A Middle-Age Child's Nutty Demand

[Sweet Willy]

So, are you telling me that special interest have started spending money to influence policy? I'm shocked and appalled!

 

[PoliticalChic]

So, are you telling me that special interest have started spending money to influence policy? I'm shocked and appalled!

I'm simply informing you of the provenance...

...being informed means that you understand that you are subscribing to a package, not one issue.

As in..."Anita Dunn, the White House Communications Director, admitted that one of favorite political Philosophers, one that she “turns to the most”, is Mao Tse-Tung, the demonic communist dictator responsible for the starvation, torture, and murder of 70 million Chinese."
Anita Dunn Favorite Philosopher Mao Tse-Tung | OrthodoxNet.com Blog

You have no "line item veto" in politics...

 

[Sweet Willy]

I guess I just don't see it that way. I seldom see things as "all or nothing" propositions, nor do I see government as either good / bad. Most everything is a mixture of good and bad, depending on your perspective. I think politics is the rare instance where so many people do adopt a sense of "you have to take the whole package" when that just isn't really the case. We often, even in these polarized times, find compromised solutions where concessions are made so that things aren't all or nothing. In this particular case, haven't we made an exemption for the churches already? Maybe I'm wrong but I thought this issue was solved anyway and we're just rattling on here in the post - glow of the Rush / Fluke controversy.

So, no, I don't buy into the idea that I have to take the whole package. I have to be willing to compromise and accept some things but ultimately, we still find a balance in government between conflicting ideas.

 

[Luissa]

Why should there be ANY civil authority mandating free contraception is the question you should be asking yourself. It's not like she's demanding free pacemakers. She'd never get those unless there was some copayment by the insured. There's no such thing as a free pacemaker without supplemental insurance. To feminist activists birth control is MUCH more important than a pacemaker. Or insulin, or any other kind of life saving medication. Because this is about women's HEALTH. How it got to be about women's health is really the question. That's the biggest long con in in history.

She isn't asking for free birth control, she is asking for health care plans that They pay premiums for cover their medical needs. Get a clue.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I guess I just don't see it that way. I seldom see things as "all or nothing" propositions, nor do I see government as either good / bad. Most everything is a mixture of good and bad, depending on your perspective. I think politics is the rare instance where so many people do adopt a sense of "you have to take the whole package" when that just isn't really the case. We often, even in these polarized times, find compromised solutions where concessions are made so that things aren't all or nothing. In this particular case, haven't we made an exemption for the churches already? Maybe I'm wrong but I thought this issue was solved anyway and we're just rattling on here in the post - glow of the Rush / Fluke controversy.

So, no, I don't buy into the idea that I have to take the whole package. I have to be willing to compromise and accept some things but ultimately, we still find a balance in government between conflicting ideas.

Perhaps the ballot in your voting booth is different from the one in mine....
...a serious vote can be cast either for the Republican or the Democrat.

Thus, the " "all or nothing" propositions,..."


Frequently called the 'Mussolini made the trains run on time' concept of political science. Would that be the basis for your vote?
No?
Then, why would a free birth control pill serve the same purpose?

 

[Sweet Willy]

I guess I just don't see it that way. I seldom see things as "all or nothing" propositions, nor do I see government as either good / bad. Most everything is a mixture of good and bad, depending on your perspective. I think politics is the rare instance where so many people do adopt a sense of "you have to take the whole package" when that just isn't really the case. We often, even in these polarized times, find compromised solutions where concessions are made so that things aren't all or nothing. In this particular case, haven't we made an exemption for the churches already? Maybe I'm wrong but I thought this issue was solved anyway and we're just rattling on here in the post - glow of the Rush / Fluke controversy.

So, no, I don't buy into the idea that I have to take the whole package. I have to be willing to compromise and accept some things but ultimately, we still find a balance in government between conflicting ideas.

Perhaps the ballot in your voting booth is different from the one in mine....
...a serious vote can be cast either for the Republican or the Democrat.

Thus, the " "all or nothing" propositions,..."

Well, my ballot has a whole bunch of candidates on it. There will be several I never heard of. But yes, the winner will be a dem. or a rep. Still, I don't see it as all or nothing. This distance between the political beliefs of Ron Paul and Mitt Romney is more than just some slight differences. Same for Santorum. There is quite a wide range of belief currently in the running so to try and mark this down as Dem. vs Rep. as if there are some sort of solid, non evolving ideas, isn't what I believe. It's a mosaic of leadership who hold vastly different beliefs from your mayor and county council, all the way up to the White House. Trying to frame it as a particular ideology vs another particular ideology just doesn't hold water with me. It's a mish mash of many ideologies that we get. And THAT is what I see as a problem. Not some solitary belief that one person or one idea is moving us in a particular direction. I believe that quite the opposite is true and that at this point in time we actually could use a singular direction, a singular philosophy, focused on a particular direction, rather than this helter skelter mess we have at present. EVERYONE has an opinion and EVERYONE thinks they know the right thing to do. Well, let me be the only person on this entire forum to say:

I do not have all the answers. I do not think that I am smarter than every member of congress and the president combined, I do not know the best solutions for Israel, N. Korea, stem cell research, immigration, offshore drilling, education, birth control, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, gas prices, international trade, labor, energy development, wobbly pins and kanoobly shafts.

The best way to convince me that you are a productive member of society that wants to participate in the national dialog, understand your fellow citizens and contribute as much as one person possibly can for the common good is to tell me what you DON'T understand. Not to try and convince me that you are the one person who understands it all, that it's terribly simple, the rest of us juts don't understand it an that somehow, your genius has just been overlooked. No one has all the answers and nothing is a singularity in this world. We all live, work and function together and any sort of philosophy on governance, especially as it appears in American politics, democratic and republican, is the product of a very long process of developing and evolving ideas in our culutre and our world. It is anything but an all or nothing proposition. To try and simplify this down to a black and white scenario just isn't worth the time it takes to try and explain how you came to that conclusion.

 

[Katzndogz]

Health care plans are for health care, not elective medications or elective medical procedures.

 

[Sweet Willy]

Health care plans are for health care, not elective medications or elective medical procedures.

One liners are for comedians, not productive dialog or serious debate.

 

[gallantwarrior]

I'm not sure I blame the church. I'm just stating the obvious: They have become ineffective as the leaders of sexual habit. Almost no one, including their own, practice more than lip service to the churches stance on sexual issues.

I think the portrayal of this as paying someone to have sex is just not an honest position. It's a political one. The church has become impotent on the issue so they argue for the government to help them do what they can't anymore.

Why has the church become so impotent? It couldn't be the constant undermining of religious teachings that promote some semblance of decency? A destruction that has been fomented by the government elitists who no doubt view destruction of the power of the church(s) as somehow leaving a moral void that the politicians seek to fill with government regulation.

 

[Sweet Willy]

I'm not sure I blame the church. I'm just stating the obvious: They have become ineffective as the leaders of sexual habit. Almost no one, including their own, practice more than lip service to the churches stance on sexual issues.

I think the portrayal of this as paying someone to have sex is just not an honest position. It's a political one. The church has become impotent on the issue so they argue for the government to help them do what they can't anymore.

Why has the church become so impotent? It couldn't be the constant undermining of religious teachings that promote some semblance of decency? A destruction that has been fomented by the government elitists who no doubt view destruction of the power of the church(s) as somehow leaving a moral void that the politicians seek to fill with government regulation.

I think that the demise of the church's influence on the issue of sex would probably make for an interesting conversation. The church has more resources than ever and yet pre martial sex, teen sex, birth control, unwanted pregnancies and out of wed births seem to be unaffected by the new found wealth in this age of the "mega church". Of course, the issue of sex abuse by church leaders, homosexual relationships by the same doesn't help. I mean.... this is all interesting stuff and maybe it is to all be blamed on secular culture, BUT... that is another conversation. Regardless of WHY you think the church can't seem to exert any moral authority on the issue isn't my point. My point is the simple reality that they don't. I don't know why good girls that go to church still end up pregnant. I don't know why when some 80% or more of Americans identify as Christian, we still have a practical crisis of Christian values. I don't know. It seems to me that if we're 80% or some say 85% Christian then this an issue of just what I say: The church has lost it's sway over it's own lot. And if you're ready to say that it's the remaining 15% who have taken control from the 85%, then that only goes to prove my point even more... the Church is just weaker then ever and there is no one to blame but the overwhelming numbers of people who claim to belong to it. If it has been undermined, it has been undermined by it's own.

 

[gallantwarrior]

Why should there be ANY civil authority mandating free contraception is the question you should be asking yourself. It's not like she's demanding free pacemakers. She'd never get those unless there was some copayment by the insured. There's no such thing as a free pacemaker without supplemental insurance. To feminist activists birth control is MUCH more important than a pacemaker. Or insulin, or any other kind of life saving medication. Because this is about women's HEALTH. How it got to be about women's health is really the question. That's the biggest long con in in history.

This may have already been pointed out, but here goes: The issue of birth control, and by extension, abortion, is constantly touted as primarily an issue of a woman's control over her body, her reproductive prerogative. Am I wrong in believing that there is a very simple means of controlling one's reproductive choices by simply saying "No!" until one is ready to have children? Simple, effective, and no lasting side-effects, why don't these liberated gals take that stance?

 

[Sweet Willy]

Why should there be ANY civil authority mandating free contraception is the question you should be asking yourself. It's not like she's demanding free pacemakers. She'd never get those unless there was some copayment by the insured. There's no such thing as a free pacemaker without supplemental insurance. To feminist activists birth control is MUCH more important than a pacemaker. Or insulin, or any other kind of life saving medication. Because this is about women's HEALTH. How it got to be about women's health is really the question. That's the biggest long con in in history.

This may have already been pointed out, but here goes: The issue of birth control, and by extension, abortion, is constantly touted as primarily an issue of a woman's control over her body, her reproductive prerogative. Am I wrong in believing that there is a very simple means of controlling one's reproductive choices by simply saying "No!" until one is ready to have children? Simple, effective, and no lasting side-effects, why don't these liberated gals take that stance?

I'm sure some do.

 

[Katzndogz]

A media industry making a fortune on sex being able to sell has propaganda operates 24/7, the Church can't compete with that.

 

[Katzndogz]

Why should there be ANY civil authority mandating free contraception is the question you should be asking yourself. It's not like she's demanding free pacemakers. She'd never get those unless there was some copayment by the insured. There's no such thing as a free pacemaker without supplemental insurance. To feminist activists birth control is MUCH more important than a pacemaker. Or insulin, or any other kind of life saving medication. Because this is about women's HEALTH. How it got to be about women's health is really the question. That's the biggest long con in in history.

This may have already been pointed out, but here goes: The issue of birth control, and by extension, abortion, is constantly touted as primarily an issue of a woman's control over her body, her reproductive prerogative. Am I wrong in believing that there is a very simple means of controlling one's reproductive choices by simply saying "No!" until one is ready to have children? Simple, effective, and no lasting side-effects, why don't these liberated gals take that stance?

You bring up an excellent point. Try telling a young woman that she has not really seized true sexual freedom unless she also has the right to say no. See how far that gets you. Women understand forcible rape, but with men they know, they don't even consider that there is a right to say no. It might hurt some guys feelings if they say no. It's so judgemental. Then too, if they say no, will they be considered Christian? Are they not imposing a religious belief they don't even have if they say no.

 

[gallantwarrior]

Why should there be ANY civil authority mandating free contraception is the question you should be asking yourself. It's not like she's demanding free pacemakers. She'd never get those unless there was some copayment by the insured. There's no such thing as a free pacemaker without supplemental insurance. To feminist activists birth control is MUCH more important than a pacemaker. Or insulin, or any other kind of life saving medication. Because this is about women's HEALTH. How it got to be about women's health is really the question. That's the biggest long con in in history.

This may have already been pointed out, but here goes: The issue of birth control, and by extension, abortion, is constantly touted as primarily an issue of a woman's control over her body, her reproductive prerogative. Am I wrong in believing that there is a very simple means of controlling one's reproductive choices by simply saying "No!" until one is ready to have children? Simple, effective, and no lasting side-effects, why don't these liberated gals take that stance?

I'm sure some do.

I'm sure many do, but we won't hear or read about ladies of that caliber. A lot of societal ills are directly the result of what gets air time or press coverage.

 

[Sweet Willy]

A media industry making a fortune on sex being able to sell has propaganda operates 24/7, the Church can't compete with that.

Which illustrates my point nicely. The Church is impotent on the issue. They have lost their own flock. It's a competitive market out there for folks attention to sell things. How would you suggest going about making a difference in that?

 

[Katzndogz]

A media industry making a fortune on sex being able to sell has propaganda operates 24/7, the Church can't compete with that.

Which illustrates my point nicely. The Church is impotent on the issue. They have lost their own flock. It's a competitive market out there for folks attention to sell things. How would you suggest going about making a difference in that?

As long as we have, as a national priority, becoming the most degenerate culture since Caligula, there's no way.

 

[Sweet Willy]

A media industry making a fortune on sex being able to sell has propaganda operates 24/7, the Church can't compete with that.

Which illustrates my point nicely. The Church is impotent on the issue. They have lost their own flock. It's a competitive market out there for folks attention to sell things. How would you suggest going about making a difference in that?

As long as we have, as a national priority, becoming the most degenerate culture since Caligula, there's no way.

I'm not sure I understand you.

Are you saying that you surrender?

 

[saveliberty]

I'm trying to parse that down a bit. Basically, you're saying that our Churches and religious institutions have failed so miserably at imparting their chastity values to their own people, that we now have a problem that has reached a government level debate on how the public interest is best served in this sphere.

Bottom line: The pill cost less than maternity leave or a c section. The Church is impotent to convince it's own followers not to have recreational sex and the government doesn't care, nor should it care, one way or the other. The insurance companies will ultimately hold sway and they will favor covering pills rather than pregnancies.

Given Ms. Fluke's intelligence level. Education was really an unneeded expense. Seven years of college at Georgetown is a nice house in the suburbs.

 

[Sweet Willy]

I'm trying to parse that down a bit. Basically, you're saying that our Churches and religious institutions have failed so miserably at imparting their chastity values to their own people, that we now have a problem that has reached a government level debate on how the public interest is best served in this sphere.

Bottom line: The pill cost less than maternity leave or a c section. The Church is impotent to convince it's own followers not to have recreational sex and the government doesn't care, nor should it care, one way or the other. The insurance companies will ultimately hold sway and they will favor covering pills rather than pregnancies.

Given Ms. Fluke's intelligence level. Education was really an unneeded expense. Seven years of college at Georgetown is a nice house in the suburbs.

I couldn't comment on Ms Fluke. I don't know her.