US Politics Mega-thread - Page 2281

On September 10 2015 09:53 Cowboy64 wrote:

All things are possible, though I find your argument here to be highly improbable. Why was she not issued the reasonable religious accommodation that she asked for, namely that another clerk be deputized and be able to issue licenses without her name on them, and not under her explicit authority? She has the right for reasonable accommodations, just like every other American, and yes, that includes Muslims too (I know you did not bring up that point, but many others in real life discussions have). I would be appalled if a Muslim man or woman was imprisoned because of his or her religious beliefs.

Imprisoning her was and is a terrible crime, and a grave injustice. The could have easily solved this without imprisoning her. She specifically requested an accommodation in a letter to the court, so if this was all about homosexuals being able to be married, then why imprison her, rather than granting a completely reasonable request for her. It is so obviously a political punishment, especially when you take the context into account. Some photographers and bakers do not want to put their artistic talents in support of a gay-marriage, often citing religious objections. They don't want to be morally associated with it because they have a deeply held (if flawed) belief that doing so risks the displeasure of God. Instead of the gay couple being reasonable and going somewhere else, they invariably bring suit, usually with hundreds of thousands of dollars in damages.

Even more revealingly, they will often offer to withdraw the suit if the religious person simply performs the service and provides the support. And we are not talking about grocery stores or gas stations, where no one can reasonably claim a religious objection. No mainstream code of ethics or religious tenets forbid the sale of gasoline or candy bars to homosexuals. Many mainstream religions do, however, forbid the moral support of such unions. Distinguishing between simply doing business with an individual who happens to be homosexual and actively/openly supporting the lifestyle. Where the gray area comes in is that many people do consider artistic expression to be closely tied to the moral aspect of humanity. I think most people would agree that painting and selling a picture of a rose is wholly different than standing in a check-out line at a grocery store.

Creativity and artistic expression is especially important to many religious people, as they consider that to be a divine gift specifically granted to them for the purpose of glorifying God. To ask them to use that talent in support of what they percieve as an immoral cause is quite literally to ask them to damn themselves, according to their honestly held beliefs. We might disagree with those beliefs, but we cannot rightly ignore the conviction with which they are believed and the spiritual anguish a person might feel if they violate a core tenet of their religion.

Kim Davis has been ordered to personally authorize a gay-marriage, to literally put her signature on her own death warrant. As far as she is concerned, she is being offered a choice of unemployment, imprisonment, or damnation. I could possibly see the point if she were not asking for a simple accommodation, and if that accommodation were not very easy to grant. But they have refused to grant her the accommodation, instead requiring her to personally show support. Just like the baker's (one of whom offered the gay-couple a generic cake, which they refused. Another offered to refer them to another baker, again they refused.)

These people are not being punished because they are preventing homosexuals from getting married, having their pictures taken, or eating decorated cakes. There are countless bakers who will have no problems with baking a gay-couple a cake for their marriage, there are countless photographers who will work at a gay wedding, and there could are dozens of county-clerks who are willing to sign licenses (four deputy-clerks in that county are willing, none of these could be deputized?). They are being punished for being against the marriage. Hence the uproar and threats to a pizzeria in the middle of nowhere, not because they denied a gay person pizza (they specifically said they would not do so), but because they said they were opposed to gay marriage.

I think fighting for gay-rights is a noble cause. There has been terrible persecution against homosexuals throughout history in this country, and there is terrible systematic persecution still occurring in other countries. However, I think a legitimate and noble movement has been hijacked by a small, vocal minority.

Unless there's another aspect to this that I'm missing.

On September 10 2015 10:22 zlefin wrote:
Stupid Republicans; its not like it'd be that hard to design a replacement. I could design one myself with about 6 months work and a support staff no larger than a congressperson has. So refusing to design an actual replacement for what they'd be getting rid of is just dickery. I really wish there was a mechanism to force congress to stop doing nonsense.

On September 10 2015 01:05 Chewbacca. wrote:

You don't become a teacher if you do not like kids. And nobody is claiming teachers work 6 hours a day and have the entire summer off, but they work a hell of a lot less than your average starting engineer or whatever, many of which don't have very high starting salaries either.

On September 10 2015 10:17 Gorsameth wrote:
Several times they have come close to defunding the ACA and leaving millions of people without access to healthcare because they have no idea what to do after. It would have been utter chaos and this latest attempt is seemingly no different.

On September 10 2015 10:49 IgnE wrote:
Just get a better job bro. Easy.

On September 10 2015 10:38 IgnE wrote:


You sound like you not only don't know any teachers but that you don't know any engineers either. Almost all of the teachers I know work very hard, not only bringing home work with them like grading, creating lesson plans, and supervising extracurriculars, but also emotionally investing a lot into their job. Standing and teaching in front of a class all day is really exhausting, physically, mentally, and emotionally. One of my undergraduate degrees is in chemical engineering. Almost every single engineer I graduated with spends many hours at their job surfing the internet, chatting, and stretching out tasks that could be done much faster; in other words, most engineers who work in offices (i.e. the majority of engineers) spend perhaps the majority of their day not doing anything. This is not peculiar to engineers, as most of the office workers in the United States also do this either because of work culture, requirements for face time, institutional brainwashing dating back to their time as students, long commutes, or whatever.

If you are going to argue that a lot of teachers have "checked out" and just show up to play videos or whatever, I think you are both exaggerating and failing to grasp the significance of that fact. It's a really hard job. If someone's reaction to the constant stress, low pay, and negligible gratification is to just tune out completely, that's an indication, here, that the job is really difficult. In HR positions, entry-level engineering positions, and many other office positions, the boredom is what crushes people's enthusiasm and willingness to be engaged. The thing that both jobs share is that some people (perhaps many or most depending on the field) get so little personal satisfaction and development out of the job that they've simply opted out of caring. Call it the Bartleby Approach.

On September 10 2015 10:59 IgnE wrote:
Maybe you took the wrong job. Are you working in an oil field or nuclear power plant or something?

Your sister works at a private school where rich suburban kids go. I don't think that's what we are talking about here.

What is the most significant basis for determining one's pay? You think teachers have hard but unimportant jobs?

On September 10 2015 10:45 Buckyman wrote:


Let me tell you about my experiences under the ACA:

1) My old health care plan went away.
2) I was required by mandate to find a replacement plan. I decided to do so through the federal marketplace.
3) Not having much in the way of income, I chose one of the lowest-premium plans. The premiums worked out to over 1/3 of my monthly income.
4) The plan has a deductible. The insurance covers nothing until the deductible is reached.
5) The total of the premiums plus deductible was greater than my income.
6) When the paperwork arrived, I found out that the insurance would go away if I were ever to declare bankruptcy. This was not disclosed when I signed up through the marketplace.
7) I have since been in the position of skipping routine doctor visits because I couldn't afford them on top of the insurance premiums.
8) During the renewal period, I was unable to make changes to my coverage due to technical problems on their end. One exception - my premium automatically went up.

Summary - I would have better health care without insurance but can't opt out.

On September 10 2015 10:45 Buckyman wrote:


Let me tell you about my experiences under the ACA:

1) My old health care plan went away.
2) I was required by mandate to find a replacement plan. I decided to do so through the federal marketplace.
3) Not having much in the way of income, I chose one of the lowest-premium plans. The premiums worked out to over 1/3 of my monthly income.
4) The plan has a deductible. The insurance covers nothing until the deductible is reached.
5) The total of the premiums plus deductible was greater than my income.
6) When the paperwork arrived, I found out that the insurance would go away if I were ever to declare bankruptcy. This was not disclosed when I signed up through the marketplace.
7) I have since been in the position of skipping routine doctor visits because I couldn't afford them on top of the insurance premiums.
8) During the renewal period, I was unable to make changes to my coverage due to technical problems on their end. One exception - my premium automatically went up.

Summary - I would have better health care without insurance but can't opt out.

The United States plans to raise the number of refugees it takes in by 5,000 next year to 75,000, including an unspecified number from Syria, senior U.S. officials said on Wednesday, and congressional aides said the total may go significantly higher.

Several U.S. officials confirmed that Secretary of State John Kerry told lawmakers in a private meeting of the Senate Judiciary Committee that the government was planning on taking in an additional 5,000 refugees next year.

Kerry said after the meeting with members of the Senate Judiciary Committee that the U.S. would increase the number of refugees it is willing to take in, but he did not give a specific number.

"We are looking hard at the number that we can specifically manage with respect to the crisis in Syria and Europe," he said. "That's being vetted fully right now."

A senior State Department official, speaking on a conference call with reporters later, said the U.S. had taken in about 70,000 refugees a year over the past three years and was planning on "some sort of a modest increase" next year.

Congressional aides said administration officials had indicated that number could go significantly higher.

"I think they finally recognize that an additional 5,000 is not a serious response," said one aide, who spoke on condition of anonymity.

The State Department official said the administration planned to increase the number of refugees it takes in from Syria and sub-Saharan Africa, particularly those affected by conflict in the Democratic Republic of Congo.

"When we talk about increasing overall numbers, we're talking about increases for people from around the world," the official said. "In addition to bringing in more Syrians, which is the plan, we would like to admit more African refugees next year." The official spoke on condition of anonymity.

Since the start of the four-year-long Syrian civil war, the U.S. has taken in 1,500 refugees, with 300 more expected to be cleared by October.

On September 10 2015 11:20 ticklishmusic wrote:I'm kind of confused by the numbers you provided. If your salary is low as you claim, don't you receive a subsidy for your insurance?

Some real rough math here: $7.25 (minimum wage) @ 40 hrs * 4 weeks is $1,160/ month, and 1/3 of that means you're paying $387 for insurance a month. Per year, you're making $13,920.

On September 10 2015 12:51 Buckyman wrote:
1) Federal government takes my health hostage to get the state to change its laws
2) The state refuses to cooperate
3) Blame the state?

No, I'm blaming the federal government for causing the problem in the first place.