|
On March 03 2012 08:03 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2012 07:59 DoubleReed wrote:On March 03 2012 07:57 xDaunt wrote:On March 03 2012 07:48 DoubleReed wrote:On March 03 2012 07:41 xDaunt wrote:On March 03 2012 07:30 DoubleReed wrote:On March 03 2012 07:07 xDaunt wrote:
I would be incredibly disappointed if Rush apologized. Fortunately he is in a position where he doesn't have to, and I expect him not to. Uhm. What? I think you need to clarify this statement. "Fortunately"? You think women who fight for women's health should be called prostitutes and sluts? Let's just be clear: Rush did not say "that girl is a slut for having lots of sex." She came to Congress to ask for a new law that had someone else pay for her contraception and birth control pills. She essentially was asking for someone else to help foot the bill for the supplies that she needed to engage in her sexual habits. In other words, she's asking for other people to pay for her sexual habits, or, more bluntly, for her to have sex. That's where the slut thing came from. I think it's a very amusing and clever take on the situation. Again, this isn't about feminine rights or health. This is about getting a handout from the federal government, or, more accurately, having the government mandate that someone else give you a handout. Keep this in mind: this girl went to Georgetown of her own volition. She testified that she knew it was a Catholic institution and that she looked at the health care program before going there. She knowingly went there, and is now whining about how expensive birth control is because the school doesn't provide it. So instead of sucking it up, she is asking the government to fix this problem for her by encroaching upon the rights and liberties of other people. And this girl is a heroine? Why does no one else see how fucked up this is? Yes, and if that is what she said, then that would at least make some sense. The fact is that she went there to talk about one of her friends that had a medical condition that was treated with contraception (ovarian cysts or something), but was having trouble footing the bill for it, because contraception wasn't covered under her health insurance. She wanted health insurance to cover women's health! HOW DARE SHE!! It makes even less sense if you actually think about it. It's female contraception. The price doesn't go up depending on how much sex you have. It's not amusing. It's nonsensical and it demeans women's health as unimportant. It's "amusing" in the way that a mob jeers and laughs at a victim. I do not laugh at people degrading each other people's dignity like that. Here's her testimony: http://www.whatthefolly.com/2012/02/23/transcript-sandra-fluke-testifies-on-why-women-should-be-allowed-access-to-contraception-and-reproductive-health-care/No one is saying that women's health is unimportant. What people are saying is that it's not the job of the federal government to take care of women's health, or, in this case, mandating that third parties take care of women's health in ways that violate their rights and religious beliefs. Have we really come to the point where the power of the federal government should be used to fix every ill in society? That's really what this argument is all about. No. This is about how a woman wanting health insurance to cover women's health is told she, personally, is a slut and a prostitute. Oh boohoo, cry me a river. Don't worry about her. She's going to be well-rewarded for sensational testimony and weathering the wrath of Limbaugh. She'll be a liberal politician/operative within a few years and maybe even a media figure.
Hm. Interesting. No wonder you didn't get along with the girls at your law school.
|
On March 03 2012 08:06 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2012 08:03 xDaunt wrote:On March 03 2012 07:59 DoubleReed wrote:On March 03 2012 07:57 xDaunt wrote:On March 03 2012 07:48 DoubleReed wrote:On March 03 2012 07:41 xDaunt wrote:On March 03 2012 07:30 DoubleReed wrote:On March 03 2012 07:07 xDaunt wrote:
I would be incredibly disappointed if Rush apologized. Fortunately he is in a position where he doesn't have to, and I expect him not to. Uhm. What? I think you need to clarify this statement. "Fortunately"? You think women who fight for women's health should be called prostitutes and sluts? Let's just be clear: Rush did not say "that girl is a slut for having lots of sex." She came to Congress to ask for a new law that had someone else pay for her contraception and birth control pills. She essentially was asking for someone else to help foot the bill for the supplies that she needed to engage in her sexual habits. In other words, she's asking for other people to pay for her sexual habits, or, more bluntly, for her to have sex. That's where the slut thing came from. I think it's a very amusing and clever take on the situation. Again, this isn't about feminine rights or health. This is about getting a handout from the federal government, or, more accurately, having the government mandate that someone else give you a handout. Keep this in mind: this girl went to Georgetown of her own volition. She testified that she knew it was a Catholic institution and that she looked at the health care program before going there. She knowingly went there, and is now whining about how expensive birth control is because the school doesn't provide it. So instead of sucking it up, she is asking the government to fix this problem for her by encroaching upon the rights and liberties of other people. And this girl is a heroine? Why does no one else see how fucked up this is? Yes, and if that is what she said, then that would at least make some sense. The fact is that she went there to talk about one of her friends that had a medical condition that was treated with contraception (ovarian cysts or something), but was having trouble footing the bill for it, because contraception wasn't covered under her health insurance. She wanted health insurance to cover women's health! HOW DARE SHE!! It makes even less sense if you actually think about it. It's female contraception. The price doesn't go up depending on how much sex you have. It's not amusing. It's nonsensical and it demeans women's health as unimportant. It's "amusing" in the way that a mob jeers and laughs at a victim. I do not laugh at people degrading each other people's dignity like that. Here's her testimony: http://www.whatthefolly.com/2012/02/23/transcript-sandra-fluke-testifies-on-why-women-should-be-allowed-access-to-contraception-and-reproductive-health-care/No one is saying that women's health is unimportant. What people are saying is that it's not the job of the federal government to take care of women's health, or, in this case, mandating that third parties take care of women's health in ways that violate their rights and religious beliefs. Have we really come to the point where the power of the federal government should be used to fix every ill in society? That's really what this argument is all about. No. This is about how a woman wanting health insurance to cover women's health is told she, personally, is a slut and a prostitute. Oh boohoo, cry me a river. Don't worry about her. She's going to be well-rewarded for sensational testimony and weathering the wrath of Limbaugh. She'll be a liberal politician/operative within a few years and maybe even a media figure. Hm. Interesting. No wonder you didn't get along with the girls at your law school.
Apparently you missed the post of the other law student/lawyer who agreed with my stereotype. =)
|
Some people's religious beliefs say that god has a reason for little Timmy getting hodgkin's lymphoma when hes 3 days old. Are you suggesting that the provision in Obama's healthcare law that keeps health insurers from denying children with pre-existing conditions is too much also? Where do you draw the line?
|
On March 03 2012 08:12 DamnCats wrote:Some people's religious beliefs say that god has a reason for little Timmy getting hodgkin's lymphoma when hes 3 days old. Are you suggesting that the provision in Obama's healthcare law that keeps health insurers from denying children with pre-existing conditions is too much also? Where do you draw the line?
The line here is really easy to draw: the federal government cannot force private persons to buy or sell any specific product or service.
|
On March 03 2012 08:13 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2012 08:12 DamnCats wrote:Some people's religious beliefs say that god has a reason for little Timmy getting hodgkin's lymphoma when hes 3 days old. Are you suggesting that the provision in Obama's healthcare law that keeps health insurers from denying children with pre-existing conditions is too much also? Where do you draw the line? The line here is really easy to draw: the federal government cannot force private persons to buy or sell any specific product or service.
So you would oppose the measure that says health insurers can't deny claims for children with pre-existing conditions?
Don't you find it a little bit strange that the party full of "christians" are the first people to tell little Timmy with Hodgkin's to go fuck himself?
|
On March 03 2012 08:17 DamnCats wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2012 08:13 xDaunt wrote:On March 03 2012 08:12 DamnCats wrote:Some people's religious beliefs say that god has a reason for little Timmy getting hodgkin's lymphoma when hes 3 days old. Are you suggesting that the provision in Obama's healthcare law that keeps health insurers from denying children with pre-existing conditions is too much also? Where do you draw the line? The line here is really easy to draw: the federal government cannot force private persons to buy or sell any specific product or service. So you would oppose the measure that says health insurers can't deny claims for children with pre-existing conditions? Don't you find it a little bit strange that the party full of "christians" are the first people to tell little Timmy with Hodgkin's to go fuck himself?
The answer is yes, I would oppose that legislation.
|
On March 03 2012 08:20 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2012 08:17 DamnCats wrote:On March 03 2012 08:13 xDaunt wrote:On March 03 2012 08:12 DamnCats wrote:Some people's religious beliefs say that god has a reason for little Timmy getting hodgkin's lymphoma when hes 3 days old. Are you suggesting that the provision in Obama's healthcare law that keeps health insurers from denying children with pre-existing conditions is too much also? Where do you draw the line? The line here is really easy to draw: the federal government cannot force private persons to buy or sell any specific product or service. So you would oppose the measure that says health insurers can't deny claims for children with pre-existing conditions? Don't you find it a little bit strange that the party full of "christians" are the first people to tell little Timmy with Hodgkin's to go fuck himself? The answer is yes, I would oppose that legislation.
And my second question? Not a bit wacky and strange in the least?
|
On March 03 2012 08:17 DamnCats wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2012 08:13 xDaunt wrote:On March 03 2012 08:12 DamnCats wrote:Some people's religious beliefs say that god has a reason for little Timmy getting hodgkin's lymphoma when hes 3 days old. Are you suggesting that the provision in Obama's healthcare law that keeps health insurers from denying children with pre-existing conditions is too much also? Where do you draw the line? The line here is really easy to draw: the federal government cannot force private persons to buy or sell any specific product or service. So you would oppose the measure that says health insurers can't deny claims for children with pre-existing conditions? Don't you find it a little bit strange that the party full of "christians" are the first people to tell little Timmy with Hodgkin's to go fuck himself?
He's on the libertarian side of things, not the religious side of things. That kind of argument doesn't hold weight.
However, I do think this is not a good position. xDaunt, Obamacare is here and not going away for now. I understand that you want to get rid of it entirely, but while it is here, don't you think it should cover women's health regardless what the boss says?
|
On March 03 2012 08:13 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2012 08:12 DamnCats wrote:Some people's religious beliefs say that god has a reason for little Timmy getting hodgkin's lymphoma when hes 3 days old. Are you suggesting that the provision in Obama's healthcare law that keeps health insurers from denying children with pre-existing conditions is too much also? Where do you draw the line? The line here is really easy to draw: the federal government cannot force private persons to buy or sell any specific product or service.
They can either under the Commerce Clause or the Taxing and Spending Clause... just being realistic here.
|
On March 03 2012 08:22 DamnCats wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2012 08:20 xDaunt wrote:On March 03 2012 08:17 DamnCats wrote:On March 03 2012 08:13 xDaunt wrote:On March 03 2012 08:12 DamnCats wrote:Some people's religious beliefs say that god has a reason for little Timmy getting hodgkin's lymphoma when hes 3 days old. Are you suggesting that the provision in Obama's healthcare law that keeps health insurers from denying children with pre-existing conditions is too much also? Where do you draw the line? The line here is really easy to draw: the federal government cannot force private persons to buy or sell any specific product or service. So you would oppose the measure that says health insurers can't deny claims for children with pre-existing conditions? Don't you find it a little bit strange that the party full of "christians" are the first people to tell little Timmy with Hodgkin's to go fuck himself? The answer is yes, I would oppose that legislation. And my second question? Not a bit wacky and strange in the least?
Good policy requires hard decisions.
|
On March 03 2012 08:23 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2012 08:17 DamnCats wrote:On March 03 2012 08:13 xDaunt wrote:On March 03 2012 08:12 DamnCats wrote:Some people's religious beliefs say that god has a reason for little Timmy getting hodgkin's lymphoma when hes 3 days old. Are you suggesting that the provision in Obama's healthcare law that keeps health insurers from denying children with pre-existing conditions is too much also? Where do you draw the line? The line here is really easy to draw: the federal government cannot force private persons to buy or sell any specific product or service. So you would oppose the measure that says health insurers can't deny claims for children with pre-existing conditions? Don't you find it a little bit strange that the party full of "christians" are the first people to tell little Timmy with Hodgkin's to go fuck himself? He's on the libertarian side of things, not the religious side of things. That kind of argument doesn't hold weight. However, I do think this is not a good position. xDaunt, Obamacare is here and not going away for now. I understand that you want to get rid of it entirely, but while it is here, don't you think it should cover women's health regardless what the boss says?
There's a very good chance that Obamacare is going to be disappearing sooner rather than later, either legislatively when republicans take over the White House this fall or judicially when the Supreme Court rules upon it this summer. Nonetheless, why would I concede the argument and let the government do something that I believe is unconstitutional? Look at all of the liberal interest groups that oppose the wars overseas and the Patriot Act here at home. They haven't exactly been quiet despite the persistence of the wars and the Patriot Act.
|
On March 03 2012 08:28 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2012 08:22 DamnCats wrote:On March 03 2012 08:20 xDaunt wrote:On March 03 2012 08:17 DamnCats wrote:On March 03 2012 08:13 xDaunt wrote:On March 03 2012 08:12 DamnCats wrote:Some people's religious beliefs say that god has a reason for little Timmy getting hodgkin's lymphoma when hes 3 days old. Are you suggesting that the provision in Obama's healthcare law that keeps health insurers from denying children with pre-existing conditions is too much also? Where do you draw the line? The line here is really easy to draw: the federal government cannot force private persons to buy or sell any specific product or service. So you would oppose the measure that says health insurers can't deny claims for children with pre-existing conditions? Don't you find it a little bit strange that the party full of "christians" are the first people to tell little Timmy with Hodgkin's to go fuck himself? The answer is yes, I would oppose that legislation. And my second question? Not a bit wacky and strange in the least? Good policy requires hard decisions.
This right here is why I cant take libertarians seriousyly. You would rather watch innocent people suffer and die in the name of "freedom" than give up a little to have them, and you and your own looked after. These ideas thankfully are not represented where I live, I would move if they were.
|
On March 03 2012 08:33 Focuspants wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2012 08:28 xDaunt wrote:On March 03 2012 08:22 DamnCats wrote:On March 03 2012 08:20 xDaunt wrote:On March 03 2012 08:17 DamnCats wrote:On March 03 2012 08:13 xDaunt wrote:On March 03 2012 08:12 DamnCats wrote:Some people's religious beliefs say that god has a reason for little Timmy getting hodgkin's lymphoma when hes 3 days old. Are you suggesting that the provision in Obama's healthcare law that keeps health insurers from denying children with pre-existing conditions is too much also? Where do you draw the line? The line here is really easy to draw: the federal government cannot force private persons to buy or sell any specific product or service. So you would oppose the measure that says health insurers can't deny claims for children with pre-existing conditions? Don't you find it a little bit strange that the party full of "christians" are the first people to tell little Timmy with Hodgkin's to go fuck himself? The answer is yes, I would oppose that legislation. And my second question? Not a bit wacky and strange in the least? Good policy requires hard decisions. This right here is why I cant take libertarians seriousyly. You would rather watch innocent people suffer and die in the name of "freedom" than give up a little to have them, and you and your own looked after. These ideas thankfully are not represented where I live, I would move if they were.
There aren't enough resources to fix every problem in the world.
|
On March 03 2012 08:35 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2012 08:33 Focuspants wrote:On March 03 2012 08:28 xDaunt wrote:On March 03 2012 08:22 DamnCats wrote:On March 03 2012 08:20 xDaunt wrote:On March 03 2012 08:17 DamnCats wrote:On March 03 2012 08:13 xDaunt wrote:On March 03 2012 08:12 DamnCats wrote:Some people's religious beliefs say that god has a reason for little Timmy getting hodgkin's lymphoma when hes 3 days old. Are you suggesting that the provision in Obama's healthcare law that keeps health insurers from denying children with pre-existing conditions is too much also? Where do you draw the line? The line here is really easy to draw: the federal government cannot force private persons to buy or sell any specific product or service. So you would oppose the measure that says health insurers can't deny claims for children with pre-existing conditions? Don't you find it a little bit strange that the party full of "christians" are the first people to tell little Timmy with Hodgkin's to go fuck himself? The answer is yes, I would oppose that legislation. And my second question? Not a bit wacky and strange in the least? Good policy requires hard decisions. This right here is why I cant take libertarians seriousyly. You would rather watch innocent people suffer and die in the name of "freedom" than give up a little to have them, and you and your own looked after. These ideas thankfully are not represented where I live, I would move if they were. There aren't enough resources to fix every problem in the world.
If there are enough resources to spend more on the military per year than the rest of the world combined, theres enough resources to look after the kid in your own country that would die otherwise, or the woman with ovarian cysts. Its a matter of alocating your resources properly. One thing your country fails horribly at.
Its quite hilarious that the big talking points for the republican party are how to take away from education and health care. What an absolutley retarded platform to run on.
|
On March 03 2012 08:32 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2012 08:23 DoubleReed wrote:On March 03 2012 08:17 DamnCats wrote:On March 03 2012 08:13 xDaunt wrote:On March 03 2012 08:12 DamnCats wrote:Some people's religious beliefs say that god has a reason for little Timmy getting hodgkin's lymphoma when hes 3 days old. Are you suggesting that the provision in Obama's healthcare law that keeps health insurers from denying children with pre-existing conditions is too much also? Where do you draw the line? The line here is really easy to draw: the federal government cannot force private persons to buy or sell any specific product or service. So you would oppose the measure that says health insurers can't deny claims for children with pre-existing conditions? Don't you find it a little bit strange that the party full of "christians" are the first people to tell little Timmy with Hodgkin's to go fuck himself? He's on the libertarian side of things, not the religious side of things. That kind of argument doesn't hold weight. However, I do think this is not a good position. xDaunt, Obamacare is here and not going away for now. I understand that you want to get rid of it entirely, but while it is here, don't you think it should cover women's health regardless what the boss says? There's a very good chance that Obamacare is going to be disappearing sooner rather than later, either legislatively when republicans take over the White House this fall or judicially when the Supreme Court rules upon it this summer. Nonetheless, why would I concede the argument and let the government do something that I believe is unconstitutional? Look at all of the liberal interest groups that oppose the wars overseas and the Patriot Act here at home. They haven't exactly been quiet despite the persistence of the wars and the Patriot Act.
Uh, I doubt it will change by legislation honestly. It may fall judicially, though.
Why would you concede the argument? Because though the system is broken it may as well do as much good as it can? Or are you of the opinion that it actually does violate freedom of religion? Because it really doesn't.
|
xDaunt, I don't want to assume but you aren't religious then? I guess I'm probably arguing with the wrong person in this case. Because while libertarians are *chappelle show voice* cooooold bloooded sometimes, they aren't complete raging hypocrites like most republicans.
My problem is republicans have latched onto the libertarian stance of "fuck little timmy with a pre-existing condition" at the same time they want to outlaw abortion. I can't even fathom how one could be more paradoxical. And I feel like blatant hypocrisy like this is what's going to give us another 4 years of Obama. Which, while it could be worse, could be a lot better too if we weren't constantly talking about stupid shit religion wants.
|
On March 03 2012 08:20 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2012 08:17 DamnCats wrote:On March 03 2012 08:13 xDaunt wrote:On March 03 2012 08:12 DamnCats wrote:Some people's religious beliefs say that god has a reason for little Timmy getting hodgkin's lymphoma when hes 3 days old. Are you suggesting that the provision in Obama's healthcare law that keeps health insurers from denying children with pre-existing conditions is too much also? Where do you draw the line? The line here is really easy to draw: the federal government cannot force private persons to buy or sell any specific product or service. So you would oppose the measure that says health insurers can't deny claims for children with pre-existing conditions? Don't you find it a little bit strange that the party full of "christians" are the first people to tell little Timmy with Hodgkin's to go fuck himself? The answer is yes, I would oppose that legislation.
I would agree withyou 100% if only...
Insurance companies are a legal cartel. I'll be 100% ok with an insurance company only providing what they want to provide the day they dissolve the cartel.
|
On March 03 2012 08:45 DamnCats wrote:
xDaunt, I don't want to assume but you aren't religious then? I guess I'm probably arguing with the wrong person in this case. Because while libertarians are *chappelle show voice* cooooold bloooded sometimes, they aren't complete raging hypocrites like most republicans.
My problem is republicans have latched onto the libertarian stance of "fuck little timmy with a pre-existing condition" at the same time they want to outlaw abortion. I can't even fathom how one could be more paradoxical. And I feel like blatant hypocrisy like this is what's going to give us another 4 years of Obama. Which, while it could be worse, could be a lot better too if we weren't constantly talking about stupid shit religion wants.
My religious views are complicated. I was raised Roman Catholic, sympathize heavily with religious people in general, but have a very healthy dislike of organized religion.
|
On March 03 2012 08:35 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2012 08:33 Focuspants wrote:On March 03 2012 08:28 xDaunt wrote:On March 03 2012 08:22 DamnCats wrote:On March 03 2012 08:20 xDaunt wrote:On March 03 2012 08:17 DamnCats wrote:On March 03 2012 08:13 xDaunt wrote:On March 03 2012 08:12 DamnCats wrote:Some people's religious beliefs say that god has a reason for little Timmy getting hodgkin's lymphoma when hes 3 days old. Are you suggesting that the provision in Obama's healthcare law that keeps health insurers from denying children with pre-existing conditions is too much also? Where do you draw the line? The line here is really easy to draw: the federal government cannot force private persons to buy or sell any specific product or service. So you would oppose the measure that says health insurers can't deny claims for children with pre-existing conditions? Don't you find it a little bit strange that the party full of "christians" are the first people to tell little Timmy with Hodgkin's to go fuck himself? The answer is yes, I would oppose that legislation. And my second question? Not a bit wacky and strange in the least? Good policy requires hard decisions. This right here is why I cant take libertarians seriousyly. You would rather watch innocent people suffer and die in the name of "freedom" than give up a little to have them, and you and your own looked after. These ideas thankfully are not represented where I live, I would move if they were. There aren't enough resources to fix every problem in the world.
Such fantastic bullshit. It's just that some people, you included apparently, just believe that because you were blessed with a good mind and good heart everyone else should go fuck themselves. Just so that you can have a little bit more.
And let's ignore the positive economic effects of having a healthy workforce.
|
At the risk of sounding like a terrible person, I would rather Rush Limbaugh have dropped dead rather than Andrew Brietbart. The latter was incendiary, but not simply a complete asshole like Rush is.
I'm most conservative (of that's the right phrase) when it comes to the issue of abortion. If a baby has been conceived, well, then the mother better bear that baby and let it out into the world. Take responsibility for your own damn actions, don't put it on your unborn child dammit.
I personally believe that if people can't afford to get birth control, they can't afford to have kids-- ergo, they should not be having sex. Unfortunately, that's simply not going to happen so I believe the best solution is to provide affordable birth control and reproductive education-- the only entity that seems capable of doing this seems to be the government. Then if a woman still somehow manages to gets knocked up, she better take responsibility for it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
