tax, and get access to healthcare whenever I need it just like my grandparents do. A public option in other words.
Make it harder to access.
His comments were about the case of Lawrence v Texas. The court was trying to decide whether to uphold a Texas sodomy law and whether private sexual activity was Constitutionally protected. Santorum supported upholding the law because he believes that what goes on in the bedroom between consenting adults is not protected. The court disagreed. They ruled that consenting sexual activity is protected by due process under the 14 amendment. Mind, a sodomy law defines certain sexual acts as criminal. Under this Texas law before it was struck down, gay sex was illegal. Think about that for a second. So overruling adds a liberty rather than taking one away. It gives the government less control. And Santorum opposed that ruling.
Given how he's trying to get into office now, it's not that big a leap, is it?
Show me one religion that says that and maybe you would have a point. Here's the thing: what your employees do at home is none of your goddamn business. If you're Christian and give the other Christian Easter off to go to church, but you don't give the gay guy Valentine's Day off to be with his boyfriend, you are an asshole and you're discriminating. You're not offering a practical reason why he can't have that requested day off. If you're only doing that because you don't like gay people, then that is wrong and you are wrong. So to answer your first question in short, yes. Unless some tenet of their faith regularly interferes with their ability to do their job such as the Christians at pharmacies who refuse to give people birth control or Muslim taxi drivers who refuse to take people to bars, then it's none of your goddamn business. I do not support legislating the right to be a mean-spirited separatist dick.
Care to elaborate on that?
1. Did I say "only?" He's a politician. I assume they're all lying to me unless shown otherwise.
I've checked their data before. It's no more or less accurate than any of the private corporations. I can't find the figures on what their overhead is compared to private corporations, though based on patterns I've seen in every other sector, it's a safe bet that it's much lower. No executives to pay gigantic salaries, you know. I also noticed that airports tend to rely on the NWS. You know, because they don't have to pay for it.
A nice sentiment until you look at the money coming into their super PACs. The cash they're spending just on competing with each other is obscene. Even some of the moderate Republicans are saying this whole thing is getting grotesque.
Let's look at the bigger picture for a second. Abortion is the hardest it has been to access in years. Multiple states are now working on bills mandating intrusive trans-vaginal ultrasound probes before a woman can get an abortion. Virginia passed it in fact, despite huge public protests. Arizona passed a law making it legal for a doctor to lie to his patient if it would prevent her from getting an abortion. And here's where it gets really sticky. Santorum named himself on his campaign website as the "National Nemesis" of Planned Parenthood, claiming that the organization was founded on ideals of eugenics. But there's a problem there. He's anti-choice and apparently anti-family planning. But a lack of one inevitably leads to more of the other. So what's the result of going after abortions and Planned Parenthood? More unwanted children. More broken homes. More illegal abortions. More abandoned and orphaned children. Those are the consequences. That said, these are the bills Santorum supported that passed: Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act Unborn Victims of Violence Act Partial Birth Abortion Ban Partial birth abortion by the way is a term politicians made up to make it sound scarier. No doctor would have ever called it that. The medical term was "intact dilation and extraction" and was used primarily in cases where something was wrong with the fetus and the birthing process would have been a major threat to the woman's life. I would also point out that Santorum has repeatedly said that he believes life begins at conception and that he would not make exceptions for rape. What's simultaneously tragic and hypocritical is that his wife got a second trimester abortion when the stillborn fetus became the source of an infection resulting in a fever of 105 (that is the point where brain damage starts to become a possibility) and would kill her in a matter of days. The Santorums decided on the abortion. And they make so secret of it. Santorum has been telling the story to pro-life crowds on the campaign trail, including the somewhat creepy postscript about how insisted the death certificate name Gabriel Michael Santorum as "baby" and not a "fetus" even though that is technically what it was and... I shit you not, they took the fetus home in a jar to his children so that they could mourn their brother. I feel bad for him and his wife that they went through that. No parent should have to be in that position. But sometimes bad things happen. And for Santorum to make that decision and then want to take it away from others is just sick.
I defer to the doctors. I'm not an expert on human biology, so I trust the consensus of the medical community. If new evidence comes to light that alters the consensus, I will trust them. Right now, the majority of the medical community is pro-choice so long as it adheres to the strict standards of medical ethics already in place. They say that abortion even into the 3rd trimester should be legal. I'm going to trust them on that because they possess knowledge, training and skills that I respect and value.
If you believe that the cap for medical malpractice should be $250k, then put your foot down on that.
It is his stance on the issues plus the intent he is declaring for them that I find truly repulsive. It has crossed a moral threshold for me. It's the duplicity of claiming he wants to give everyone more liberty and then wanting to take away liberties from people like my sister and my former roommate.
And I'm pissed off at him for it. But he's not trying to overturn the state decisions to legalize gay marriage like a lot of Republicans want to, so he's the lesser of 2 evils. Basically, I'm voting for the guy because he's nothing like the Republican contenders for the nomination. That's a terrible way to vote, I admit. But right now that's the way it goes. | |
So RS is for getting rid of safety nets?
I'll bounce the question back at you and ask, who's against looking for alternatives to oil?
What were those measures against phone companies?
Well, you said:
So I was curious, does that apply to all things that humans need? Does food have to be supplied for free? Does minimal shelter have to be supplied for free?
Pay an extra tax?
How? What does he intend to do?
So what do you think he meant when he said, "So I would make the argument that with President, or Senator or Congressman or whoever Santorum, I would put it back to where it is, the democratic process. If New York doesn't want sodomy laws, if the people of New York want abortion, fine. I mean, I wouldn't agree with it, but that's their right. But I don't agree with the Supreme Court coming in."
So if, for example, you make a homosexual friend and invite him into your house, but then make a homosexual friend but never let him around your children, that should be illegal?
Give states the right to make poor decisions. If one state wants to deny science and bankrupt its intellectual sector, that will just convert more people away from their culture and move to another state, as well as ultimately encourage those states to do a better job. If the federal government decides what you can and cannot teach, there's a risk of someday bringing in a crazy president and congress that mandates the most ridiculous stuff, that all the states will have to go along with, thereby making the whole country stupider. That was the whole point to state's rights that the founding fathers had in mind; let states be crappy or great, let them compete with one another; let the success of one state spread wisdom to the rest, instead of letting a centralized government making ultimate decisions that could either make the whole country better or worse all at once.
No I mean why is the No Child Left Behind Act one of the only things he claims to regret supporting? Why not take back every bad thing he supposedly did?
Let me guess: some of the children got left behind. Right? Also, I think we actually agree on this topic quite nicely! Because you just said that a federal education program bombed like mad, which is exactly what I was just talking about getting the feds out of schools.
How much tax money does it cost?
So in most private industries, companies and corporations have more executives than they need? And/or pay them more than they're worth?
If it they had to pay for it, would it hurt them financially in any substantial way?
So what limitations on campaign donations should be put in place?
Okay.
Okay. What is the problem with that?
What is the lie doctors can tell?
That would also be why RS supports abstinence outside of marriage. I mean I see your point here, but it's not like it tears a hole in the consistency of Rick's beliefs.
So they can't get an abortion in another state. What is the negative side effect to this?
So a fetus really isn't a person, even if the mother says that it is?
Well what is it? At what stage of pregnancy does the D&X take place?
So let's say fetuses count as people; does the fact that they were conceived from a forced fertilization override that?
That's pretty hypocritical alright, if he believes that an abortion isn't okay even when the mother's life is on the line. Does he believe that?
How dare he have a consistent ideology.
He said it was so that his children could see him; because seeing him was very important for closure. We weren't there and so I think we should understand and accept what they decided to do.
What decision?
So what do they say? What defines human life?
So he believed in the 250k cap, but then let his wife demand twice that amount? | |
Or at least dramatically reducing them. His words: "Just to remind you, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, defense, and interest on the debt is 60 percent. That means cut everything else and something of those." There are some problems however. First of all, he wants to reduce government spending to 18% of the GDP rather than the average of 24%, but has said that he will not cut defense. Also, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security and defense make up 61% of the budget with interest on the debt adding an additional 6%. So his numbers are a bit off to begin with. So we have this big number, one source of which he has promised not to cut. That means more burden on cutting Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. I would rather not see that happen to my grandparents as they have enough trouble as it is. To make up the difference and make the rest of the cuts, he has suggested cutting other safety net programs. Those other programs would include things like food stamps, school lunches, low-income housing assistance, and programs that aid abused and neglected children. These programs are necessary to mitigate poverty and allow class mobility. They're even more important since the recession kicked in.
People who have invested in oil or who are just plain misinformed. It's either a lack of knowledge about the facts, or follow the money.
To make a long story short, AT&T was getting close to a monopoly and refused to install more phone lines that would connect the whole country. The federal government forced them to split into smaller companies to prevent the monopoly from happening and made them install the phone lines anyway and eat the cost. The quick proliferation of the technology was very important to the US economy because it changed the way business was done and allowed for a minor revolution in the market and infrastructure. Again, what's in the country's best interests is not necessarily what's most profitable for private interests.
Since it was not clear, I do not believe that necessities should be based on a denial of providing a good or service. The private health insurance industry makes its money by denying you care. Several such companies have been investigated after it was discovered they were awarding their agents bonuses based on how many claims they were able to deny in a year. My mother is a medical transcriptionist. The worst part of her job is hearing the dictation of doctors about their patients who have to settle for cut-rate care or worse yet no care at all because their insurance provider keeps finding excuses not to cover them. I believe that health is a right, not a privilege. I pay taxes to pay for police to keep me safe at night because I have a right to safety. The police don't patrol my neighborhood based strictly on how much I pay them directly and whether or not it's profitable for them to do so.
A small tax hike then. Instead of paying for private insurance, I opt into a segment of Medicare that grants me full medical coverage whenever I need it. The cost is averaged out just as Medicare is now, and I pay that as part of my taxes rather than being charged a premium by a private insurance company.
Lately he's been talking a lot about how birth control leads to "immorality" but hasn't made any clear statements personally except to say that he supports the Blunt amendment which would allow insurers to deny contraception to a woman if they could claim a religious objection. That's a dangerous precedent because religion is the easiest thing in the world to lie about.
He's using the same "state's rights" argument that social conservatives always use when a bigoted belief is on the chopping block. They assert that the federal government doesn't have the right to say the things are unconstitutional so long as religious people claim they're being oppressed in some way.
What the hell does this have to do with workplace discrimination?
I don't buy that. The stupid states find ways to drag everyone else down. For example, Texas is the largest buyer of textbooks. On several occasions they have succeeded in pressuring textbook companies to change material to suit the political beliefs of Texas lobbying groups, such as trying to erase references of any hypocrisy from the founding fathers' actions or labeling evolution as "just a theory." The courts overruled them both times. That is one state interfering with the business of other states. The Kennedys similarly passed a federal law that override state laws by saying that you were not allowed to run your business with discriminatory policies if you did business across state lines. For example, a diner in Alabama couldn't have a "WHITES ONLY" policy if they bought Heinz Ketchup from Pittsburgh. It wasn't fair to make businesses that didn't approve of segregation have to choose between their belief in civil rights and maintaining their business because some ass-backward rednecks still clung to racial superstitions.
Hell if I know. It's all speculation on my part based on how much I trust the SOB. Which is to say, not much.
Try "fuck tons of children." In a nutshell, it's based on the pants-on-head retarded idea of running government like a business. They rank schools based on how the children perform on standardized tests. If a school underperforms, they get their funding cut to "motivate them." This has led to schools being understaffed, undersupplied, completely removing their special ed courses in a desperate attempt to drive test averages up, falsifying reports, expelling underperforming students, the arts and humanities being cut out of the budgets, and schools teaching kids to beat the tests rather than how to apply anything they've learned.
Oh, it's not public education I have a problem with. It's the fact that it's still following the 19th century Prussian model and No Child Left Behind is the legacy of a bunch of neo-con fuckwits who tried to run government like a business despite most of them being mediocre or failed businessmen. I actually have a rather comprehensive idea for education reform that I believe could completely re-energize public schools and drive American education to new levels. The only problem is that it's not an easy sell, would require administrators and teachers to receive new training and... well I can't hold public office because there are only three things about me that the electorate would unanimously find agreeable: I'm a straight white male. I do have a plan for running a small, extra-curricular sort of mass media school in the not-too-distant future based on this model, but that's for another time.
The 2012 budget is approximately $988 million.
That's about the size of it, yeah. The multinational corporations are the worst in this regard, but in general the overhead is ridiculous.
Considering all the cuts they've been making in the last few years? I can't imagine them suddenly seeing any windfalls, put it that way.
For one thing, the Citizens United decision needs to go.
You don't think there's anything morally iffy about forcing a highly intrusive and entirely unnecessary on a woman in order to attempt to shame her out of a decision? You see nothing creepy about that? You don't see any problem with coercion?
Anything, so long as it prevents a woman from getting an abortion. In any other part of the country, a doctor caught doing so would immediately lose his medical license.
What good is consistency when you're wrong?
Once again, it's more or less self-appointed moral crusaders trying to impose their morality on everyone else and lowering the overall quality of life as a result.
This one's a bit sticky. I'd like to have a medical professional and some real lawyers debate it, but I have this ugly suspicion that it was passed mostly to set a precedent for later sneaking in more draconian anti-abortion legislation down the line. I hope I'm wrong about that, but...
Typically late in the third trimester. As for the procedure, it is aesthetically unpleasing. But a lot of medical procedures are. To make a long story short, they let the fetus move partially into the birth canal and extract the brain so that the skull collapses, causing the fetus to more easily pass through the birth canal. Curiously, there is a much more gruesome procedure performed for the same reasons that is still legal. Maybe they couldn't come up with a scary enough nickname for it?
It's the mother's decision. Being forced to carry your rapist's child to term? I don't have a womb, so I can only begin to imagine how traumatic that must be.
To my knowledge he has not said that he would make an exception for it.
I'm just saying it's kind of creepy.
The decision to let his wife have an abortion. I don't doubt it tore him and wife up to make the call. But they don't seem to have learned anything from it. As far as I can tell, it did nothing to make him sympathize more with people who have to go through that some horrible decision.
The medical consensus avoids metaphysical questions, but they say abortions into the third trimester are medically ethical. I'll take their word for it. If you're asking me if I have an answer, I don't. That's why I look to the men of science and trust their judgment.
Pretty much. He has consistency on a lot of issues, but there are occasions like this where he seems to think his case is different. I don't respect people like that. Their situation is rarely if ever different from anyone else's. But it's easier to judge than accept the Socratic method. | |
Watch this one..... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B2emBxDOY7g | |
=)
Well last year, entitlements by themselves were 60% of the debt, while the military was only 14.4%. So do you think one could cut the entitlements significantly without cutting the military at all, and still save a lot of money? Also, like I may have said before, I believe Rick supports bringing entitlements back to the states, just like education.
So cutting those programs would obviously result in fewer people receiving benefits. What I ask is, how many people already do not receive benefits (or enough benefits) in America, even with entitlement spending as high as it is?
What people are these? And I'm not necessarily inquiring about the oil people, but middle-class tea party types and conservative celebrities. Which of them are against research and development towards new energy that can replace oil?
So monopolies are bad, okay. Who supports monopolies?
That's certainly true; any company would like to not have competition, but if some other company serves the people better than they do with a better product or lower prices, they will suffer losses for not being as good to consumers.
So that would include food and shelter?
What do you think would happen if one particular insurance company started approving of more claims than anyone else, then advertised that information in commercials?
What would happen if, hypothetically, there were more people in need of medical care and without the financial means to pay for it themselves, than there was tax money to pay for them all?
So insurance companies try to deny people coverage of things to save money?
Well, is banning homosexuality on the state level constitutional? One other thing to keep in mind is that state's rights don't only swing one way. State's can do liberal things too (like giving more power to unions, setting price controls, ext), if they are liberal states.
Okay well, let me expand the theoretical. You're a heterosexual, white, Christian male, and you own a small grocery store. You own the store; you have all the permits and licenses to run the store; the entire business is yours. You have a policy that, while you will hire homosexuals as employees, they cannot take off work for anniversaries with their partner. A gay person decides to apply for a job despite knowing this, and you follow through with your policy exactly. This should be illegal, correct? Well now, what if... You're a heterosexual, white, Christian male, and you own private housing property. You own the house; you paid all the payments and taxes; the entire property is yours. You tell all your friends that, while you will gladly be friends with a homosexual, you do not want them in your house when you're kids are around. A gay person decides to become your friend anyway, despite knowing this, and you follow through with your standard and never invite him to your home. Should this be illegal too?
Did Texas demand textbook companies make these alterations for all their books, or could the companies simply make a special edition for Texas?
So if a company has to choose between, A: Selling something to Mr. X to make money Mr. X should be legally required to violate his religious beliefs to conform to the beliefs of the company he's buying from?
Well that certainly makes no sense at all! A government can't possibly function like a business; if a government makes bad decisions, they don't get immediately punished with a loss in revenue. The fact that businesses do get punished for making bad decisions is exactly why business try to make only good ones. So I completely agree with this point.
Cool. Please, tell me about it. I'm very curious!
Don't worry, I can help you out. I'll put you through brain-melting therapy to make you stupider and dumber-sounding too!
And do you know how many people use the NWS's information? Let's say... 25 million different individuals in America. If those people each paid $39.52 a year, that would cover the cost for the whole year. So Rick Santorum was going to force people to pay $40 a year?
Why do stock holders--the owners of the companies--give more money to the CEO's than they should?
So corporations should never be able to spend money to advertise or support any politician or policy?
So getting a trans-vaginal ultrasound probe can shame a woman out of deciding to abort?
Really? Anything? Even if it's going to kill her, lie about that?
Let me sum up this sub-topic. There are three things that Rick Santorum believes in: Thing 1: It is wrong to have sex outside of marriage And what you said was that if one were to obey Thing 2, that would inevitably result in more violations of Thing 3. You described that as 'very sticky'. But I then said that if people obeyed Thing 1, then Thing 2 wouldn't need to be obeyed as much, and thus Thing 3 would as well. So I just wanted to point out that I don't think it's as sticky as you originally said.
So describing an abortion that happens partially during birth as "partial birth abortion" is an attempt to make it sound scarier or worse than it is? But tell you what, I'll call it something else from now on. I'll call it, "Baby Brain-Sucking".
So the right to live is overridden by the right to not suffer something extremely painful and challenging?
So you don't know?
We should come up with a scary and politically expedient term for it. How about, "Dead Baby Jar-Displaying"?
Again this all hinges on the fact that he is against the 'woman's life is in danger' exception.
So they avoid the question "what defines human life"?
Based on what? Whether or not it's a living human? Because that would require answering the life question.
Okay well, what is their judgement? Can I at least be given a lengthy report or study to read? Why can't the scientific community explain their idea that abortions into the third trimester are ethical? Is it because it's too long an explanation?
Based on what? How do you know? I'd just like make sure you know that it's not like Rick Santorum just comes up with a law and pushes it into congress. Somebody writes a law, then it goes through countless waves of committee meetings and gets bent and changed all over the place, and no one person has absolute control over the bill, and lots of people won't be totally happy with how it ends up, just like Rick thinking that 250k is 'a bit low'. My point is arguing that the guy who authored a bill capping most medical suits at a quarter million dollars is a hypocrite because his family sued their chiropractor for half a million is like calling the guy who authored the speed-limit laws is a hypocrite for ever driving a little too fast on the road. Only if they break the law after it's a law, then wiggle their way out of the legal repercussions would it be necessarily legitimate.
And so, sooo much less satisfying. XD | |
I just want to address this, because welfare spending in the US is not high. For example, in 2011 just 11% of US spending was welfare spending (this is across all levels of government). That is a very low number compared to the UK at 16%. Most of the difference is in Defense, with the UK at 7% and the US at 14%. Everything else is within 2%. http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/piechart_2012_US_total Great websites by the way. | |
Pyrate already pointed out the numbers above, so I'm not going to tread ground that's already been covered. As for transferring back to the states, I have this really grave feeling that things would get worse if that were to happen.
You'd have to give me some time to pull up the statistics. The trouble is that this issue mired in a lot partisan rhetoric and finding the truth can be a bit tricky.
A number of Tea Party candidates for office expressed a contempt for environmentalism in their election campaigns. Also, I've met quite a few Republican voters who don't watch a lot of news outside of infotainment, so they believe we're in no danger of running out of oil in any time frame that would effect them. Some believe crazy conspiracies about the green energy industry. But I must repeat, a lot of this misinformation has a very simple explanation: It's all about the money, Lebowski! People in fossil fuels who would have to compete with renewable energy are buying ad space to serve as propaganda and using campaign contributions to bribe politicians into legislating in their favor. Why? They're afraid of creative destruction.
No one who doesn't stand to benefit from them.
If your business model relies on denying people food and shelter in order to turn a profit, then you are a crook.
If they had a premium I could afford and no public option was available, then I would go to them. Still, public option should be on the table.
I'm trying to imagine a situation in which that were possible. But for the sake of argument, funds within the budget need to be allocated differently. First order of business? Defense contractors who have defrauded the government more than once get to eat shit and the DEA can fuck right off. But that's me.
That's about the size of it. It's the only way they can turn a profit.
Since homosexuality is something you're born with just like the color of your skin or your possession or lack thereof of a Y chromosome, no. It's a civil rights issue, and I don't believe in leaving civil rights up to the states. It's too important.
Of course. But there are some things I just don't trust to the states because I don't believe things like civil rights should be determined on a local level.
I really don't want to have to explain the difference between a residence and a place of business.
The former. Textbook companies mass produce and it's not economical to create special editions for every single state or even just one. I just hope like hell they don't start asking for alternate, limited edition cover art with foil finish. Then we're really fucked.
Bit of an oversimplification, but sure, let's go with that. Why? Because fuck 'em. This is a secular government. We do not legislate medieval superstition.
To say nothing of the fact that they have different functions and require different skill sets to operate.
I don't have the time or the space to get into it here, but I've been studying alternative teaching methods from around the world to see where the best results are coming from, and I can break it down into 4 points: 1. The grading system is inherently flawed. You start at the top and have nowhere to go but down. Instead institute a leveling system where everyone starts at 0 and works their way up through attendance, homework, class participation, projects and extra curriculars. This way, students can see clear progress toward a goal and more clearly understand the effect of their actions. 2. Standardized testing is bullshit. There is no such thing as a standard child. Teaching kids to beat tests virtually guarantees that they will forget everything they learned as soon as the test is over. I speak from experience Instead, teach them to apply what they've learned, or at least get them more engaged. In middle school, my best class was English because every book we were assigned we read aloud in class as a sort of readers theater. Teaching children to see the connections between various disciplines and how to apply them is an invaluable skill. 3. Piggybacking off the previous point, do more to foster camaraderie and appreciation for interests outside your own rather than the cutthroat competition of current school environments. Before I left public school in the second half of my freshman year, it was the most miserable experience of my life to the point where I was only getting two hours of sleep a night for four... straight... months because I was so stressed out from school. Instead, using the interdisciplinary approach described above, find a way to make the star athlete cooperate with the math genius because each recognizes how the other's knowledge can help them. Show the students that it's good to know a little about a lot and that taking the time to learn something about other people's interests can open more doors for them in the future while also fostering a love of learning itself. 4. Finally, reduce class size. One of the biggest problems I and many other kids had growing up is that we were just numbers on a seating chart. Studies have shown that in schools where the average class size is dramatically reduced, performance goes up. Way up. Teachers are able to give students more individual attention, address their questions and work them through their roadblocks. Having a low student-to-teacher ratio will cost more in staffing, but the trade-off is that we dramatically reduce the number of kids who tune in, turn off and drop out.
Why should I pay a premium for something I'm already getting as part of the commons? I already paid for the NWS in my taxes, and Santorum's bill would say that I'm not allowed to access it because one of his campaign contributors set up shop in my county. That's like saying I'm not allowed to ride the public buses because there's a privately owned taxi company in town. Like I'm not allowed to go to a public dog park with my pooch because there's a for-profit one down the road that charges 5 bucks admission. If a for-profit company wants to set up shop and offer a good or service that already exists in the commons, they're free to make a go of it. But don't bloody tell me I can't access the commons if I fucking want it. This goes to a problem I find with a lot of American corporations. They seem to believe they are entitled to a profit. Wrong. They have the right to attempt to make a profit. If you can't, them's the breaks.
There's a lot of shit stockholders do nothing about. The stockholders decide the CEO's salary for example, but they don't stop the CEO from giving himself a billion dollar a bonus just because. That happens more often that you would think by the way. The reason stockholders do nothing is for several reasons. The first being it's not an actual democracy. It's the hideous simulacrum of a democracy. The average stockholder holds only a handful of shares and doesn't actually interact with the company on any personal level. Only major shareholders have any real say. Which brings me to reason number two. Most stockholders aren't going to do anything that could potentially rock the boat because that would drive the stock down. That's why so many incompetent CEO's still have their jobs. Changing an appointment on the executive board always causes company stock to dip as brokers and speculators back off to figure out which way the wind is blowing or because they think the change in leadership signals hard times ahead and they want to get out while the getting's good.
I didn't say never. But corporations are not people. They should not be allowed to give unlimited money anonymously. Especially not if they're trans-national corporations. Do you really want a company based in China to be able to bribe politicians with campaign contributions just because they have a commercial office in Seattle?
They certainly seem to think so, don't they? The closest equivalent men can get is if you decided to get a prescription for Viagra or perhaps you wanted a vasectomy and the law required that you first had to get an extremely uncomfortable, highly invasive, and wholly unnecessary rectal probe first. This legislation is legalizing humiliation, degradation of patients and slut-shaming. It's asserting that women can't make this decision on their own, so they have to be forced into an invasive and humiliating procedure and be forced into looking at the ultrasound. That's sick. There's no two sides about it. It is coercion. It's a shady attempt to deter people from a perfectly legal medical procedure.
Yes.
I've been trying to avoid being sarcastic as much as possible because I'm trying to be polite. But... I can't hold it in! Getting the entire US to agree to go along with abstinence-only until marriage? Would that happen before or after the Unicorn King descends from Planet Hershey's Chocolate and gives me the gift of a solid gold Volkswagon bug that runs on friendship?
Are you suggesting we should ban something because it's kind of gross to watch? Honestly, I'm just getting tired of this insistence on not learning proper terminology. It's like all those new drug commercials. There is not a doctor alive who calls it "low T." If someone can't be fucked to learn how to spell testosterone, then I can't be fucked to listen to them. Hell, I suck at Greek. And even I can pull this shit off! I have the internet, it's not hard.
I don't consider a fetus to be a person. It might eventually become a person. But a woman is a person right now.
Do you want me to Google it? It might take some digging. Dude has a lot of opinions on abortions, none of which so far I agree with if that counts for anything.
I prefer plain old "nuts." Or if I really want to get histrionic about it, "Jesus burger-flipping Christ! This guy's nuts!"
Regardless, I'm still pro-choice. It doesn't sit well with me that he still opposes the procedure after his wife went through it. I actually read an article a while back. Abortion clinic doctors have said that they actually get a lot of anti-abortion people who come to their clinics insisting that their abortions are justified, that their reason for getting one is different. They aren't, of course. But interestingly, a few of them become pro-choice afterward because they realize that they had never actually talked to an abortion provider or a couple who had to deal with an abortion before. It's harder to hate someone when they become more human in your eyes.
I've weighed the ethical arguments of their side against the opposition. I find the medical community's view to perpetuate the greatest good. If you're asking me for the answers to metaphysical questions, I can tell you without shame that I don't know. And I think part of the reason it's so hard to have a good debate about this issue is because not enough people are willing to say, "I don't know." Now if someone from the pro-life camp would be willing to sit down, figure out the causality behind abortion and work out solutions and compromises to minimize the number of pregnancies that would warrant an abortion, that is a conversation I would love to have. No one gets an abortion for shits and giggles. Rather, the procedure is the symptom of other problems in society. And I'm confident we can find ways to deal with them that don't involve taking away people's right to choose, butting heads over our respective moralities, or getting religious debate involved in any way.
I know how the legislative process works, thank you. But I still hold Santorum to task for his actions and the disparity between what he does and what he says. I tend to keep very moralist people at arm's length in the first place because if there's one thing I've learned the hard way, it's the brighter the picture, the darker the negative. | |
So pensions and healthcare aren't entitlements? If not, then let me change my vocabulary. "Things that people or the states can and will provide for themselves anyway."
I looked at the federal level instead, which is dominated much further on entitlement spending. States can spend a lot of money or a little money on welfare and healthcare if they choose to. It's the federal government that we're talking about, not the states.
What do you think would happen?
Well in that case, let's back up a bit. You originally said,
So, what do you think of Rick Santorum for suggesting that? Is it a bad thing, is it immoral?
So expressing contempt for environmentalism = opposing the idea of looking for alternative sources of energy that could replace oil?
At what time are we in danger of running out of oil?
Like what?
Who does this include? Conservatives in general? Or Rick Santorum? After all, this whole sub-topic was about the people who chastise the Obama administration for the 'contraception mandate'. You know, this conversation has gone on so long that it's getting hard to remember why we're even talking about what we're talking about. So to make sure we all remember where we are in this and have a full context for this issue, let me go back and recount this particular conversation tree in its entirety. It started, essentially, when Zack Alklazaris said,
To which I said,
To which you said,
And then the conversation followed as such,
Again, what's in the country's best interests is not necessarily what's most profitable for private interests.[/quote]
See how we got off track here? So while I'll continue to ask whether or not conservatives in general and Rick Santorum in particular support monopolies, I'll renew the older question, How has the government telling insurance companies what to cover worked? Specifically insurance companies.
So if you walk into a clothing store and ask for food, and they refuse to make you food because setting up a grill and purchasing ingredients would be unprofitable, those clothing store owners are crooks?
So does this happen? Do insurance companies usually try to approve of more claims and/or offer lower premiums in order to get more business?
So the government could easily cover the cost of treating all of the ailments and medical problems of every single American citizen who cannot afford to pay it themselves in the entire country?
So if the government doesn't have enough money to pay for the public option, fixing those two problems will fix it? Well I guess you didn't say that. So where else? What other parts of spending should be cut or changed?
Even though not denying people would attract more business.
So 'civil rights' is constitutionally required to be handled by the federal government? What part of the constitution says that? Remember, this constitutionality part of the thread started when you said,
So I'm not asking about what's morally right here, I'm just asking whether or not the constitution says that banning homosexuality is not something the states can do.
So in a residence, you have the right to be a mean-spirited separatist dick? Because before, you said,
So it's not that Texas demanded that they change their entire print, it's just that their demands indirectly would have been a major financial loss to them. I see. So if you sell something, and your biggest customer demands that you provide them a custom service that would cost you a lot of money, that customer should be legally forced to change their demands?
Huh?
How is it an oversimplification? You said,
So to boil that down to its basic concepts, no one should have to choose between sales and beliefs.
So that would apply to all beliefs? All of them? Not just segregation?
Man. Those are some really good ideas! I especially like that first one. Damn. So the federal government would be better than anything else to establish this system?
So if the government sets up a program to that taxes money from the people to provide something to them, attempting to remove it means that you're a corporation 'entitled to profit'?
If the CEO to a company hordes lots of money, wouldn't that encourage people to not buy stocks in that company?
So not even major shareholders can tell the executives to not give themselves undeserved bonuses?
Wouldn't having a bad CEO (and thus, a less efficient company) drive the stock down as well?
So should they be able to give away unlimited money, if it is public? And did the Citizens United case decide that unlimited anonymous donations were legal?
Well, does it? Are there statistics on how many women change their mind when it happens?
Oh man! How many times has it happened so far? How many women have been killed and/or lied to from this?
You said that Rick Santorum doesn't approve of abortion, but also doesn't approve of contraception. You said that not having protection leads to abortion, and therefore his own beliefs are counterproductive, Then I said that he ALSO doesn't approve of sex outside of marriage, which if done carefully would help the other two things he believes in. And so therefore, his beliefs are not counterproductive. The only way your point would make sense is if he wanted to make laws banning contraception. Which you think he does... so... yeah. Where did that discussion go? Oh yeah it turned into the 'mandating what insurance companies can do' sub-topic... I think...
I'm not asking whether or not fetuses have the right to life (in this paragraph), I'm asking; is the right to life overridden by the right to not suffer something extremely painful and challenging?
Until you can prove it, I can't take a lot of your criticisms about Rick Santorum seriously. You've focused a lot on the hypocrisy of Rick Santorum, but the sole, vital component to that alleged hypocrisy, you can't even confirm. You can't just shrug off such an important part of your argument, and then continue making your argument.
Just a little bit ago, you said,
But now,
Change of heart, or did I misread you?
What is it? What are the arguments that you viewed?
You don't know?
Stop. We're not talking about what we can do to minimize unwanted pregnancies. I don't want to create even more giant chunks of discussion to this thread. I want to focus on this,
You don't know? You don't know? When a person becomes a person is the sole, central, all-encompassing question to this entire issue, and you say you don't know the answer to it??? The reason I'm very frustrated about this is because these posts are starting to take upwards of an hour to make; but you've just flat out admitted that you can't make the case for the major issue that you're arguing. So I'm really wasting my time, aren't I? Here's the bottom line: if you don't have a solid opinion or knowledge about when someone is granted the right to life, and you don't support murder, you can't have a solid opinion on abortion. And if you don't know what Rick Santorum's views on abortion are, you can't call him a hypocrite for the views you don't know he has. Are you going to do some research now? If you are, then great! Please do! I really want to have this discussion with you! If you aren't, then I'm not going to keep responding to you.
Well what has he said? "I've been very clear that I am not wedded at all to a $250,000 cap and I've said publicly repeatedly, and I think probably that is somewhat low, and that we need to look at what I think is a cap that is a little bit higher than that..." | |
Now they want chaplains in foxholes............ | |
It would be a waste of my time as well because this is exactly what I was talking about. You want answers that no human being has. At all. It comes down to two kinds of people: those who can admit they don't have all the answers and those who can't. This is why I don't generally have this conversation. I'm making a judgment call based on what I have and that call is, "Err on the side of choice." People who are anti-choice are making a judgment call based on limited information too, but most of them don't admit that and it drives me berserk when they act like they're privy to some sort of cosmic wisdom the rest of us aren't. I'm debating with myself right now whether or not it's worth my time to continue this conversation as you've just revealed to me a fundamental difference in our paradigms that is likely far beyond my rhetorical skills (such as they are) to bridge. I will dig up the sources you want for why I think Santorum is an asshole, and if necessary explain the parts where I was being facetious to try and keep the tone light, but if you're not going to attempt to understand my paradigm that nobody has all the answers and that's not a bad thing, then all we're going to do is give each other headaches. | |
Did those laws exist prior to the erection of their "vitally important" symbol? If they did, then it isn't a matter of what the church of the giant FSM believe, it's a matter of the church of the giant FSM ignoring the law. If the law simply stated that local officials have the power to decide, then those local officials should have been consulted prior to the erection of the giant meatball. Lets use this same scenario in a secular context, to illustrate why you're not actually arguing for religious freedom, but religious privilege. I, Edward Crumpetmuncher III, am the world's biggest Star Wars fan. Without investigating the local laws and ordinances, I erect a giant, four-story-tall statue of Darth Vader in my front garden. The local authorities, having the legal power to determine if a structure adds to or detracts from the area's aesthetic appeal, demands I take down the statue. You can't argue that I am in the wrong without also showing the church of the giant FSM is in the wrong, unless you are willing to claim that a religious organisation deserves special treatment under the law, ie, religious privilege. | |
I see. So I guess,
Meant something different than I thought it did.
So what you're saying here, is that the philosophies of pro-choice and pro-life--in practical terms--ultimately sound something like this? Choice Life
Go to deviantArt.com, search for an 'abortion stamp', and then make a comment in the page, asking when the right to life begins, and you will--if your experience is anything like mine--soon get about three replies from teenage girls who will tell you exactly, with no uncertain terms that viability makes the fetus a person. Also, after a combined total of about five paragraphs of your lecturing about how people need to get their terminology correct, you call pro-life "anti-choice". Not that you say that with the intention of making it sound worse or anything. Tell you what, I'll call pro-choice "anti-life", or "pro-death". Or "pro-baby-brain-sucking".
And now with all that aside, we then run into this. This is what you said originally, and it sounds like you haven't taken it back or anything. So I will ask, what is their consensus? The medical community doesn't answer the impossible metaphysical questions, right. So... what is it? What is their ethical conclusion based on? If they can't base it on whether or not the fetus is a person, what do that base it on? What happens after the third trimester that changes anything? What is it about the glob of flesh before that time that makes it okay? Is it some complex answer that you don't have time to learn?
That's fine. I just want a source of him saying he believes abortion is unethical even with a dying mother. ~~~~ Also, while I support your decision to throw out most of this conversation because of its excessive bulk, <facetious>and I'm sure it has nothing to do with how confident you were in your statements and positions</facetious>, I would like to keep just one sub-topic, if you may:
Please answer this question. I'm extremely curious.
Whatever the courts decide on the Church of FSM's demands for their building is not what the question (and it's not an argument either; it's a question) is about. The question is whether or not the Church has a right to go to the government to state their demands in the first place. | |
| Pages PREV 1 2 | |
No, not really.
I think it kind of sucks to be an American voter.
No apologies necessary. I should've made that section pink.
Well, I think it shouldn't exist. Its existence (in my opinion) goes against the first amendment in spirit rather than name, because they can technically point to it and say "we're fine with all religions praying". If we really took a close look, it's essentially politicians doing the Christian thing. So in spirit it's really a government endorsement of Christianity. I am actually personally fine with having a national prayer day, if it wasn't for the fact that it kind of conflicts with the first amendment.
I figured I can show off my massive virtual balls by manning up and admitting to a mistake.
Just because you guys won back in 1770s doesn't mean you own the language as well as the land. When we start speaking Americanese, then I'll get rid of the "u". Until then, it's honour and colour. :P