Convention junkies can obsess details here!

[Slap Shot]

Re: Convention junkies can obsess details here!

yes.

sherpaderp

Re: Convention junkies can obsess details here!

Fish - did you claim to be a liberal? Am I remembering that wrong?

[unofan]

Re: Convention junkies can obsess details here!

If you require me to pay for someone else to perform what I consider to be infanticide?

We require Quakers to pay for what they consider murder. Christian Scientists and Jehovah's Witnesses must pay for other people's blood transfusions even though they consider such procedures as defiling the human temple. The only difference is this one conflicts with your religion.

And again, no one is forcing anyone to use it, so your comparison with forced sterilization completely misses the mark.

[Kepler]

Re: Convention junkies can obsess details here!

I miss Bobo more, he trolled everyone equally even his fellow pinkos

I believe at least one of the current folks who posts laughable righty tirades is actually trolling the knucks, Colbert-style.

[FreshFish]

Re: Convention junkies can obsess details here!

C'mon guy, do you even try to think things through to their conclusions before you have an emotional outburst that the rest of us have to put up with?

yes. Do you?

[FreshFish]

Re: Convention junkies can obsess details here!

Same person, but those are two different arguments.

I disagree with your assertion that requiring all health insurers to cover birth control impacts anyone's religious morals. Such a mandate does not require one to use that particular feature of their health plan, and surely the truly religious will not. But requiring that option be available to the janitor who isn't a Catholic no more impacts the priest's freedom of religion than a Quaker's religious freedom is impacted by paying taxes to support a war he is morally opposed to, or a christian scientist being forced to subsidize blood transfusions for others. We all indirectly support causes we find reprehensible. It's called living in an open society.

If you require me to pay for someone else to perform what I consider to be infanticide? just because they don't feel that way doesn't change my morals. We're back at forced sterilization again. and I had hoped you'd be logical not emotional. oh well. you can't reason with emotion, by definition.

[Slap Shot]

Re: Convention junkies can obsess details here!

Um, you do realize that person following the logic that you and Scooby just articulated could just as easily argue that by sterilizing young women, we'd save even more money, right?

How, by importing babies to maintain the population and workforce? C'mon guy, do you even try to think things through to their conclusions before you have an emotional outburst that the rest of us have to put up with?

[unofan]

Re: Convention junkies can obsess details here!

If that were all you were advocating, then this conversation would have been over a real long time ago. As an employer, I want birth control coverage in my health plan because dealing with maternity leave and FMLA reporting is a hassle and it costs money, and two things I don't need at work are more hassle and more costs!.

Same person, but those are two different arguments.

I disagree with your assertion that requiring all health insurers to cover birth control impacts anyone's religious morals. Such a mandate does not require one to use that particular feature of their health plan, and surely the truly religious will not. But requiring that option be available to the janitor who isn't a Catholic no more impacts the priest's freedom of religion than a Quaker's religious freedom is impacted by paying taxes to support a war he is morally opposed to, or a christian scientist being forced to subsidize blood transfusions for others. We all indirectly support causes we find reprehensible. It's called living in an open society.

[FreshFish]

Re: Convention junkies can obsess details here!

I didn't see anything indicating saracsm, snark, etc. in there. A simple wink would've done, but I realize that some of the conservatives on this board don't consider that acceptable, so...

Also, I have never expressed support for mandating religious organizations to provide abortifacient methods or drugs. You should not assume support for the opposition based on pointing out ridiculous statements.

You are absolutely right in that I have no reason to link you personally with support for the HHS mandate. However, this thread is about the convention and that's one of the main reasons they had Sandra Fluke speaking, to soften the perception of the mandate by trying to turn it into something else.

and as for not giving any hint of sarcasm, wow! that just floors me! the idea is so outrageous that no one could ever believe it was actually proposed as a serious course of action, right?

hmm...well, maybe not. I forgot about the lesson of Jonathan Swift and A Modest Proposal. Back when England ruled Ireland, there was debate in Parliament about what to do with the Irish population, it was growing faster than the resources available to feed it (given the way the English used Ireland as a plantation in which half the produce was shipped out of the country by the English landlords, making it unavailable for the indigenous Irish to eat....). Anyway, Swift suggested that Irish babies be turned into snacks and suggested various ways to cook and serve them.

[FreshFish]

Re: Convention junkies can obsess details here!

we're not even advocating forced birth control. Merely that it should be an option covered by insurance.

If that were all you were advocating, then this conversation would have been over a real long time ago. As an employer, I want birth control coverage in my health plan because dealing with maternity leave and FMLA reporting is a hassle and it costs money, and two things I don't need at work are more hassle and more costs!



Perhaps I confused you with someone else? If so, then I apologize profusely. I thought I was responding to people who were in favor of the HHS mandate.

Many organizations that are fine with birth control are appalled by abortion. Set aside however you personally feel about that subject, and grant that their motivation is genuinely moral. The HHS mandate requires that all covered employers must offer abortifacients as part of their health plan. Hence my use of sterilization as a rhetorical device: the revulsion most of us rightly feel at that idea also is felt equally deeply by some people about being forced to participate in what they consider to be infanticide.

Huge difference. As a private employer, I like offering birth control; as an American I generally don't like government forcing people to act against their moral code.

[FadeToBlack&Gold]

Re: Convention junkies can obsess details here!

Yes, once we fix your post, you nailed it! The purpose of satire is to take something stupid another person said, and exaggerate it, in order to amplify just how stupid the original statement was. You knew that, right?

I didn't see anything indicating saracsm, snark, etc. in there. A simple wink would've done, but I realize that some of the conservatives on this board don't consider that acceptable, so...

Also, I have never expressed support for mandating religious organizations to provide abortifacient methods or drugs. You should not assume support for the opposition based on pointing out ridiculous statements.

[unofan]

Re: Convention junkies can obsess details here!

Um, you do realize that person following the logic that you and Scooby just articulated could just as easily argue that by sterilizing young women, we'd save even more money, right??

If women above the age of majorty want to choose that, isn't that the free market at work? Afterall, I can probably get my vasectomy covered by insurance if I decide to get one.

Or you somehow moving the goalposts yet again and somehow claiming that we're advocating forced sterilzation? I mean, comeon, we're not even advocating forced birth control. Merely that it should be an option covered by insurance.

[FreshFish]

Re: Convention junkies can obsess details here!

Given the interest in grandchildren that many parents and grandparents develop, not to mention the people in my age group (25-40) who want kids, how many do you think would endorse this move? You're [pointing out how Scooby and Unofan are] being ridiculous, and you know it.

Yes, once we fix your post, you nailed it! The purpose of satire is to take something stupid another person said, and exaggerate it, in order to amplify just how stupid the original statement was. You knew that, right?


As an aside, I just realized elsewhere how ridiculous some of this sounds when you put it into context. Lots of dental plans don't cover orthodontia, yet there was not a single kid with crooked teeth at the convention or testifying before Congress. Lots of health plans restrict chiropractic coverage, yet I haven't heard a single voice speak about how outrageously this omission makes victims out of people with scoliosis. From all accounts, Sandra Fluke has a pretty decent health plan, and like most health plans, there are various limits on coverage. Lots of people want their conditions covered more fully than they are. Even under PPACA there are limits on coverage, you still have to pay for aspirin and there are plenty of co-pays and deductibles and lists of drugs and treatments that will and will not be paid for !



There is far wider opposition to the mandate that abortifacients be covered than there is opposition to the mandate that birth control be covered. Many religious denominations that are perfectly fine with birth control staunchly oppose abortion. So it's okay for the government to insist that religious employers participate in something that they find morally repugnant, yet the idea of sterilization is abhorrent to you. Well, welcome to their shoes....maybe you learned a little bit about empathy, eh?

[Old Pio]

Re: Convention junkies can obsess details here!

And the Democrats are now firmly behind illegal immigration. During her speech last night (which you might have missed, because the networks certainly weren't going to show the pandering) Ms. Veliz referred to herself as an "American." And said she felt as much like an "American" as any of her neighbors. There's just that pesky business about citizenship, which is clearly just a technicality in the minds of today's Democrat party, so anxious are they to troll for votes in this emerging demographic. Not once in her speech did the young lady mention citizenship or express any desire to become one. After all, she feels just as "American" as any of her friends, so why bother?

Anti-Semitism and Illegal Aliens, a winning combination?

http://americanpowerblog.blogspot.co...speech-to.html

[FadeToBlack&Gold]

Re: Convention junkies can obsess details here!

Um, you do realize that person following the logic that you and Scooby just articulated could just as easily argue that by sterilizing young women, we'd save even more money, right?

Given the interest in grandchildren that many parents and grandparents develop, not to mention the people in my age group (25-40) who want kids, how many do you think would endorse this move? You're being ridiculous, and you know it.