On February 17 2012 21:29 DannyJ wrote: Poor Mitt... people just don't like him
Obama must be gurgling in laughter watching all this happen.
No candidate has the privilege of just standing back and laughing. Things in the race may seem ugly now, but things also looked pretty bad for the Democrats when Hilary refused to leave the race for a long time. ALL battles for any high-profile election are going to get ugly in this modern day and age with such easily accessible media and a 24 hour news cycle.
As a registered Independent, I have no doubt that the republican party will get its act together by the time the Presidential Election rolls around and the Republicans will have all but forgotten this ugly race for the nomination and will have fully focused their efforts into getting Obama out of the White House.
Honestly xDaunt, it sounds like you disagree with Santorum just like the rest of us. He's said that he wants to make this part of his public policy, so just because he doesn't have the power to ban it should still worry you considering this is apparently what he really cares about.
I do not understand why teaching abstinence teaches virtues or morals in any way. I'm still not understanding that point.
On February 17 2012 08:36 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: Found it:
Why the fuck are people having cow about this? All that he's suggesting is that people be abstinent. Big deal.
I wasn't going to comment on this contraceptive issue because it's so stupid, but the ignorance on the subject is too much to ignore. Here are the two fundamental points:
1. Neither Rick Santorum nor anyone else can Constitutionally ban birth control. The Supreme Court case of Griswold v. Connecticut conclusively decided this issue in the 1960s. The "right to privacy" that was created in that case is so pervasively integrated into American jurisprudence now that the case will never be overturned, even if it was decided wrongly (which as a matter of Constitutional law, I believe it was, notwithstanding that the sought-after policy was correct). Accordingly, all of this talk about banning contraception is nothing short of blatant and unapologetic fear-mongering by democrats and the left. It's really that simple.
2. Rick Santorum has not said that he'd ban contraceptives. Go do some research on what he's actually he said. He has said that he doesn't like contraceptives. He has said that they're harmful. He has said that Griswold was decided wrongly. He has said that states should be able to pass laws governing contraceptives or even banning them as a matter of states rights. But, as far as I know and can tell, I haven't seen one quote where he has said that he'd ban them. I have seen quotes where he said that he would not impose his views of contraceptives on others.
At the very least, he would guarantee the government was completely out of contrceptives. Funding, mandates, recommendations, everything.
Correct. Generally speaking, the federal government has no business mandating to anyone that they be required to provide goods or services to a third person (this is one of the primary reasons why people oppose the anti-discrimination laws, but that's another story). Think about it this way. Guns are far more expensive than contraceptives. Should the federal government be required to purchase (or compel others to purchase) firearms for anyone who wants to exercise his Second Amendment rights? Obviously the answer is no. Freedom is about having the ability to do something, not having someone else pay for you to do something.
No, because the world isn't that black and white. A huge majority of college educated people see the benefit to contraception and education and realize the catholic perspective is close minded and ancient. Abstinence has no validity and is proven ineffective when compared to education and availability of contraception. Santorum represents a huge step backwards and there is nothing wrong with people throwing a fit about it.
How exactly does abstinence "have no validity" and fail to prevent out-of-wedlock pregnancy? You may want to pull out a dictionary.
You may find this hard to believe, but there are some very brilliant people in the Catholic Church (and other religions) who have written exhaustively about the philosophy of abstinence (and avoiding "fornication") and how it leads to the strengthening of marriages, family units, and society as a whole. I wouldn't dismiss their arguments out of hand, particularly because, since the "sexual revolution," there has been a very strong correlation between the spread of birth control and the rise in frequency of out-of-wedlock births and divorce. I certainly wouldn't say that the spread of birth control has caused these things (birth control is only part of the causal equation), but the consequences of its availability have certainly had their effects.
Just to avoid any confusion as to what I actually think, I do use birth control and think that it's perfectly okay to use it.
Ah yes, the "philosophy of abstinence." I hear NYU has a great program.
States with abstinence only sex education have higher teenage pregnancy rates.
To be clear, you weren't somehow taking me to have said otherwise?
On February 17 2012 14:10 ZeaL. wrote: So President Santorum would attempt to instill this "republican virtue" in the community how? Apparently by making policy decisions that negatively affect citizens but are in line with preaching morality because the big picture is what matters, not pesky things like details.
He hasn't said that he'd do anything, and I haven't made any proposals for what should be done. It's a Catch-22. How can the federal government fix a problem that it Constitutionally is not supposed to address in the first place? My guess is that the general idea is to start a discussion to foster change from the bottom up.
What? Santorum is an old school social conservative. He has very little in common with the more recent Tea Party/libertarian movements. I assure you that Constitutionality is second (or third) on his mind to instilling Christian values.
Riding on it so hard now (bareback, of course) may be his downfall. His rise the past few weeks came from debate performances and speeches focused on policy and topics such as economics and NASA. When he talks religion, most Republicans get scared too.
On February 17 2012 21:55 DoubleReed wrote: Honestly xDaunt, it sounds like you disagree with Santorum just like the rest of us. He's said that he wants to male this part of his public policy, so just because he doesn't have the power to ban it should still worry you considering this is apparently what he really cares about.
I do not understand why teaching abstinence teaches virtues or morals in any way. I'm still not understanding that point.
While I definitely don't agree with teaching abstinence only programs, there are some virtues which can be learned more effectively with that approach. Contraceptive teaching CAN instill a feeling of safety and immunity with sex, and an idea that consequences can be avoided entirely with "proper" protection. Abstinence only education teaches that consequences are an inevitability, even if precautions are taken. While neither is absolutely correct, the value of "stuff can and will go wrong" is probably better than "if I do everything right, nothing will go wrong."
This isn't to say that a properly taught and learned use for contraception wouldn't be better. It's just that the message can be dangerous if the education isn't thorough. On the other hand, abstinence is an extremely simple to learn concept, thus easy to teach.
On February 17 2012 21:29 DannyJ wrote: Poor Mitt... people just don't like him
Obama must be gurgling in laughter watching all this happen.
No candidate has the privilege of just standing back and laughing. Things in the race may seem ugly now, but things also looked pretty bad for the Democrats when Hilary refused to leave the race for a long time. ALL battles for any high-profile election are going to get ugly in this modern day and age with such easily accessible media and a 24 hour news cycle.
As a registered Independent, I have no doubt that the republican party will get its act together by the time the Presidential Election rolls around and the Republicans will have all but forgotten this ugly race for the nomination and will have fully focused their efforts into getting Obama out of the White House.
I really don't think so. This is not the same as Obama vs Clinton. The difference between those 2 candidates was practically cosmetic in nature. Republicans on the other hand are far more divided as a party as a whole and in terms of the candidates. There are many reasons why conservatives just can't get excited or support Romney fully - that is pretty obvious after all these months of the party attempting to find a new candidate. It's not just 2 super similar candidates vying for an edge like Obama and Clinton, it's people who were absolutely dead or insignificant prior coming to the forefront since people can't bite the bullet and support Mitt. It's not a coincidence that the whole Obama vs catholic church fiasco has directly coincided with a surge in popularity for Santorum. It demonstrates the lack of trust lots of conservatives have in Romney on social issues and healthcare.
That being said, it is still pretty early in the process, but the clear lack of faith behind a dude who has been considered the front runner and best option for the last 4 years is pretty disturbing.
On February 17 2012 21:55 DoubleReed wrote: Honestly xDaunt, it sounds like you disagree with Santorum just like the rest of us. He's said that he wants to male this part of his public policy, so just because he doesn't have the power to ban it should still worry you considering this is apparently what he really cares about.
I do not understand why teaching abstinence teaches virtues or morals in any way. I'm still not understanding that point.
While I definitely don't agree with teaching abstinence only programs, there are some virtues which can be learned more effectively with that approach. Contraceptive teaching CAN instill a feeling of safety and immunity with sex, and an idea that consequences can be avoided entirely with "proper" protection. Abstinence only education teaches that consequences are an inevitability, even if precautions are taken. While neither is absolutely correct, the value of "stuff can and will go wrong" is probably better than "if I do everything right, nothing will go wrong."
This isn't to say that a properly taught and learned use for contraception wouldn't be better. It's just that the message can be dangerous if the education isn't thorough. On the other hand, abstinence is an extremely simple to learn concept, thus easy to teach.
It's a bit hard for me to imagine a sex ed class that tries not to scare kids at all. The fact that abstinence has 100% effectiveness means it'll always be taught. Is this really an issue? I've never heard of sex ed class with such a criticism.
On February 17 2012 21:29 DannyJ wrote: Poor Mitt... people just don't like him
Obama must be gurgling in laughter watching all this happen.
No candidate has the privilege of just standing back and laughing. Things in the race may seem ugly now, but things also looked pretty bad for the Democrats when Hilary refused to leave the race for a long time. ALL battles for any high-profile election are going to get ugly in this modern day and age with such easily accessible media and a 24 hour news cycle.
As a registered Independent, I have no doubt that the republican party will get its act together by the time the Presidential Election rolls around and the Republicans will have all but forgotten this ugly race for the nomination and will have fully focused their efforts into getting Obama out of the White House.
I really don't think so. This is not the same as Obama vs Clinton. The difference between those 2 candidates was practically cosmetic in nature. Republicans on the other hand are far more divided as a party as a whole and in terms of the candidates. There are many reasons why conservatives just can't get excited or support Romney fully - that is pretty obvious after all these months of the party attempting to find a new candidate. It's not just 2 super similar candidates vying for an edge like Obama and Clinton, it's people who were absolutely dead or insignificant prior coming to the forefront since people can't bite the bullet and support Mitt. It's not a coincidence that the whole Obama vs catholic church fiasco has directly coincided with a surge in popularity for Santorum. It demonstrates the lack of trust lots of conservatives have in Romney on social issues and healthcare.
That being said, it is still pretty early in the process, but the clear lack of faith behind a dude who has been considered the front runner and best option for the last 4 years is pretty disturbing.
Not to mention the fact that the candidates the GOP keeps jumping to are those which got run out of their respective seats (with the exception of Paul). Santorum was DEMOLISHED by his opponent by 18 percentage points in 2006. Gingrich would have been politically hanged if he hadn't made a quick exit in '98-'99. It's not like the vote is jumping to "unexperienced" or relatively successful politicians.
On February 17 2012 21:29 DannyJ wrote: Poor Mitt... people just don't like him
Obama must be gurgling in laughter watching all this happen.
No candidate has the privilege of just standing back and laughing. Things in the race may seem ugly now, but things also looked pretty bad for the Democrats when Hilary refused to leave the race for a long time. ALL battles for any high-profile election are going to get ugly in this modern day and age with such easily accessible media and a 24 hour news cycle.
As a registered Independent, I have no doubt that the republican party will get its act together by the time the Presidential Election rolls around and the Republicans will have all but forgotten this ugly race for the nomination and will have fully focused their efforts into getting Obama out of the White House.
But this election isn't even that high-profile, or it shouldn't be.
Presidents almost always get a 2nd term. The only real question is the economy.
If the economy keeps recovering at this rate, there is really nothing the republicans can do. Do they seriously think they can attack Obama for being soft foreign policy in a debate? The guy just has to say "remember Osama?" and he is golden.
Why the fuck are people having cow about this? All that he's suggesting is that people be abstinent. Big deal.
I wasn't going to comment on this contraceptive issue because it's so stupid, but the ignorance on the subject is too much to ignore. Here are the two fundamental points:
1. Neither Rick Santorum nor anyone else can Constitutionally ban birth control. The Supreme Court case of Griswold v. Connecticut conclusively decided this issue in the 1960s. The "right to privacy" that was created in that case is so pervasively integrated into American jurisprudence now that the case will never be overturned, even if it was decided wrongly (which as a matter of Constitutional law, I believe it was, notwithstanding that the sought-after policy was correct). Accordingly, all of this talk about banning contraception is nothing short of blatant and unapologetic fear-mongering by democrats and the left. It's really that simple.
2. Rick Santorum has not said that he'd ban contraceptives. Go do some research on what he's actually he said. He has said that he doesn't like contraceptives. He has said that they're harmful. He has said that Griswold was decided wrongly. He has said that states should be able to pass laws governing contraceptives or even banning them as a matter of states rights. But, as far as I know and can tell, I haven't seen one quote where he has said that he'd ban them. I have seen quotes where he said that he would not impose his views of contraceptives on others.
At the very least, he would guarantee the government was completely out of contrceptives. Funding, mandates, recommendations, everything.
Correct. Generally speaking, the federal government has no business mandating to anyone that they be required to provide goods or services to a third person (this is one of the primary reasons why people oppose the anti-discrimination laws, but that's another story). Think about it this way. Guns are far more expensive than contraceptives. Should the federal government be required to purchase (or compel others to purchase) firearms for anyone who wants to exercise his Second Amendment rights? Obviously the answer is no. Freedom is about having the ability to do something, not having someone else pay for you to do something.
You're confusing a freedom with a right. The government is required to supply you with access to a right (should it be a good) or the ability to exercise a right. I'd say the majority of democrats (those fighting for this contraceptive issue) and probably the vast majority of the developed western world view health care as a right, and contraceptives are part of that. We have a right to guns - we have a right to them via reasonable access. Those fighting for this are applying the same principle to contraceptives - the government should ensure reasonable access to them as well.
Umm, that's not correct at all. The government isn't "required" to do anything when you have a right. It's merely required to not infringe upon it.
Your comparison to guns is also not right. The government isn't required to make sure everyone has a gun; it's only required to not make it unreasonably difficult to obtain one from a private party. In terms of health care (if you want to call it a right, which i vehemently disagree with), it would only require that the government doesn't make unrealistic hoops for a citizen to jump through to acquire healthcare from a private provider for the government to deliver on it's constitutional garauntee.
Your point doesn't really contradict mine.
By not infringing on the accessability of guns, the government is ensuring our right to bear arms. The Second Amendment doesn't give everyone the right to have a gun at all points in time.
Regardless of your view on healthcare being a right, a large population of the world (and a large population of the U.S.) thinks it's a basic human right that everyone should be given the highest standard of comprehensive healthcare regardless of age, sex, race, etc. Furthermore, many are advocating that to give women reasonable access to contraceptives, they should be covered by health insurance so that women are not disadvantaged due to lower income or working at a religious institution.
And yes, the government is required to give certain things, such as protection from harm and enforcement of the law (police/military), a fair judicial system (including a fair, speedy, and impartial trial and access to a lawyer). Both of these cover an incredibly range of things that the government is required to actually give to us.
I really don't think xDaunt is advocating for teaching abstinence for sex education here. What's important is to take a step back and look at some of the problems America is having - over here Australia also has a high divorce rate.
Rather than saying "oh my solution is the right one, let's teach abstinence" which you can get with some social conservatives - or "let's do this" with some liberal-minded people instead - it's important to have an adult conversation about the problems society is facing these days without the demagoguing which definitely goes both ways with Santorum. Personally I don't like most of his views but I think a lot of people would agree that some of his views he demagogues things a lot and his views get demagogued a bit.
The entire western world has a high divorce rate, but it is also falling in most countries.
How The GOP Went Back To The 1950s In Just One Day Very neatly, and on three separate fronts, conservatives in America turned the clock back to the 1950s with their rhetoric about women’s rights Thursday, according to women in politics on both sides of the aisle. This could be a big problem for the GOP when the calendar reaches November. Let’s take a look at Thursday, February 16, 2012, the day Washington fell into a time-warp.
• On Capitol Hill, Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) held hearings on contraception and religious freedom that produced the now-famous picture of a table full of men called to weigh in on access to contraceptives. Democrats wanted a woman — a Georgetown law student with a friend who lost an ovary because the university doesn’t cover birth control — to say her piece at the hearing, but Issa wouldn’t let her on the panel. He said she wasn’t “appropriate or qualified” to discuss the topic at hand.
...
• Politico published a story about a right wing firestorm that had been burning for days: Did the young women who attended this year’s CPAC wear skirts that were too short? The days following the massive conservative conference, which closed Saturday, were filled with tweets and blog posts weighing in on what conservative pundit Melissa Clouthier called outfits that made the college-age women at CPAC look either “frumpish” or “like two-bit whores.” CPAC needs these women to survive — 55% of attendees at the 2011 conference were under 25 — but apparently conservatives want to make sure they don’t show too much of their legs lest they detract from the solemnity of the proceedings. The general agreement among conservatives after days of debate: a CPAC dress code would go too far — but ladies, please.
• Foster Friess, the billionaire backer of Rick Santorum’s campaign, became an instant celebrity when he went on Andrea Mitchell’s MSNBC show and said, “Back in my day, they used Bayer aspirin for contraceptives. The gals put it between their knees and it wasn’t that costly.”
I can't believe that the real issues with free birth control was looked over because of some religious bullshit. Free birth control is a myth, it will only increase the price of your premium. \
On February 17 2012 21:55 DoubleReed wrote: Honestly xDaunt, it sounds like you disagree with Santorum just like the rest of us. He's said that he wants to make this part of his public policy, so just because he doesn't have the power to ban it should still worry you considering this is apparently what he really cares about.
I do not understand why teaching abstinence teaches virtues or morals in any way. I'm still not understanding that point.
It doesn't worry me because, as I said above, Santorum has not said he would advocate legislation banning contraceptives, and he doesn't have that power anyway. All he is doing is starting a conversation about some of the fundamental problems in our society today, which I think is a good thing.
What offends me is how Santorum's views are being spun by liberals and the media. It's dishonest fear-mongering.
Santorum can't ban contraceptives outright (though he does support letting states decide that issue for themselves) but the fear is that federal funding for contraception will be curtailed.
How The GOP Went Back To The 1950s In Just One Day Very neatly, and on three separate fronts, conservatives in America turned the clock back to the 1950s with their rhetoric about women’s rights Thursday, according to women in politics on both sides of the aisle. This could be a big problem for the GOP when the calendar reaches November. Let’s take a look at Thursday, February 16, 2012, the day Washington fell into a time-warp.
• On Capitol Hill, Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) held hearings on contraception and religious freedom that produced the now-famous picture of a table full of men called to weigh in on access to contraceptives. Democrats wanted a woman — a Georgetown law student with a friend who lost an ovary because the university doesn’t cover birth control — to say her piece at the hearing, but Issa wouldn’t let her on the panel. He said she wasn’t “appropriate or qualified” to discuss the topic at hand.
...
• Politico published a story about a right wing firestorm that had been burning for days: Did the young women who attended this year’s CPAC wear skirts that were too short? The days following the massive conservative conference, which closed Saturday, were filled with tweets and blog posts weighing in on what conservative pundit Melissa Clouthier called outfits that made the college-age women at CPAC look either “frumpish” or “like two-bit whores.” CPAC needs these women to survive — 55% of attendees at the 2011 conference were under 25 — but apparently conservatives want to make sure they don’t show too much of their legs lest they detract from the solemnity of the proceedings. The general agreement among conservatives after days of debate: a CPAC dress code would go too far — but ladies, please.
• Foster Friess, the billionaire backer of Rick Santorum’s campaign, became an instant celebrity when he went on Andrea Mitchell’s MSNBC show and said, “Back in my day, they used Bayer aspirin for contraceptives. The gals put it between their knees and it wasn’t that costly.”
That CPAC thing is rather ridiculous. It's like they don't see how far the party is sinking and how much they need support from "nontraditional" groups.
On February 17 2012 21:29 DannyJ wrote: Poor Mitt... people just don't like him
Obama must be gurgling in laughter watching all this happen.
No candidate has the privilege of just standing back and laughing. Things in the race may seem ugly now, but things also looked pretty bad for the Democrats when Hilary refused to leave the race for a long time. ALL battles for any high-profile election are going to get ugly in this modern day and age with such easily accessible media and a 24 hour news cycle.
As a registered Independent, I have no doubt that the republican party will get its act together by the time the Presidential Election rolls around and the Republicans will have all but forgotten this ugly race for the nomination and will have fully focused their efforts into getting Obama out of the White House.
I really don't think so. This is not the same as Obama vs Clinton. The difference between those 2 candidates was practically cosmetic in nature. Republicans on the other hand are far more divided as a party as a whole and in terms of the candidates. There are many reasons why conservatives just can't get excited or support Romney fully - that is pretty obvious after all these months of the party attempting to find a new candidate. It's not just 2 super similar candidates vying for an edge like Obama and Clinton, it's people who were absolutely dead or insignificant prior coming to the forefront since people can't bite the bullet and support Mitt. It's not a coincidence that the whole Obama vs catholic church fiasco has directly coincided with a surge in popularity for Santorum. It demonstrates the lack of trust lots of conservatives have in Romney on social issues and healthcare.
That being said, it is still pretty early in the process, but the clear lack of faith behind a dude who has been considered the front runner and best option for the last 4 years is pretty disturbing.
Not to mention the fact that the candidates the GOP keeps jumping to are those which got run out of their respective seats (with the exception of Paul). Santorum was DEMOLISHED by his opponent by 18 percentage points in 2006. Gingrich would have been politically hanged if he hadn't made a quick exit in '98-'99. It's not like the vote is jumping to "unexperienced" or relatively successful politicians.
Not to mention Romney ran like a Democrat in MA, makes millions and millions of dollars, and has numerous oversea accounts.
On February 17 2012 21:55 DoubleReed wrote: Honestly xDaunt, it sounds like you disagree with Santorum just like the rest of us. He's said that he wants to make this part of his public policy, so just because he doesn't have the power to ban it should still worry you considering this is apparently what he really cares about.
I do not understand why teaching abstinence teaches virtues or morals in any way. I'm still not understanding that point.
It doesn't worry me because, as I said above, Santorum has not said he would advocate legislation banning contraceptives, and he doesn't have that power anyway. All he is doing is starting a conversation about some of the fundamental problems in our society today, which I think is a good thing.
What offends me is how Santorum's views are being spun by liberals and the media. It's dishonest fear-mongering.
Well it is justified fear mongering that someone who is running for president of the united states is decrying the immorality of contraception. I don't want someone like that to be president and I don't think a lot of women do either.
Again, what exactly is his issue with it? It seems to come back to his religious beliefs. And I don't want theology getting involved with our government like that. For instance, he doesn't want gays to be legally married for exactly these reasons.
There's plenty to be fearful of. Santorum could do plenty of damage to our society with his social views.
On February 17 2012 21:55 DoubleReed wrote: Honestly xDaunt, it sounds like you disagree with Santorum just like the rest of us. He's said that he wants to make this part of his public policy, so just because he doesn't have the power to ban it should still worry you considering this is apparently what he really cares about.
I do not understand why teaching abstinence teaches virtues or morals in any way. I'm still not understanding that point.
It doesn't worry me because, as I said above, Santorum has not said he would advocate legislation banning contraceptives, and he doesn't have that power anyway. All he is doing is starting a conversation about some of the fundamental problems in our society today, which I think is a good thing.
What offends me is how Santorum's views are being spun by liberals and the media. It's dishonest fear-mongering.
Well it is justified fear mongering that someone who is running for president of the united states is decrying the immorality of contraception. I don't want someone like that to be president and I don't think a lot of women do either.
Again, what exactly is his issue with it? It seems to come back to his religious beliefs. And I don't want theology getting involved with our government like that. For instance, he doesn't want gays to be legally married for exactly these reasons.
There's plenty to be fearful of. Santorum could do plenty of damage to our society with his social views.
See, this is the kind of thing that I don't understand. The country has real problems right now -- problems with a capital P. Regardless of where you fall on the birth control issue, federal funding (or lack thereof) is not one of those big problems. Yet, people blow issues like this one up way out of proportion and base their electoral issues on where candidates fall on these relativity minor issues. So instead of focusing on real issues like looming fiscal disaster and seemingly imminent war in and around Iran, the country is talking about contraception right now. How stupid are we?
EPT
![[image loading]](http://www.washingtonpost.com/rf/image_982w/WashingtonPost/Content/Blogs/plum-line/Images/greenbergchart.jpg)
