# So, looks like Obama's got this one...



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

Romney ran pretty damn close, I'll give him credit there.

So, what's next? Well, I sure as hell hope Barry learns from how close this was and pursues a more centrist agenda.


----------



## Pentheos (Jun 30, 2008)

Why would he? He doesn't have to run for re-election again.


----------



## Hitch (Apr 25, 2012)

Time for the House to pull in the strings.


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

Jovan said:


> Romney ran pretty damn close, I'll give him credit there.
> 
> So, what's next? Well, I sure as hell hope Barry learns from how close this was and pursues a more centrist agenda.


If Romney couldnt win with this economy - he should pack it up and go back to the private sector. He is an embarrassment.

President Obama should do whatever the hell he wants to do.....he earned political capital and he should go spend it. Oh wait, someone else said that already didnt they? :biggrin:


----------



## TheBarbaron (Oct 8, 2010)

Pentheos said:


> Why would he? He doesn't have to run for re-election again.


I would argue: "Why wouldn't he? He doesn't have to run for re-election again." 
I think the President has always been a centrist at heart, and in many ways has had to run left now and again to keep the far left of my party appeased. I look forward (perhaps naively) to what I hope are four years of slightly left-leaning compromise and quiet social progress.


----------



## drlivingston (Jun 21, 2012)

TheBarbaron said:


> slightly left-leaning compromise and quiet social progress.


Have you been visiting one of those dispensaries?


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

I'll be honest, I was expecting a lot more bitching in this thread from the right leaning members. I'm almost... disappointed? 

But the commentary is welcome nonetheless.


----------



## Troglodyte (Sep 7, 2012)

Well, starting today, he has the flexibility to do what he wants.

We get the government we deserve.

Trog


----------



## drlivingston (Jun 21, 2012)

Troglodyte said:


> We get the government we deserve.


Alas, you are quite correct. We, as a nation, seem to fit the Dickensian Oliver Twist model... "Please, sir, I want some more."


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

I'm glad Obama won.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

Not 100% thrilled with every decision he made. But he's not the goddamn apocalypse. And the alternative, a man who is backwards thinking in every way, was much worse.


----------



## Snow Hill Pond (Aug 10, 2011)

Jovan said:


> Not 100% thrilled with every decision he made. But he's not the goddamn apocalypse. And the alternative, a man who is backwards thinking in every way, was much worse.


Why are you being a sore winner? Your guy won. Celebrate your victory, and please leave Mr Romney out of it.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

mrkleen said:


> If Romney couldnt win with this economy - he should pack it up and go back to the private sector. He is an embarrassment.
> 
> President Obama should do whatever the hell he wants to do.....he earned political capital and he should go spend it. Oh wait, someone else said that already didnt they? :biggrin:


I was under the impression that Obama had already spent or given away all there was to spend...and then more...much, much more! Last I heard, the Chinese pretty much own us at this point(?). 



Jovan said:


> Not 100% thrilled with every decision he made. But he's not the goddamn apocalypse. And the alternative, a man who is backwards thinking in every way, was much worse.


...but alas, he (Obama) is quickly leading us down a path leading to the apocalypse. I'm getting ready for that eventuality my friend and hope you and others are as well! :devil:


----------



## Snow Hill Pond (Aug 10, 2011)

eagle2250 said:


> ...but alas, he (Obama) is quickly leading us down a path leading to the apocalypse. I'm getting ready for that eventuality my friend and hope you and others are as well! :devil:


By getting ready for the apocalypse, you mean stocking up on BB OCBDs, Bill's Khakis, and a case or two of cabernet sauvignon, then I'm with you 100%. Anything more serious than that, please advise!


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

I guess the GOP strategy of waiting him out didn't go so well. Might actually have to work with the guy. Oh, what am I saying?


----------



## Snow Hill Pond (Aug 10, 2011)

CuffDaddy said:


> I guess the GOP strategy of waiting him out didn't go so well. Might actually have to work with the guy. Oh, what am I saying?


Mitch McConnell and Eric Cantor playing nice with Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi? I guess stranger things have happened.


----------



## drlivingston (Jun 21, 2012)

The bottom line is that the democrats were unified in their efforts to get their guy elected. Some republicans were wary of Romney being a mormon. While others were concerned about him being so firmly esconced in the 1%. The task of trying to get the republicans to come together behind any one candidate was tantamount to herding cats.


----------



## blue suede shoes (Mar 22, 2010)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> I'm glad Obama won.


Yes, everyone in Europe wanted Obama, in this election and in 2008. What is it you actually see in this guy?


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

eagle2250 said:


> I was under the impression that Obama had already spent or given away all there was to spend...and then more...much, much more! Last I heard, the Chinese pretty much own us at this point(?).


Economy is on the right track. Gay rights are expanding. Womens right are expanding. Universal Health Care is going full steam ahead. On pace to add 12 million jobs in next four year.

Clearly your impression is WRONG.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

mrkleen said:


> Economy is on the right track. Gay rights are expanding. Womens right are expanding. Universal Health Care is going full steam ahead. On pace to add 12 million jobs in next four year.
> 
> Clearly your impression is WRONG.


Women don't _already_ have equal rights in the USA? Now that I did not know......

I have to stick up for Eagle: China owns $1.15 trillion of U.S. government debt. The neologism Chimerica was created to describe this.


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

blue suede shoes said:


> Yes, everyone in Europe wanted Obama, in this election and in 2008. What is it you actually see in this guy?


In the political climate we have, the opposition comes off as very, very right wing. That generally makes Europeans uncomfortable.

And the republicans recently had George jr. He was a big package of unease for every other nation on the planet.

Perhaps there's also a general feeling that consistently working through armed intervention may be ineffective and cost more for the world in total than it delivers. War seems to have ever diminishing returns.


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

Shaver said:


> Women don't _already_ have equal rights in the USA? Now that I did not know......


This is about PAY equality Shaver. Surely you have heard that women still make 80 cents for every dollar their male counterparts make. From what I have read, the gap is even bigger in the UK


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

mrkleen said:


> This is about PAY equality Shaver. Surely you have heard that women still make 80 cents for every dollar their male counterparts make. From what I have read, the gap is even bigger in the UK


ah Sorry. Reading you post I thought you meant women's rights generally.

Hang on though, if by 'rights' you are speaking of 'pay', then that means you pay Gay people less in America? Wow.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Jovan said:


> Romney ran pretty damn close, I'll give him credit there.
> 
> So, what's next? Well, I sure as hell hope Barry learns from how close this was and pursues a more centrist agenda.


1) Without Virginia and Florida it was actually never close. That suprised me but the outcome did not. The lure of free stuff and envy is strong, Grasshopper!!

2) Fat chance!!


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

You are a prickly chap, aren't you, mrkleen?


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

Shaver said:


> ah Sorry. Reading you post I thought you meant women's rights generally.
> 
> Hang on though, if by 'rights' you are speaking of 'pay', then that means you pay Gay people less in America? Wow.


Someone from England bringing up gay rights......isnt that an oxymoron?


----------



## burnedandfrozen (Mar 11, 2004)

Unless I've been misinformed, the new jobs that are making the unemployment numbers look better then they actually are happen to be low wage part time jobs. So much for getting people off food stamps. Inflation is high, gas and electricity are at record highs, health care costs have gone up (I thought Obama Care was supposed to bring down healthcare costs). I also heard that Obama has new regulations for the oil industry which they claim will cause the at the pump price of gas to go even higher. Meanwhile, Iran is about to get their nuclear weapon program up and operational and given Obamas lack of support to Israel that can turn really bad really quickly. Given the fact that Obama had nothing to show for the last four years in the white house, during the debates he stated over and over he would stay the course if elected a second term. So as far as I can tell, it's another four years of the same old same old with the added bonus of Americas slow march into Socialism. Lucky us!


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

Balfour said:


> You are a prickly chap, aren't you, mrkleen?


Yes. Very.


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

WouldaShoulda said:


> 1) Without Virginia and Florida it was actually never close. That suprised me but the outcome did not. The lure of free stuff and envy is strong, Grasshopper!!


Must suck to be the smartest guy in the room....yet keep coming up short.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

mrkleen said:


> Someone from England bringing up gay rights......isnt that an oxymoron?


errr.... No. No, I don't think so.

Still, at any rate, you brought it up. I was just asking a polite question.


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

Shaver said:


> ah Sorry. Reading you post I thought you meant women's rights generally.


Well, women don't actually have completely equal rights in America. Women are not expressly guaranteed equal rights under the constitution, and courts have sometimes upheld laws that draw distinctions between men and women. And all you have to do is examine the political discourse surrounding reproductive rights to see instances of the state trying to exercise a lot of control over women that has no corresponding control/restriction on men. On the flip side, I believe several states still have laws favoring women in domestic relations/divorce/child custody disputes. And we do have laws forbiding employment discrimination against women for most employers.

As for the pay issue, while I am pretty liberal on issues of women's rights (the thought of someone stripping rights from my wife or daughter makes me very angry), I am quite skeptical of the data presented. There are a lot of gradations of "equal work," and, at least in white collar professions, the numbers can be skewed by a failure to account for women who (quite reasonably and within their rights) took time off to bear/raise children and who, therefore, have less experience and expertise than an otherwise-equivalent man who stayed in the workforce. I think it is a mistake to chalk the pay discrepancy up entirely or even predominantly to gender discrimination (though there's some of that in some environments, too).


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

CuffDaddy said:


> Well, women don't actually have completely equal rights in America. Women are not expressly guaranteed equal rights under the constitution, and courts have sometimes upheld laws that draw distinctions between men and women. And all you have to do is examine the political discourse surrounding reproductive rights to see instances of the state trying to exercise a lot of control over women that has no corresponding control/restriction on men. On the flip side, I believe several states still have laws favoring women in domestic relations/divorce/child custody disputes. And we do have laws forbiding employment discrimination against women for most employers.
> 
> As for the pay issue, while I am pretty liberal on issues of women's rights (the thought of someone stripping rights from my wife or daughter makes me very angry), I am quite skeptical of the data presented. There are a lot of gradations of "equal work," and, at least in white collar professions, the numbers can be skewed by a failure to account for women who (quite reasonably and within their rights) took time off to bear/raise children and who, therefore, have less experience and expertise than an otherwise-equivalent man who stayed in the workforce. I think it is a mistake to chalk the pay discrepancy up entirely or even predominantly to gender discrimination (though there's some of that in some environments, too).


Thank you CuffDaddy. Although legally there can be no discrimination in this country it is applied by some, not just in the workplace - I am also thinking of domestic servitude here. As you, I am very much opposed to gender inequality.

You make a sensible and valid point which is often left out of the salary inequality debate (indeed today's Times ran another article bandying around big numbers but without touching upon this effect) that of maternity.


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

mrkleen said:


> Someone from England bringing up gay rights......isnt that an oxymoron?


The Civil Partnerships Act 2004 provides legal protection equivalent to marriage for gay partners who enter into a civil partnership (including softer rights, like tax treatment, etc.) throughout the whole of the UK. How many American states provide equivalent protection?


----------



## Troglodyte (Sep 7, 2012)

CuffDaddy said:


> And all you have to do is examine the political discourse surrounding reproductive rights to see instances of the state trying to exercise a lot of control over women that has no corresponding control/restriction on men.


Wow--I thought it was supposed to be Right wingers who were "baby killers." At least, that's what the Left called my dad when he came home from Vietnam. Aborted children look just like regular ones, except that they're hacked to bits. Pictures illustrate the issue better than any prose. And the depression and increased breast cancer risk associated with abortion make it a clear public health problem, but not a useful one toward the Marxist goal of free love and destruction of the family.

Not very compassionate, CD.


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

Balfour said:


> The Civil Partnerships Act 2004 provides legal protection equivalent to marriage for gay partners who enter into a civil partnership (including softer rights, like tax treatment, etc.) throughout the whole of the UK. How many American states provide equivalent protection?


Its up to 9 states.....but not "equivalent to marriage" - full marriage rights and the ability to call it a marriage.


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

Troglodyte said:


> Wow--I thought it was supposed to be Right wingers who were "baby killers." At least, that's what the Left called my dad when he came home from Vietnam. Aborted children look just like regular ones, except that they're hacked to bits. Pictures illustrate the issue better than any prose. And the depression and increased breast cancer risk associated with abortion make it a clear public health problem, but not a useful one toward the Marxist goal of free love and destruction of the family.
> 
> Not very compassionate, CD.


In this thread alone - Democrats have been compared to Marxist and Socialist.

Can you guys make up your mind?


----------



## gaseousclay (Nov 8, 2009)

burnedandfrozen said:


> Unless I've been misinformed, the new jobs that are making the unemployment numbers look better then they actually are happen to be low wage part time jobs.


what's your source? I will concede that the jobs reports are a bit anemic, but they're getting better.



> So much for getting people off food stamps.


so you think helping those that truly need it is a bad thing? there were/are plenty of families that rely on foodstamps that were making a good living prior to the economic collapse. sounds like your making pretty broad generalisations about who these 'people' are.



> Inflation is high, gas and electricity are at record highs, health care costs have gone up (I thought Obama Care was supposed to bring down healthcare costs).


inflation will never go away and the last time I filled up at the pump gas prices had gone down. I seem to recall gas being at $4 a gallon when Bush was in office. I don't know about you but my healthcare costs are acceptable. When Obama made it against the law for healthcare providers to deny coverage based on a pre-existing condition this was a good thing. My wife benefitted from this. after my wife's first miscarriage the doctors discovered she had the beginnings of cervical cancer. the insurance tried to claim it was a pre-existing condition and make us foot the bill for the surgery. In the end our insurance covered the surgery because of Obamacare.



> I also heard that Obama has new regulations for the oil industry which they claim will cause the at the pump price of gas to go even higher.


again, from where i'm sitting gas prices have gone down in the last month.



> Meanwhile, Iran is about to get their nuclear weapon program up and operational and given Obamas lack of support to Israel that can turn really bad really quickly.


what lack of support? I seriously doubt Iran will get the chance to develop nuclear weapons. when that happens give me a call.



> Given the fact that Obama had nothing to show for the last four years in the white house, during the debates he stated over and over he would stay the course if elected a second term. So as far as I can tell, it's another four years of the same old same old with the added bonus of Americas slow march into Socialism. Lucky us!


nothing to show? He saved the auto industry, the housing market is coming back and the jobs numbers are up. He also killed Bin Laden, which Bush couldn't do in his 8 yrs of office. If Obama had done nothing I can assure you the economy would be much, much worse. The economy isn't perfect but the outrage coming from the Right is misplaced. Remember, the economy was already in the crapper before Obama took office, which means the Bush caused the recession to happen. People seem to have selective memory when it comes to this fact. Facts matter


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

mrkleen said:


> Its up to 9 states.....but not "equivalent to marriage" - full marriage rights and the ability to call it a marriage.


Over here the label is different, but that's the only legal difference. So would you accept that it's not quite so oxymoronic for a Limey to bring up gay rights?

(I have no particular horse in this race, but I would submit that there is more effective legal recognition of gay rights in this country than in the States. We also have comprehensive anti-discrimination legislation, the protected characteristics of which include sex and sexual orientation. I assume you guys also have that?)


----------



## Troglodyte (Sep 7, 2012)

CuffDaddy said:


> I am quite skeptical of the data presented. There are a lot of gradations of "equal work," and, at least in white collar professions, the numbers can be skewed by a failure to account for women who (quite reasonably and within their rights) took time off to bear/raise children and who, therefore, have less experience and expertise than an otherwise-equivalent man who stayed in the workforce. I think it is a mistake to chalk the pay discrepancy up entirely or even predominantly to gender discrimination (though there's some of that in some environments, too).


But you've correctly identified the data problems here. Again, fact is not important, perception is. And if you can convince a group to act as a tribe and vote for your side to correct some specious oppression, if you are a Democrat, you do it without blinking.

When you control for years worked and education, women make a few cents more than men, dollar-for-dollar. You have to really work to skew the data (such as treating a woman who took a hiatus to have children, or compare the median wage of ALL men working nationally to that of all women working nationally, not comparing they actual types of work) to "prove" otherwise. Women have also done much better at keeping their jobs during the Obama Recession than men have, thus far.

If a business owner could hire a women for 78% of the cost for an equally qualified man, why would he EVER hire ANY men? Or are businesses sacrificing their profits and hiring men and paying them more just oppress women? It defies even the faintest glimmer of rational thought.

The "War on Women" narrative was cynical, deceitful, and downright sexist in its assumptions about women and what they would fall for. But no matter. It was pushed hard, and despite the lack of affirmative evidence, it likely carried the day. The polling results will certainly be interesting.

In the US, we have the corrupt party and the stupid party. It can sometimes be a downer always voting for the stupid party, and watching it so deftly seize defeat from the jaws of victory (not the case yesterday--the Republicans got their clocks cleaned almost from day one.).

At least when I wake, I will have a nice plate of bacon and eggs, slip into a soft flannel suit, and have stimulating conversations with, wait, I'm still in Kandahar. Sigh.

Cordially,
Trog


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

mrkleen said:


> In this thread alone - Democrats have been compared to Marxist and Socialist.
> 
> Can you guys make up your mind?


It's not so inconsistent, is it? Both groups tend towards the harder end of the left.

Although I have to say that, whatever the faults of both American political parties, the Democrats would be firmly in the centreground of UK politics.


----------



## Troglodyte (Sep 7, 2012)

mrkleen said:


> In this thread alone - Democrats have been compared to Marxist and Socialist.
> 
> Can you guys make up your mind?


You admitted earlier in this thread that Socialism was your goal. How does socialism significantly differ from Marxism, or for that matter, from the failed Puritan experiment in 1620 that led to the first Thanksgiving?


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

It's very easy to see the effect in my profession.* In the law, it's not uncommon, particularly in medium and large firms doing business law, to pay attorneys based significantly upon their number of years out of law school. In fact, a lawyer who graduated from law school 5 years ago is commonly referred to as "a fifth-year." Two years out? "Second-year." And so on, up and down the line until at least partnership. Other factors are considered to one degree or another, but years out of school is probably the best predictor of compensation of young lawyers within a firm, and even across firms once relative sophistication of the work and geogrpahy and size of firm are taken into account.

That's all premised on one fifth-year lawyer having basically equivalent experience, and therefore basicalyl equivalent knowledge and expertise, as another fifth-year. It's not a great assumption, but it works well enough most of the time, and is easy to administer. But consider what happens when one fifth-year takes off 4 months for maternity leave, then works half-time for two years - all in all, that's still a pretty strong committment to career. At the end of 5 years, the associate who didn't take time off has 60 months of experience. The one who did has 44 months, which is about 73% of what the other attorney has. Even if those two are now working the same amount, can the firm really charge clients the same amount for their time? That's one way to get unequal pay for equal *quantities* of *present-day* work without any discrimination or bias.

Where it gets harder, in my view, is that compensation is generally a "stacking" number, with the starting point for any current compensation being prior compensation. What happens to the two lawyers above as they get older? By the time they're both 15 years out of school, the one who took time off is still down 14 months of experience... but that's only an 8% gap, rather than the ~30% gap at year 5. Is that material? Maybe, but not very. However, if their compensation has been driven primarily by percentage increases over prior years, that 30% disparity would remain. Now you *do* have very unequal pay for pretty equal work. No bias or animus at play, just math.

That's why, I conjecture, many successful and ambitious women have kids later in life. They know (intuitively or expressly) that the percentage loss of their value is less if it occurs later, and that disparities in value tend to get locked in for a _long _time.

As I said, it's easy to see once you understand what's happening. Agreeing on whether it's a problem, much less how to "fix" it.... that's hard.

* None of this is about my firm specifically, just a mechanism I see in the marketplace.


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

CuffDaddy said:


> It's very easy to see the effect in my profession.* In the law, it's not uncommon, particularly in medium and large firms doing business law, to pay attorneys based significantly upon their number of years out of law school. In fact, a lawyer who graduated from law school 5 years ago is commonly referred to as "a fifth-year." Two years out? "Second-year." And so on, up and down the line until at least partnership. Other factors are considered to one degree or another, but years out of school is probably the best predictor of compensation of young lawyers within a firm, and even across firms once relative sophistication of the work and geogrpahy and size of firm are taken into account.
> 
> That's all premised on one fifth-year lawyer having basically equivalent experience, and therefore basicalyl equivalent knowledge and expertise, as another fifth-year. It's not a great assumption, but it works well enough most of the time, and is easy to administer. But consider what happens when one fifth-year takes off 4 months for maternity leave, then works half-time for two years - all in all, that's still a pretty strong committment to career. At the end of 5 years, the associate who didn't take time off has 60 months of experience. The one who did has 44 months, which is about 73% of what the other attorney has. Even if those two are now working the same amount, can the firm really charge clients the same amount for their time? That's one way to get unequal pay for equal *quantities* of *present-day* work without any discrimination or bias.
> 
> ...


The foundation for any sensible debate on the subject. Great, informative and non-argumentative example, CD.


----------



## Troglodyte (Sep 7, 2012)

CuffDaddy said:


> As I said, it's easy to see once you understand what's happening. Agreeing on whether it's a problem, much less how to "fix" it.... that's hard.


There are other ways to address it, but if one simply allows freedom, the market corrects itself. Even the labor market. Otherwise, you get government drones like me dictating what "fair" is to each business I wish to manipulate.

But there's no power to be gained with freedom and markets.

Cordially,
Trog


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

Troglodyte said:


> You admitted earlier in this thread that Socialism was your goal. How does socialism significantly differ from Marxism, or for that matter, from the failed Puritan experiment in 1620 that led to the first Thanksgiving?


Yes, asking two people who do the same job to be paid the same salary is socialism....well said.

As for the rest, your best bet is to keep your head buried in the sand for 4 more years. Seems to be serving you well so far.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

CuffDaddy said:


> Now you *do* have very unequal pay for pretty equal work. No bias or animus at play, just math.


That may be so, but a dispassionate argument won't get the chicks to the polls, Baby!!


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Troglodyte said:


> Wow--I thought it was supposed to be Right wingers who were "baby killers." At least, that's what the Left called my dad when he came home from Vietnam. Aborted children look just like regular ones, except that they're hacked to bits. Pictures illustrate the issue better than any prose. And the depression and increased breast cancer risk associated with abortion make it a clear public health problem, but not a useful one toward the Marxist goal of free love and destruction of the family.
> 
> Not very compassionate, CD.


Hello Trog, I will try and be as gentle as possible in this a very volatile subject. Allow me to state at the outset that I strongly disapprove of abortion. Yet I strongly disapprove of 'pro-life' also. Please do forgive me if I am in error but your arguments have the whiff of the 'pro-life' about them. Abortion is a sad state of affairs and no mistake but allowing it to become entrenched in dogma and hysteria is of no benefit to the debate. Too many pro-lifers opinions are informed by basic scientific error and a larger number still by imagined moral superiority.

Emotion must be subdued to progress the situation.

Compassion? Ask Dr Gunn.


----------



## blue suede shoes (Mar 22, 2010)

gaseousclay said:


> what's your source? I will concede that the jobs reports are a bit anemic, but they're getting better.
> 
> so you think helping those that truly need it is a bad thing? there were/are plenty of families that rely on foodstamps that were making a good living prior to the economic collapse. sounds like your making pretty broad generalisations about who these 'people' are.
> 
> ...


I hope your memory serves you better on things other than gas prices. When GWB took office in 2001, the average gallon of regular gas cost $1.44, and when Bush left office in January 2009 the average price of a gallon was $1.79. There was no four dollar a gallon gas in the eight years that W occupied the White House. Obama has more than doubled gas prices in just four years, that is after you have taken into account that they have come down recently. Will he double them again in his second term? Of course, this is not surprising as his energy secretary said shortly after taking office that gas prices in the US should be higher, more like Europe's. Obama delivered very well in that area.

Putting the words "facts matter" in your last paragraph is an oxymoron if there ever was one. Just because the economy was in the crapper when W left office does not automatically mean that he caused the recession, or even had anything to do with it. That is a very naive assumption. A number of factors caused the credit crisis/recession of 2008, and George W. Bush was not one of them.


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

Troglodyte said:


> The "War on Women" narrative was cynical, deceitful, and downright sexist in its assumptions about women and what they would fall for. But no matter. It was pushed hard, and despite the lack of affirmative evidence, it likely carried the day. The polling results will certainly be interesting.


There I disagree. I certainly percieved the attacks on womens' sovreignty over their own bodies as being an attack on the freedom of my wife and daughter. If the GOP would learn to leave women control over their own bodies and stop expressing distaste for their being too many brown people in America these days, their other messages of limited government, fiscal restraint, etc., might do pretty well.

On a more conciliatory note - isn't it funny how members/supporters of both parties each think theirs is the stupid one?

And, as ever, thanks for being in Kandahar so that I don't have to be. It's appreciated.


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

Troglodyte said:


> There are other ways to address it, but if one simply allows freedom, the market corrects itself. Even the labor market.


That's a nice statement of faith. I'm not sure it's a statement of fact. Markets fail for all kinds of reasons, including plain old stupidity. Discriminating against black workers was irrational, but it undeniably happened until the law was changed to forbid it.

That said, not all market failures need intervention, nor am I really sure that the scenario I've described is a market failure. I'm not sure I could devise a regulation to fix the situation I described that would be a good one.


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

blue suede shoes said:


> I hope your memory serves you better on things other than gas prices. When GWB took office in 2001, the average gallon of regular gas cost $1.44, and when Bush left office in January 2009 the average price of a gallon was $1.79. There was no four dollar a gallon gas in the eight years that W occupied the White House.


Hmm, not sure that's right. In 2008 (prior to the election) there was a true gas shortage in Atlanta and other parts of the southeast. Gas was unavailable at _any_ price for several days, and when it began to appear, there was pricing that some called "gouging." Not trying to hang that on W (plenty of things that indisputably lie at his feet as the worst 2-term president in history), but I think you (or your sources) are cherry-picking two data points and suggesting that everything between them fell between those two points.


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

Troglodyte said:


> Wow--I thought it was supposed to be Right wingers who were "baby killers." At least, that's what the Left called my dad when he came home from Vietnam. Aborted children look just like regular ones, except that they're hacked to bits. Pictures illustrate the issue better than any prose. And the depression and increased breast cancer risk associated with abortion make it a clear public health problem, but not a useful one toward the Marxist goal of free love and destruction of the family.
> 
> Not very compassionate, CD.


We'll just have to disagree on this.

But my point remains. Whether the reasons are valid or not, the GOP wants to control what women do with their bodies. Most women take that kind of personally. That doesn't require any sort of statistical hocus-pocus or dishonesty.


----------



## srmd22 (Jun 30, 2009)

There is no "left" left in America. The right is just SO FAR to the right that everyone in the middle looks left, and the new middle is pretty right.

The republicans are a disaster, being run by a small vocal minority, the Tea Party, who couldn't care less about anything besides pushing there cult-like religious agenda onto the rest of the country, whether they want it or not. With these conditions, nothing will get done, unless the centrist republicans can somehow rest power back from the nutty tea party cult. It is this little cult that is the reason the economy is not recovering more quickly-- it has zero to do with BO's policies, which are the same as Clinton's, and not that much different from Reagan's (who raised taxes something like 12 times when he was in office), despite what the right-wingers will try to sell you.

The bank and auto bailouts, btw, were initiated by the republicans under our last president, and the right wingers trying to blame Obama for that is comical. He shares responsibility (and should be proud of it, as should the republicans), but it was not his idea.

Good luck with McConell, getting anything done in congress, because his hands are tied by the tea party, who will primary him if he even attempts to be reasonable.


----------



## Snow Hill Pond (Aug 10, 2011)

CuffDaddy said:


> There I disagree. I certainly percieved the attacks on womens' sovreignty over their own bodies as being an attack on the freedom of my wife and daughter. If the GOP would learn to leave women control over their own bodies...


Sorry, CD, I respect your opinion, but I cannot let this statement stand as a fact without supporting evidence. I certainly thought the "War on Women" was a cynical (and successful) strategy by the Democrats. However, I never thought it was grounded in fact. What did you see from Romney that I did not?


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

^^(reference CuffDaddy's post #52)
LOL. But CuffDaddy, are you saying that those same women expecting their govt. subsidized health insurance to pay for their contraceptives is a reasonable expectation? If so, I guess 'gone are the good old days when we were over-sexed high school students, sneeking into Mr. Eckert's Drug Store and with great hesitation and embarrassment, buying the cheapest rubbers they offered for the big weekends we had planned! Should I write the White House and see if they will reimburse me for that $1.79 expense? Seems like the only fair thing to do.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

blue suede shoes said:


> Yes, everyone in Europe wanted Obama, in this election and in 2008. What is it you actually see in this guy?


A forward thinking social democrat, whose medical care ideas are pretty much standard in most of Europe, but which backward thinking "I'm alright jack" American Republicans kicked into touch.

There is no parliamentary party or opposition in western Europe, that I can think of, that is so obviously so capitalist in nature as the Republicans, that is why the vast majority of Europeans have traditioanlly supported the US Democrats and continue to do so.


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

Snow Hill Pond said:


> Sorry, CD, I respect your opinion, but I cannot let this statement stand as a fact without supporting evidence. I certainly thought the "War on Women" was a cynical (and successful) strategy by the Democrats. However, I never thought it was grounded in fact. What did you see from Romney that I did not?


I saw "GOP" next to his name. Look at the GOP platform.


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

eagle2250 said:


> ^^(reference CuffDaddy's post #52)
> LOL. But CuffDaddy, are you saying that those same women expecting their govt. subsidized health insurance to pay for their contraceptives is a reasonable expectation? If so, I guess 'gone are the good old days when we were over-sexed high school students, sneeking into Mr. Eckert's Drug Store and with great hesitation and embarrassment, buying the cheapest rubbers they offered for the big weekends we had planned! Should I write the White House and see if they will reimburse me for that $1.79 expense? Seems like the only fair thing to do.


When women knew their place was in the kitchen and not the voting booth, when blacks drank from separate water fountains, and gays were forced to live in the shadows. Ah the good old days.


----------



## gaseousclay (Nov 8, 2009)

blue suede shoes said:


> Putting the words "facts matter" in your last paragraph is an oxymoron if there ever was one. Just because the economy was in the crapper when W left office does not automatically mean that he caused the recession, or even had anything to do with it. That is a very naive assumption. A number of factors caused the credit crisis/recession of 2008, and George W. Bush was not one of them.


sounds like revisionist history on your part. Bush came into office in 2000 with a budget surplus (because of Clinton) and squandered it all on two wars. If you throw the Bush Tax Cuts for the wealthy and deregulation into the mix you've got a recipe for disaster. Oh, wait a minute, there was a disaster before Obama was sworn in as President. The economy was hemorrhaging hundreds of thousands of jobs before Obama came into office. How is this not Bush's fault?


----------



## Troglodyte (Sep 7, 2012)

I'll accept that the abortion issue is a bit too emotionally charged for this forum. I was treated to a photo this morning of an aborted child, decapitated, and as father of five girls, it has stayed with me. I have heard nobody suggest that women should not have control over their own bodies, it the bodies of these (mostly black) babies that bother me. I'll not engage further on this because I see it as a clear moral issue and that does not, as Shaver has pointed out, lend itself to good discussion.



CuffDaddy said:


> On a more conciliatory note - isn't it funny how members/supporters of both parties each think theirs is the stupid one?


As on the policy issues, I am sure the evidence supports me. I'll offer Bush, McCain, and Romney as my first three exhibits, but they're just the beginning... :icon_smile:



CuffDaddy said:


> And, as ever, thanks for being in Kandahar so that I don't have to be. It's appreciated.


With the right group of people, most places can be fun. Like Ranger school, this is something I am happy to have done, and have no plans to do again. Thanks for the support--it means a lot.

Best,
Trog


----------



## arkirshner (May 10, 2005)

Today in Ohio, the most fiercely contested turf of the campaign, the most common reaction is a sense of relief that is is over. Those of you who do not live in a swing state have been blessed in that the conflict really has passed you by. Since the winner in your states was determined by the makeup of your electorate before the campaign neither campaign had a reason to carpet bomb you with what often was false and scurrilous carpet bomb advertising and phone calls. Here the intensity was such that one could hardly even discuss politics even with one's extended family without civility soon disappearing. in a hyperbolic analogy, today in Ohio it is like coming out of the trenches on Nov. 12, 1918.

It is now over. That the President and Gov. Christie could come together to deal with a problem shows that it is possible to get things done. 
The speeches of both protagonists were certainly gracious. While it may be naive to thing that gridlock will change there is always hope, even if it turns out to be a fleeting illusion.


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

eagle2250 said:


> ^^(reference CuffDaddy's post #52)
> LOL. But CuffDaddy, are you saying that those same women expecting their govt. subsidized health insurance to pay for their contraceptives is a reasonable expectation?


That's a separate issue, or was until some congressional republicans and their official cheerleaders took the position that women wanting access to the means of controlling their reproductive status meant that they were promiscuous.

A disagreement about whether birth control ought to be covered under health plans (as old dudes' boner pills are) is just a policy disagreement, though I think an easy one. The costs of birth control are far outweighed by the costs (to society and taxpayers) of unwanted pregnancies. "Reasonable expectation" isn't really a relevant point - the question is whether we're better off with or without that policy. Seems an easy call to me.

The war on women has to do with things like trans-vaginal ultrasound prerequisites to an early-term abortion, waiting periods, etc. But telling women that they should have to pay for birth control while guys get coverage for their boner pills does create an inference that some just don't care about what women want.


----------



## alkydrinker (Apr 24, 2012)

CuffDaddy said:


> We'll just have to disagree on this.
> 
> But my point remains. Whether the reasons are valid or not, the GOP wants to control what women do with their bodies. Most women take that kind of personally. That doesn't require any sort of statistical hocus-pocus or dishonesty.


The argument of the pro-lifers is that pro-abortionists want to control what is done to _babies' bodies. _And, this control is exerted in a much more extreme and negative way than any woman's body is "controlled" by anti-abortion laws.

Having said that, I will reveal that I am an extreme Ron Paulist libertarian and actually somewhat undecided on the abortion issue. I very much see the wrong of abortion and the point of pro-lifers, but recognize the real world consequences if it were outlawed. I like Ron Paul's approach of overturning Roe and turning it back to the states. That way, conservative states could outlaw it and liberal states would not. A more natural balance would result, abortions would probably be reduced at the margin but not be out of reach for any woman determined to get one, and the political rancor over the issue would be reduced several notches.

Another related thing I can not stand about current left agenda is that they want to essentially monopolize healthcare (if not outright then through mandates), then when someone says a private health insurance company should be allowed to offer a plan that doesn't cover contraception, that person is now categorically _against _contraception and worse yet, against "womens reproductive rights."

Say what???? I am merely prompoting economic liberty by saying a company can offer whatever product they want to a willing buyer of that product. Manufacturers of contraception retain that same right in the marketplace. It is just complete demagoguery and distortion. The fact that it is working to some extent speaks to the stupidity of today's people and is indicative of a very dangerous mindset that rights are defined as material things given to you through government. The mindset is now if you personally favor Thing X it's time to get a lobbying group together to get the government to subsidize/provide Thing X and if you are personally against Thing Y you think the government needs to outlaw Thing Y.

I think the slight-of-hand by the left on a meta-level is to undermine the bounties that emerge through personal and economic freedom, make people dependant, and convince them that "see, if it wasn't for government you'd be starving on the street."


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

alkydrinker said:


> The argument of the pro-lifers is that pro-abortionists want to control what is done to _babies' bodies. _And, this control is exerted in a much more extreme and negative way than any woman's body is "controlled" by anti-abortion laws.


I am aware of this argument, as are women. Everyone has to decide how valid they think this argument is, but no matter how strong you think it is, it does not change the fact that policies designed to protect fetuses must necessarily go through the liberty of a thinking, feeling woman. And some women - a majority - have decided that ain't so great. You can disagree with that calculus, but it's not disingenuous in any way to consider that a "war on women," or on their rights. The argument you raise (if you believe it and weight it heavily) just makes that war justified.

The rest of your post is legitimate policy argunment. As someone with a strong libertarian streak, I have great sympathy for those views. Unfortunately, I think the world works in complicated and sometimes counter-intuitive ways. There is no ideology that will consistently produce optimal results. Or at least none that I've ever heard/seen.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

Snow Hill Pond said:


> By getting ready for the apocalypse, you mean stocking up on BB OCBDs, Bill's Khakis, and a case or two of cabernet sauvignon, then I'm with you 100%. Anything more serious than that, please advise!


LOL. Indeed, we must keep our sartorial and gastronomical priorities in order. However, unfortunately a whole series of presidential administrations (both Democrat and Republican) have proven woefully ineffective in dealing with Iran and their efforts to acquire nuclear weapons. I have little faith in the present administrations ability to prevent such and can easily envision the situation in the Middle East going "to hell in a handcart" in very short order. Nuclear deterrence worked amazingly well for a surprising number of years, when only (essentially) reasonable men and women/nations were members of a very exclusive fraternity. We already have a couple of questionable members in that club and the Iranians have consistently proven themselves to be extremist religious zealots and political nut balls. We started walking this path to potential catastrophe when President Carter failed to effectively deal with the hostage situation and we could very easily find ourselves at a nuclear flash point as Iran nears the achievement of an objective that they so earnestly deny, but so fervently pursue. It is far too easy to imagine finding ourselves in a nuclear conflict and frankly, we have all lost at that point! Realistically one can never adequately prepare for that, but we all must try!

Step #1. Pick up a Bible and read it! Live a good life and do well by others.
Step #2. Lay in emergency food stores sufficient for at least a year! Costco is but one source for such.
Step #3. Buy an emergency generator and fuel stores. Learn how to operate it.
Step #4. Prepare yourselves to defend hearth and home. The key is to be just a little better prepared than the next guy. If you are, you will make it and he might not!
Step #5. If all else fails, I'll see you all in Hell boys!  ....and in the distance we hear the sound of maniacal laughter, as light dims to darkness!


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

alkydrinker said:


> The argument of the pro-lifers is that pro-abortionists want to control what is done to _babies' bodies. _And, this control is exerted in a much more extreme and negative way than any woman's body is "controlled" by anti-abortion laws.


I am aware of this argument, as are women. Everyone has to decide how valid they think this argument is, but no matter how strong you think it is, it does not change the fact that policies designed to protect fetuses must necessarily go through the liberty of a thinking, feeling woman. And some women - a majority - have decided that ain't so great. You can disagree with that calculus, but it's not disingenuous in any way to consider that a "war on women," or on their rights. The argument you raise (if you believe it and weight it heavily) just makes that war justified.

The rest of your post is legitimate policy argument. As someone with a strong libertarian streak, I have great sympathy for those views. Unfortunately, I think the world works in complicated and sometimes counter-intuitive ways. There is no ideology that will consistently produce optimal results. Or at least none that I've ever heard/seen.

P.S. I like Ron Paul. Don't want him as president, but think he's a valuable voice in the national discourse. I wish he had more sway over the GOP.


----------



## Snow Hill Pond (Aug 10, 2011)

CuffDaddy said:


> I saw "GOP" next to his name. Look at the GOP platform.


Thank you. So are you saying that every Republican agrees 100% with the GOP platform? And every Democrat agrees 100% with the Democratic platform?


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

eagle2250 said:


> We started walking this path to potential catastrophe when President Carter failed to effectively deal with the hostage situation and we could very easily find ourselves at a nuclear flash point as Iran nears the accomplishment of the objective that they so earnestly deny, but so fervently pursue.


Actually, it goes back to the corporate colonial activities of British Petroleum and the Brits, and then America's intervention to depose a left-leaning (but not communist) popular government. Everything after that has been unfortunate blowback.

And while I share your concerns regarding Iran, it's easy to say "all our previous enemies were sane, this one is crazy and requires different treatment." In fact, it's so easy, we say it about almost every adversary we've faced! At least where I grew up, most people did *NOT* concede that the ruski-commies were rational; they were bent on world revolution, remember?


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

Snow Hill Pond said:


> Thank you. So are you saying that every Republican agrees 100% with the GOP platform? And every Democrat agrees 100% with the Democratic platform?


Nope; I was being a little flip. But when you express views that are consistent with the platform, then that matters. And when the vast majority of your party is pursuing a particular aim, and you're in charge, and you don't disclaim it, that matters. The GOP has committed very heavily to the "pro-life" position. Romney, once a very sensible libertarian on this matter (he didn't like it, but wasn't going to use the force of government to coerce others to his view), talked at length about how he his position had evolved, and climbed fully into bed with the religious conservatives.


----------



## Snow Hill Pond (Aug 10, 2011)

eagle2250 said:


> LOL. Indeed, we must keep our sartorial and gastronomical priorities in order. However, unfortunately a whole series of presidential administrations (both Democrat and Republican) have proven woefully ineffective in dealing with Iran and their efforts to acquire nuclear weapons. I have little faith in the present administrations ability to prevent such and can easily envision the situation in the Middle East going "to hell in a handcart" in very short order. Nuclear deterrence worked amazingly well for a surprising number of years, when only (essentially) reasonable men and women/nations were members of a very exclusive fraternity. We already have a couple of questionable members in that club and the Iranians have consistently proven themselves to be extremist religious zealots and political nut balls. We started walking this path to potential catastrophe when President Carter failed to effectively deal with the hostage situation and we could very easily find ourselves at a nuclear flash point as Iran nears the accomplishment of the objective that they so earnestly deny, but so fervently pursue. It is far too easy to imagine finding ourselves in a nuclear conflict and frankly, we have all lost at that point!


By more serious, I was hoping you were going to say that we should be buying gold instead of silver. I wonder if it's too late to ask for a geiger counter for Christmas?


----------



## Snow Hill Pond (Aug 10, 2011)

CuffDaddy said:


> Nope; I was being a little flip. But when you express views that are consistent with the platform, then that matters. And when the vast majority of your party is pursuing a particular aim, and you're in charge, and you don't disclaim it, that matters. The GOP has committed very heavily to the "pro-life" position. Romney, once a very sensible libertarian on this matter (he didn't like it, but wasn't going to use the force of government to coerce others to his view), talked at length about how he his position had evolved, and climbed fully into bed with the religious conservatives.


Fair enough. Thank you.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

CuffDaddy said:


> That's a separate issue, or was until some congressional republicans and their official cheerleaders took the position that women wanting access to the means of controlling their reproductive status meant that they were promiscuous.
> 
> A disagreement about whether birth control ought to be covered under health plans (as old dudes' boner pills are) is just a policy disagreement, though I think an easy one. The costs of birth control are far outweighed by the costs (to society and taxpayers) of unwanted pregnancies. "Reasonable expectation" isn't really a relevant point - the question is whether we're better off with or without that policy. Seems an easy call to me.
> 
> The war on women has to do with things like trans-vaginal ultrasound prerequisites to an early-term abortion, waiting periods, etc. But telling women that they should have to pay for birth control while guys get coverage for their boner pills does create an inference that some just don't care about what women want.


ROFALOL. Well just let the record show that we "manly" Hoosier men don't ever have the need for "boner pills." We do things the natural way! So whatever are you referring to, Suh? 

PS: On a more serious note, I really was not aware that such pills were covered by health insurance and if such is the case, your argument, CuffDaddy, makes a lot of sense.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

Snow Hill Pond said:


> By more serious, I was hoping you were going to say that we should be buying gold instead of silver. I wonder if it's too late to ask for a geiger counter for Christmas?


Nah!! Don't waste your money on a geiger counter...the EMP (electro-magnetic pulse) from the blast will, in all probability, render it inoperable. Just, when someone comes knocking at your door, take a look at them to see if they have a soft green glow about them, before opening the door. If they glow, don't open that door!


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

eagle2250 said:


> ROFALOL. Well just let the record show that we "manly" Hoosier men don't ever have the need for "boner pills." We do things the natural way! So whatever are you referring to, Suh?


Alls I know is that the TV shows I like must do very well with the 50+ male demographic, 'cause I see about one ad for Cialis or Viagra every 20 minutes when I watch TV. I begrudge no man his boner, but are there really limp-wienered men at this juncture who are unaware of the availability of these products?


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

CuffDaddy said:


> A disagreement about whether birth control ought to be covered under health plans (as old dudes' boner pills are) is just a policy disagreement, though I think an easy one.


While I agree with your premise, there is a false equality in boner pills for geezers vs. BCP for women.

Bober pills restore men to a healthy, natural, fertile state whereas BCP inhibit a natural, healthy and fertile state in women.

They are not the same; they are not even similar.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

alkydrinker said:


> I think the slight-of-hand by the left on a meta-level is to undermine the bounties that emerge through personal and economic freedom, make people dependant, and convince them that "see, if it wasn't for government you'd be starving on the street."


...and don't forget, spending is investing!!


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

I am aware of this argument. It's not clear to me why it matters. Who cares whether pregnancy is a "natural" or "unnatural" state? The "natural state" for most of us is dead-as-an-infant as a result of pathogenic disease. That doesn't stop us from covering antibiotics.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

Right, so women shouldn't have birth control pills covered which are also used to treat ovarian cysts, excessive bleeding during menstruation, etc.? I'm sorry, but if men can have their Viagra covered, women should have their birth control covered. This isn't rocket science. Fair is fair.



Snow Hill Pond said:


> By getting ready for the apocalypse, you mean stocking up on BB OCBDs, Bill's Khakis, and a case or two of cabernet sauvignon, then I'm with you 100%. Anything more serious than that, please advise!


That sounds like a great idea, and a good excuse as I'm pretty sure there's going to be no Obamacalypse.



Snow Hill Pond said:


> Why are you being a sore winner? Your guy won. Celebrate your victory, and please leave Mr Romney out of it.


Not being a sore winner. I just realistically know Obama's shortcomings and hope he overcomes them.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

CuffDaddy said:


> We'll just have to disagree on this.
> 
> But my point remains. Whether the reasons are valid or not, the GOP wants to control what women do with their bodies. Most women take that kind of personally. That doesn't require any sort of statistical hocus-pocus or dishonesty.


That is one way of looking at it, Cuff. But it would be fairer to say that the GOP wants to protect the lives of unborn human beings, the weakest and most innocent among us, and this requires placing limits on what women can do with their bodies once they are carrying another human inside them. The object is manifestly *not* to control women's bodies. While a woman's bodily integrity is certainly a value, so are other values, including the bodily integrity of the unborn child. Resolution of these types of competing values is what the democratic process is for. Instead 40 years ago the Supreme Court trumped that process by fabricating a consitutional right. Like Dred Scott. it was cynical cheating of the highest order.


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

WouldaShoulda said:


> They are not the same; they are not even similar.


You are right. One is a recreational drug with no medical necessity and the other has actual medical benefits


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

Mike Petrik said:


> That is one way of looking at it, Cuff. But it would be fairer to say that the GOP wants to protect the lives of unborn human beings, the weakest and most innocent among us, and this requires placing limits on what women can do with their bodies once they are carrying another human inside them. The object is manifestly *not* to control women's bodies. While a woman's bodily integrity is certainly a value, so are other values, including the bodily integrity of the unborn child. Resolution of these types of competing values is what the democratic process is for. Instead 40 years ago the Supreme Court trumped that process by fabricating a consitutional right. Like Dred Scott. it was cynical cheating of the highest order.


We'll never get to agreement on the issue of abortion, Mike, and I hope that's OK. You see a fetus as a child who just hasn't been born yet. I see a fetus - prticularly an early gestation one - as more akin to an acorn than an oak tree; a potential person, but not a person yet. And reasonable people can disagree on that. But the personhood of the woman carrying the fetus is indisputable (barring some Terri Schiavo-type scenario). I'm generally reluctant to see the clear rights of one person *substantially* trammeled to protect the possible rights of another.

As for the motives of the GOP being protection of the fetus, I'm sure that's true for some. But the purpose does not eliminate the means. That's like arguing that we didn't really invade Iraq _because_ we were trying to depose Saddam. Whether that was the motive or not, and whether that was _casus belli_ or not, we did in fact invade. And when we tell women that they are not allowed to have an abortion, then we are, in fact, denying them control over their bodies and temporarily comandeering them in the name of the state's interest in a fetus. That may or may not be justified, but let's be clear: it *is* controlling women's bodies.

The jurisprudence of Roe is a whole 'nother discussion. Suffice it to say, I find more than enough support in the 9th amendment for things like abortion, the right to privacy generally, etc. I think the Supreme Court has made the law in those areas more complex than necessary, but the result has often been right-ish. JMHO, of couse.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

CuffDaddy said:


> I am aware of this argument. It's not clear to me why it matters. Who cares whether pregnancy is a "natural" or "unnatural" state? The "natural state" for most of us is dead-as-an-infant as a result of pathogenic disease. That doesn't stop us from covering antibiotics.


Fortunately, no one was talking about covering antibiotics, only false equivalence!!


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Jovan said:


> I'm sorry, but if men can have their Viagra covered, women should have their birth control covered. This isn't rocket science. Fair is fair.


Would covering neither be even more "fair??"


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

WouldaShoulda said:


> Fortunately, no one was talking about covering antibiotics, only false equivalence!!


Come on, you're not that daft are you? Your argument for the *falsity* of the equivalence was that one sought a "natural" state and the other an "unnatural" state. I gave an example from a different context because I thought it would be more entertaining, but if you can't follow the logic across one analogic translation, I'll dumb it down:

The "natural" state for old men is impotence. Why in the world would I care about what is "natural"?

Were you able to track that?


----------



## Apatheticviews (Mar 21, 2010)

WouldaShoulda said:


> Would covering neither be even more "fair??"


Having both on the "discounted schedule" would be fair. You go in and be able to get it as part of your plan and pay your co-pay. If the each medicine is on a specific type of schedule (a level - $15, B level - $30, c level - $45) that's fine too.

The pharmaceutical company doesn't care. The insurance company doesn't care. Only the *employer *cares*. *Unfortunately (fortunately), my medical decisions are none of my employer's business. I'm sorry, but if my employer can't discriminate against me on religious grounds, why can they use said religious grounds to modify my health coverage, hence creating discrimination?

Now don't get me wrong, I don't want government mandated insurance. But when I negotiate my compensation (pay & benefits), you can be sure I am looking at insurance. That's why websites like Glassdoor exist.


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

WouldaShoulda said:


> Would covering neither be even more "fair??"


I don't know whether it would be fair, but it wouldn't be a war on women. It might be a war on bizness time.


----------



## dba (Oct 22, 2010)

I think history will show that in the presidential election of 2012, the people voted for whom they thought sucked less. I know I did.


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

dba said:


> I think history will show that in the presidential election of 2012, the people voted for whom they thought sucked less. I know I did.


Distinguishing this election from others in what way?


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

Jovan said:


> .......
> ..........
> That sounds like a great idea, and a good excuse as I'm pretty sure there's going to be no Obamacalypse.
> 
> ......


Ahh yes, youthful cynicism combined with unbridled optimism! My friend, I will be praying you are right in your assumptions, but am also inclined to bet that you will be proven wrong!


----------



## drlivingston (Jun 21, 2012)

So, do you guys think that Alabama is going to win again this weekend?


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

Yep, y'all got this all the way to/through the end.


----------



## drlivingston (Jun 21, 2012)

Sorry for the abrupt subject change. I felt a little comic détente was in order.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

CuffDaddy said:


> We'll never get to agreement on the issue of abortion, Mike, and I hope that's OK. You see a fetus as a child who just hasn't been born yet. I see a fetus - prticularly an early gestation one - as more akin to an acorn than an oak tree; a potential person, but not a person yet. And reasonable people can disagree on that. But the personhood of the woman carrying the fetus is indisputable (barring some Terri Schiavo-type scenario). I'm generally reluctant to see the clear rights of one person *substantially* trammeled to protect the possible rights of another.
> 
> As for the motives of the GOP being protection of the fetus, I'm sure that's true for some. But the purpose does not eliminate the means. That's like arguing that we didn't really invade Iraq _because_ we were trying to depose Saddam. Whether that was the motive or not, and whether that was _casus belli_ or not, we did in fact invade. And when we tell women that they are not allowed to have an abortion, then we are, in fact, denying them control over their bodies and temporarily comandeering them in the name of the state's interest in a fetus. That may or may not be justified, but let's be clear: it *is* controlling women's bodies.
> 
> The jurisprudence of Roe is a whole 'nother discussion. Suffice it to say, I find more than enough support in the 9th amendment for things like abortion, the right to privacy generally, etc. I think the Supreme Court has made the law in those areas more complex than necessary, but the result has often been right-ish. JMHO, of couse.


You are wrong, Cuff. I think I can convince you, just over drinks rather than an Internet forum.


----------



## dba (Oct 22, 2010)

CuffDaddy said:


> Distinguishing this election from others in what way?


True that! Nothing distinguished about it.


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

Mike Petrik said:


> You are wrong, Cuff. I think I can convince you, just over drinks rather than an Internet forum.


It is about time for another round, isn't it?


----------



## Troglodyte (Sep 7, 2012)

WouldaShoulda said:


> Would covering neither be even more "fair??"


Covering neither would be the correct market solution. Insurance is about risk pooling.

Forcing companies at gunpoint (all governmental dictates have force implied to sanction noncompliance) to cover recreational contraception, preexisting conditions, and routine checkups makes the concept and business model for "insurance" meaningless.

Pay for your own condoms. Plan ahead a little and budget for your checkups. When this happens, prices fall as companies compete for your business, as they did with lasik. When the government forces its way into the discussion and orders everybody to provide services that make no sense, pandering to favored groups, they distort the market and prices shoot through the roof. Then when a government-distorted market collapses, the less astute among us proclaim "See! A market failure! We need MORE government intervention!"

Markets are simply freely chosen transactions between free individuals. Arranged this way, the markets rapidly and without government assistance send capital to the places where it is most valued by society. The resources will be allocated one way or another. Free individuals making the choices versus an underinformed or biased government doing so is is a better way to arrange an economy, if you value freedom and prosperity.

Almost all of it fixes itself, efficiently and inexpensively, when the government is kept out of the way. A century ago when the Constitution was supreme law of the land, it set the conditions for prosperity and innovation unknown anywhere else in the world. That's why a government-funded Swedish health care system is not the choice of anybody on the planet with an unusual or difficult- to-treat illness. Governments simply do not create innovative solutions.

So, fire all the government drones? Not quite. Somebody should be acting as referee, but NOT choosing the winners (GM, green energy subsidies, which were actually just payoffs to political allies anyway). There are people the markets leave behind, or are statistical outliers who need real help. What of the couple whose child is born with severe birth defects? Health insurance isn't the answer here. What about everybody else with pre-existing conditions? This is the proper role of a government that wishes for a just, prosperous society. NOT paying for the condoms of the parade of men who march through Georgetown Law students' bedrooms. Let those guys ante up their own $2.25 for condoms.

OK, my work is done here. My better-dressed contemporaries now understand the superior American free market system. Off to the gym! Preventive health maintenance, provided by my employer to get me to work for him--free market triumphs again.

Trog


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

So when my friend's doctor writes a prescription for a birth control pill that will control her excessive menstrual bleeding, we should just tell her to suck it up and pay when it's _clearly prescribed for a medical issue_? Birth control can be up to $270 for a three month supply.


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

Troglodyte said:


> Covering neither would be the correct market solution. Insurance is about risk pooling.
> 
> Forcing companies at gunpoint (all governmental dictates have force implied to sanction noncompliance) to cover recreational contraception, preexisting conditions, and routine checkups makes the concept and business model for "insurance" meaningless.
> 
> ...


Yes. Youre healthcare system sure screams superior. 

Being a bit neolib myself I get a little queasy when people apply general market theory to healthcare. You do understand that being really sick removes the most basic ability to act as a **** economicus in regards to offered services?

Social security is a conservative idea from the start. It has nothing to do with socialism. I'm sure that is on Wikipedia somewhere. I'm not sure you understand "risk pooling" in this context.

The over application of market theory to healthcare, which hasn't really worked out that well, is probably a factor in why young people, poor people, black people and Latinos turned up to vote in such large numbers in the recent election. Given that that will be recurring, and I'd bet it will be, that changes the political climate a lot.

As for birth control and abortion, it's amazing how certain some people are that the government should be limited and restricted so that everybody's personal freedoms are not inhibited in any way. Right up to the point where there neighbor gets pregnant. Then it's everybody's business.

I've always though women's rights to abort should be protected. We've made up all the other rights, and as society progresses, I don't see why we shouldn't add that one as well.


----------



## Troglodyte (Sep 7, 2012)

Jovan said:


> So when my friend's doctor writes a prescription for a birth control pill that will control her excessive menstrual bleeding, we should just tell her to suck it up and pay when it's _clearly prescribed for a medical issue_? Birth control can be up to $270 for a three month supply.


Is that a recreational prescription, or a medically necessary one? Medically necessary prescriptions should be covered by insurance, in my opinion.

But why should this be left up to AAAC posters, or to hack politicians? If there is profit in providing the coverage, somebody will step up and provide it. If not, the costs will be forced down, and THEN it will become profitable and somebody will step up and provide it. All without government interference.

Don't they teach this stuff in High School any more?

Cordially,
Trog


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

I think we can discuss this without you implying that my education was subpar, don't you agree?

But I'm glad you agree that medically necessary prescriptions of birth control pills (which are basically being used as hormone pills in those cases) should be covered by insurance.


----------



## Troglodyte (Sep 7, 2012)

Bjorn said:


> Yes. Youre healthcare system sure screams superior.
> .


Yep, that's why when people from all over the world get really sick and they have the means, they fly to Sweden for the newest, most innovative treatments.



Bjorn said:


> Being a bit neolib myself I get a little queasy when people apply general market theory to healthcare. You do understand that being really sick removes the most basic ability to act as a **** economicus in regards to offered services?.


Cool. 'Cause full-blown libs are queasy EVERY time market theory is applied anywhere. One should not purchase insurance when sick. You do that before you get sick. It is a fact that some things cannot reasonably be covered by insurance, especially for poor people who are struggling to make ends meet. See my earlier comments regarding birth defects, they apply here. I think the government should have a role, but they break stuff when they have full control. Why should they be responsible to pay for annual checkups, and what will their involvement in this do to the price? Obviously, they shouldn't. What happens when a middle class woman discovers she has a rare form of uterine cancer that her insurance company cannot cover? Probably something here the government can do, and should do in a compassionate society.



Bjorn said:


> Social security is a conservative idea from the start. It has nothing to do with socialism. I'm sure that is on Wikipedia somewhere. I'm not sure you understand "risk pooling" in this context.


...from that great conservative FDR. Riiiight. It was sold as a pension plan in 1936, now it is touted as a successful wealth transfer from the working poor to the wealthiest segment of our society (the elderly). Brilliant. Just like GW Bush's "compassionately conservative" prescription drug plan.

There absolutely should be a social safety net. No matter the country, exactly half of the population will fall below the mean, in income, IQ, what have you. They should not starve in the streets, and their care is a legitimate concern of government. But in the US, we have set the system up to limit this government care to what is necessary, lest it intrude on personal liberty for the other half and turn us into Sweden. :icon_smile_wink: Because that turns dignified working poor into slaves.



Bjorn said:


> The over application of market theory to healthcare, which hasn't really worked out that well, is probably a factor in why young people, poor people, black people and Latinos turned up to vote in such large numbers in the recent election. Given that that will be recurring, and I'd bet it will be, that changes the political climate a lot.


I've never seen it tried--please provide an example. In the US, politicians have interfered in the process every step of the way, making it impossible for people to buy insurance out-of-state, and requiring that every insurance company in their particular state provide whatever coverage will help the politicians get re-elected. When they're not involved, innovations and improvements combine with demand and force prices down to levels where providers can make a profit. This is why lasik was not developed in Sweden, and why it is so darned cheap now. No government "help."

As an analogy, try applying the current US government approach (pre-Obama, since Obamacare hasn't kicked in yet) to personal transportation. The law would dictate that the only cars that could be sold legally would be hybrid Mercedes RVs with full wetbars and satellite TV, and then politicians would pander for votes by claiming that the greedy auto companies were gouging customers and would propose a "Comprehensive Auto Reform Policy" to help the neediest among us afford the currently cost-prohibitive automobiles, because personal transportation is a "right," and people who oppose government intervention are "greedy."

I don't think it was planned (Democrats aren't THAT clever), but it is awfully handy to use your power to create a problem, then use that problem to justify seizing more power. People are darned stupid to fall for it, though.

People vote for Democrats because Republicans have not persuasively made their case since 1984. I agree that this is likely to continue as long as we keep nominating inarticulate party hacks who do not believe in our core principals (see GHW Bush, Robert Dole, GW Bush, John McCain, Mitt Romney, and the 2016 nominee). Look at Romney's debate performance from his 1994 senate run (it's on youtube), and tell me that guy in 2012 really believed in the things I have argued in this thread. Mitt Romney was Todd Akin writ large, he ran because he wanted the job, not for the good of the nation. As long as we make Todd Akin's and Mitt Romney's clones our champions in the arena of ideas, we deserve to keep losing.



Bjorn said:


> As for birth control and abortion, it's amazing how certain some people are that the government should be limited and restricted so that everybody's personal freedoms are not inhibited in any way. Right up to the point where there neighbor gets pregnant. Then it's everybody's business.


It's amazing how certain some people are that government should stay out of their bedrooms right up to the point they want a free rubber. I promised earlier to leave abortion alone in this thread. My point was argued better by alkydrinker in any case, so I'll restrict my comment here to "what he said."

There is an important case to be made for markets, freedom, and personal responsibility, the things that have made America the richest society in history, a place where the poorest among us have telephones and access to technology that was the stuff of science fiction less than forty years ago. It would be good if one of the major political parties tried to champion these nifty concepts.

Cordially,
Trog


----------



## Troglodyte (Sep 7, 2012)

Jovan said:


> But I'm glad you agree that medically necessary prescriptions of birth control pills (which are basically being used as hormone pills in those cases) should be covered by insurance.


I am an expert in neither medicine nor insurance, just like the politicians who making up the rules as they go, primarily to benefit themselves. It does not matter what you or I think should be covered, and should not matter what pandering politicians think should be covered. You, I, and the politicians are ignorant to too many factors to make these calls.

How about we let people decide what they want covered, and let companies willing to do so provide it? This is not allowed under the current system.

Cordially,
Trog


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

You still haven't apologized for insulting my level of education.


----------



## Troglodyte (Sep 7, 2012)

Jovan said:


> You still haven't apologized for insulting my level of education.


I am sorry you took offense. WERE you taught basic market economics in high school?

I believe most political arguments would disappear if people were. Example: Nobody who understands Hauser's Law and the Laffer Curve would ever swallow the idea that "taxing the 1%" would actually yield revenue. Yet it is successfully sold every election. What are your thoughts?

I honestly did not and do not mean to attack your education. I have yet to form an opinion of your understanding of economics.

Cordially,
Trog


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

CuffDaddy said:


> We'll never get to agreement on the issue of abortion, Mike, and I hope that's OK. You see a fetus as a child who just hasn't been born yet. I see a fetus - prticularly an early gestation one - as more akin to an acorn than an oak tree; a potential person, but not a person yet. And reasonable people can disagree on that. But the personhood of the woman carrying the fetus is indisputable (barring some Terri Schiavo-type scenario). I'm generally reluctant to see the clear rights of one person *substantially* trammeled to protect the possible rights of another.
> 
> As for the motives of the GOP being protection of the fetus, I'm sure that's true for some. But the purpose does not eliminate the means. That's like arguing that we didn't really invade Iraq _because_ we were trying to depose Saddam. Whether that was the motive or not, and whether that was _casus belli_ or not, we did in fact invade. And when we tell women that they are not allowed to have an abortion, then we are, in fact, denying them control over their bodies and temporarily comandeering them in the name of the state's interest in a fetus. That may or may not be justified, but let's be clear: it *is* controlling women's bodies.
> 
> The jurisprudence of Roe is a whole 'nother discussion. Suffice it to say, I find more than enough support in the 9th amendment for things like abortion, the right to privacy generally, etc. I think the Supreme Court has made the law in those areas more complex than necessary, but the result has often been right-ish. JMHO, of couse.


Well put CuffDaddy.

The doctrine of rabid anti-abortionists (especially when informed by wooly minded religious belief) as to where life begins can be easily extended to include the sperm and the ova. The arguments proposed may become, reductio ad absurdum, ones by which any sperm or ova which do not unite as zygote are 'murders'.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Jovan said:


> So when my friend's doctor writes a prescription for a birth control pill that will control her excessive menstrual bleeding, we should just tell her to suck it up and pay when it's _clearly prescribed for a medical issue_? Birth control can be up to $270 for a three month supply.


Of course not, you are conflating issues again.

Hormone treatment is not birth control and has never been an issue with insurers or even the Church.


----------



## VictorRomeo (Sep 11, 2009)

This is funny....

https://whitepeoplemourningromney.tumblr.com/


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

CuffDaddy said:


> The "natural" state for old men is impotence. Why in the world would I care about what is "natural"?
> 
> Were you able to track that?


(Editited to remove snitty-ness because the rest of the argument is logical and dispassionate)

I agree.

Medicare began covering boner meds, even without efficacy for men over 70, to benefit providers and boner med companies.

The only reason anyone cares about what is a healthy, natural state, is simply to make the distinction of medical necessity and to refute false arguments that BCP=Boner Meds.

...and there is no need to accuse one another of being daft.

Unless we are speaking about Jovan!!


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

WS, I only used the word "daft" because I knew full well that you were smart enough to understand my point. I thought you were being deliberately obtuse, as people sometimes will be in arguments just to make the other person show their work. Everything I said was said with a grin, and I've enjoyed this whole thread, including your posts.


----------



## Apatheticviews (Mar 21, 2010)

Medical necessity is like medical opinion and medical advise.

I am on a pill regiment which I consider necessary, and my doctor agrees. Said pills are about $300/month. I can choose not to take them, and instead go with an "as needed" medicine which is $30~ a pill (and end up taking 2/week or more). Or I can go completely without and live with the pain. It's manageable, and by manageable I mean my pain threshold is high. 

For reference, these are not pain killers but migraine medication.

I do not currently have prescription medicine insurance, however I've found a free market solution that gets me my meds at a reasonable rate (cheaper than my previous insurance rate). Never did it occur to me to demand that the government cover my specific circumstance. I came up with a solution.

If a woman needs BC, it's available, either through primary, purchased supplementary, or through alternate methods like the one I chose. If a woman can't afford BC she can't afford a baby, and the same applies to men. Condoms are cheaper than diapers.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

CuffDaddy said:


> Everything I said was said with a grin, and I've enjoyed this whole thread, including your posts.


Thank you for saying so, CD.

Now it's time to get on with our work; denying men access to boner meds with our "War on Geezers!!"


----------



## burnedandfrozen (Mar 11, 2004)

Speaking of medical care, I just learned that under Obama Care the money my company spends for my health insurance is considered taxable income. Is this part of the mandate? I never considered if this was looked at as taxable income before. I'm no math genius but this seems to scream "TAX INCREASE." I thought Obama was only going to raise taxes on the so called rich. So now on top of the higher prices for goods and services, I now have to pay even more in taxes. Just wonderful.


----------



## Apatheticviews (Mar 21, 2010)

burnedandfrozen said:


> Speaking of medical care, I just learned that under Obama Care the money my company spends for my health insurance is considered taxable income. Is this part of the mandate? I never considered if this was looked at as taxable income before. I'm no math genius but this seems to scream "TAX INCREASE." I thought Obama was only going to raise taxes on the so called rich. So now on top of the higher prices for goods and services, I now have to pay even more in taxes. Just wonderful.


I was watching ballot initiatives, and there's a large number of states that passed constitutional bans against Obama Care on Tuesday. We'll see how this all plays out.


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

Apatheticviews said:


> I was watching ballot initiatives, and there's a large number of states that passed constitutional bans against Obama Care on Tuesday. We'll see how this all plays out.


Yes. The same states that take in more federal dollars than they pay out in taxes. Bunch of hypocrites.


----------



## Apatheticviews (Mar 21, 2010)

mrkleen said:


> Yes. The same states that take in more federal dollars than they pay out in taxes. Bunch of hypocrites.


If half the country is OPPOSED to something, don't you think they need to rework it from the ground up?

Majority rule doesn't mean you can ignore minority rights. For something as big as universal health care you need a lot more than 51%. Those states are exercising there right to fight against the federal government. Just like other states have done with Democrat specific issues.


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

Apatheticviews said:


> If half the country is OPPOSED to something, don't you think they need to rework it from the ground up?
> 
> Majority rule doesn't mean you can ignore minority rights. For something as big as universal health care you need a lot more than 51%. Those states are exercising there right to fight against the federal government. Just like other states have done with Democrat specific issues.


So while about half of all Americans are against "Obamacare" when it is put to them with that title - they are in fact in favor of many aspects of the bill:

* Eighty percent of Republicans favor "creating an insurance pool where small businesses and uninsured have access to insurance exchanges to take advantage of large group pricing benefits." That's backed by 75 percent of independents. [...]* This is a central pillar of Obamacare*

* Fifty two percent of Republicans favor "allowing children to stay on parents insurance until age 26." That's backed by 69 percent of independents. * This is a central pillar of Obamacare
*

* Seventy eight percent of Republicans support "banning insurance companies from denying coverage for pre-existing conditions; 86 percent of Republicans favor "banning insurance companies from cancelling policies because a person becomes ill." Those are backed by 82 percent of independents * This is a central pillar of Obamacare
*

I am not in favor of cramming things down people's throats - but most people are too dense to realize that much of the savings gained in one area, is only possible through other aspects of the bill also being in place. They want to eat chocolate and steak - yet have none of the weight gain and risk of heart disease.


----------



## Apatheticviews (Mar 21, 2010)

And what about the 20% who is opposed?

Blacks make up about that much. LGBT are comparable or less. 

Even an uninformed decision is still a decision. A solid portion of the people have said NO. 

It means stop everywhere else, why doesn't it mean no when I want handle my own medical decisions?


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

If you dont like the policies being enacted, vote in people who will vote your way. In the meantime, do what many on the left did from from 2001 to 2009 - deal with it.


----------



## Apatheticviews (Mar 21, 2010)

I merely commented that states were VOTING to block it. They used their power. You called them hypocrites for exercising their rights. Regardless of whether I agree with them or not, I pointed out the flaw in your argument. The democracy works both ways. 

People are sheep. They are uninformed and often stupid. They don't actually know what the presidential powers are, and what their supposed limits are. 

Our current president has not done a horrible job with a few exceptions. My major concerns are the NDAA, and various other constitution issues which I have brought up. He cannot control the economy nor the unemployment rate. Those are cyclic events combined with Congressional powers.

Romney scared me frankly. On several issues.

As for voting, I actually voted all three parties this election (senate, house, president). I've never voted party lines, because frankly when you get enough people together they come up with some really stupid ideas.


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

Troglodyte said:


> Yep, that's why when people from all over the world get really sick and they have the means, they fly to Sweden for the newest, most innovative treatments.
> 
> Cool. 'Cause full-blown libs are queasy EVERY time market theory is applied anywhere. One should not purchase insurance when sick. You do that before you get sick. It is a fact that some things cannot reasonably be covered by insurance, especially for poor people who are struggling to make ends meet. See my earlier comments regarding birth defects, they apply here. I think the government should have a role, but they break stuff when they have full control. Why should they be responsible to pay for annual checkups, and what will their involvement in this do to the price? Obviously, they shouldn't. What happens when a middle class woman discovers she has a rare form of uterine cancer that her insurance company cannot cover? Probably something here the government can do, and should do in a compassionate society.
> 
> ...


FDR? Lol 

I was thinking of Bismarck...

And people do come to Sweden for treatment. People who live here don't even have to be rich.

Sweden is, in fact, consistently ranked as one of the most innovative country in the world. How do you fit that into your theorizing?

We even have this little prize we give out for scientific achievements.

As for the last part, I invite you to come to Sweden. We generally have better phones, real freedom, access to better technology, and free trade with all neighboring countries.

And if you think a social safety net is only needed by weak, stupid, underachieving people, you may be very young, and naive. Hardship is rarely deserved.


----------



## mrp (Mar 1, 2011)

Troglodyte said:


> There is an important case to be made for markets, freedom, and personal responsibility, the things that have made America the richest society in history, a place where the poorest among us have telephones and access to technology that was the stuff of science fiction less than forty years ago. It would be good if one of the major political parties tried to champion these nifty concepts.
> Cordially,
> Trog


:icon_headagainstwal:icon_headagainstwal:icon_headagainstwal




https://www.forbes.com/sites/kellyphillipserb/2012/02/12/are-taxpayers-paying-for-free-cell-phones/

BTW I pay a nice tax on my communications fees to support these efforts.


----------



## Kelorth (Apr 29, 2009)

Apatheticviews said:


> I was watching ballot initiatives, and there's a large number of states that passed constitutional bans against Obama Care on Tuesday. We'll see how this all plays out.


Overruled by Supreme Court, but Florida will ignore the ruling anyways.

My sister practices Health Care Law, she sumurises ObamaCare as enjoy the carrots because soon you will get the stick.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

Shaver said:


> Well put CuffDaddy.
> 
> The doctrine of rabid anti-abortionists (especially when informed by wooly minded religious belief) as to where life begins can be easily extended to include the sperm and the ova. The arguments proposed may become, reductio ad absurdum, ones by which any sperm or ova which do not unite as zygote are 'murders'.


Though this line of reasoning has currency among non-scientists, it is simply not true. https://www.westchesterinstitute.net/images/wi_whitepaper_life_print.pdf


----------



## drlivingston (Jun 21, 2012)

drlivingston said:


> So, do you guys think that Alabama is going to win again this weekend?


Must have jinxed them.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

A government should support its people not devolve responsibility to the private sector to maske financial gain from its people.


----------



## tocqueville (Nov 15, 2009)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> A government should support its people not devolve responsibility to the private sector to maske financial gain from its people.


Hear, hear.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Mike Petrik said:


> Though this line of reasoning has currency among non-scientists, it is simply not true. https://www.westchesterinstitute.net/images/wi_whitepaper_life_print.pdf


I would prefer it if your 'evidence' were not published by a special interest group who are explicitly seeking to promote their anti-abortionist philosophy.

I do note that the Institute is rather commendably keen on the sanctity of marriage, though.


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

Mike Petrik said:


> Though this line of reasoning has currency among non-scientists, it is simply not true. https://www.westchesterinstitute.net/images/wi_whitepaper_life_print.pdf


LOL! Yeah, that's a neutral source!


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

CuffDaddy said:


> LOL! Yeah, that's a neutral source!


I'm happy to read other sources that discuss the science. The correctness of the science, of course, is not dependent on the source. 
The bottom line is that the science is clear as to when human life begins. The real question, and one not answered by science, is under what circumstances is human life worthy of legal protection. The pro-life community says "always" whereas the pro-choice community says "sometimes." The pro-life community considers human life as worthy of protection by virtue of ontological status, whereas the pro-choice community instead examines such things as cognitive ability and value to the community. There is also a segment of the latter community that acknowledges the killing of a human life, but justifies it as being trumped by the privacy rights of the mother. None of these questions really involves science. The notion that science somehow is in dispute as to the human status of a fertilized egg is nonsense -- any such dispute is not really grounded in science at all, but in ethical values.

I'm going to refrain from weighing in any more on this since the exchange would no doubt be interminable and therefore incompatible with the life of a working stiff.


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

Mike, I think that's not a bad way of characterizing the disagreement, although I don't think scientific consensus on "life" is as clear as you think, nor do I think you have fully captured the things that we pro-choice thinkers care about (not that you purported to). But you have certainly put your finger on the crux of the issue - pro-lifers care about life _qua_ life, whereas many pro-choice people care more about when there is a _person _with humanity. As I said before, I feel one way about stepping on an acorn, another about felling an oak.


----------



## Apatheticviews (Mar 21, 2010)

CuffDaddy said:


> Mike, I think that's not a bad way of characterizing the disagreement, although I don't think scientific consensus on "life" is as clear as you think, nor do I think you have fully captured the things that we pro-choice thinkers care about (not that you purported to). But you have certainly put your finger on the crux of the issue - pro-lifers care about life _qua_ life, whereas many pro-choice people care more about when there is a _person _with humanity. As I said before, I feel one way about stepping on an acorn, another about felling an oak.


Much like: Thou shalt not kill vs Thou shalt not murder. Doesn't seem like much of a distinction at first glance, but once you delve into it, makes all the difference in the world.


----------



## blairrob (Oct 30, 2010)

Apatheticviews said:


> Much like: Thou shalt not kill vs Thou shalt not murder. Doesn't seem like much of a distinction at first glance, but once you delve into it, makes all the difference in the world.


That is a very interesting (and to my mind appropriate) precis of an intricately philosophical argument. Well said.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

'Life' or 'not life' is often a convenient scientific fudge for those who are truly speaking of a 'soul'. Can God squeeze a soul into two cells? Even if He could, would He wish to? Between 50% and 70% of foetuses spontaneously abort before the first trimester. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion#cite_note-Williams_Gyn.2C_Chp_6-13


----------



## bernoulli (Mar 21, 2011)

Science is far from clear on when life begins, and I think the question "when life begins" cannot be answered through the scientific method, especially when people keep bringing spurious concepts such as "soul" and god" to the mix. In any case, if you want to discuss scientific sources, please cite papers in refereed journals, and not research published as "white paper", "working paper" etc. The scientific community uses the peer-reviewed process as a quality control method and although not perfect it is far preferrable than "white papers". A quick search can unearth some interesting research:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2846070/

I especially like Day (2010) intro: Human reproduction is relatively inefficient.​


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

^ +1

Giordano Bruno suffered a particularly harsh peer-review of his scientific method in 1600ad.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

Shaver said:


> 'Life' or 'not life' is often a convenient scientific fudge for those who are truly speaking of a 'soul'. Can God squeeze a soul into two cells? Even if He could, would He wish to? Between 50% and 70% of foetuses spontaneously abort before the first trimester.


Don't say that! Next thing you know, conservatives will have to admit there is some climate change going on! Talk about "An Inconvenient Truth"! :biggrin2:


----------



## bernoulli (Mar 21, 2011)

Actually, it seems Bruno was not burned because he was a scientist, but an heretic that followed a form of trimegistus ideology. Not that I am defending the church: we do remember Galileo, but not the pope who had him condemned to house arrest. Rationality should prevail in the end, otherwise there is no hope (how is that for a conundrum?) for humanity...



Shaver said:


> ^ +1
> 
> Giordano Bruno suffered a particularly harsh peer-review of his scientific method in 1600ad.


----------



## Apatheticviews (Mar 21, 2010)

Jovan said:


> Don't say that! Next thing you know, conservatives will have to admit there is some climate change going on! Talk about "An Inconvenient Truth"! :biggrin2:


Truly conservatives don't argue about climate change (at least one's with half a brain). It's not about whether climate change is occurring, it is by how much, and whether Humans are directly, or indirectly affecting said climate change, and whether it is better to spend today's $ to fix the problem or tomorrow's significantly cheaper (in theory) $ to fix the same problem.

Ever since the last ice age, the earth has been in a state of global warming. Niagra Falls was under a glacier until fairly recently (on a global scale). The real issue is whether human's can truly harm mother nature. My personal opinion is that Gaia will stomp us like bugs if we get to uppity. She has Hurricanes, Disease, Famine, and all manner of other things at her disposal. We can't do $%^&$%^&$ to really harm her, just ourselves, living on her.


----------



## Apatheticviews (Mar 21, 2010)

blairrob said:


> That is a very interesting (and to my mind appropriate) precis of an intricately philosophical argument. Well said.


Thank you.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

bernoulli said:


> Actually, it seems Bruno was not burned because he was a scientist, but an heretic that followed a form of trimegistus ideology. Not that I am defending the church: we do remember Galileo, but not the pope who had him condemned to house arrest. Rationality should prevail in the end, otherwise there is no hope (how is that for a conundrum?) for humanity...


Except that a scientist was almost automatically a heretic during the middle ages. The Occult tradition of alchemy, astrology and theurgy being the methods utilised to examine the Deity and His Creation. Even still the Hermetic tradition was not incompatible with Christianity. The doctrine of Prisca Theologia was capable of being used an instrument to support Christianity above all other the religions - and better yet, it allowed all other religions to be subsumed into the True Religion.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> A government should support its people not devolve responsibility to the private sector to maske financial gain from its people.


make not maske.


----------



## bernoulli (Mar 21, 2011)

Non-combative intelligent discussion at the Interchange? Say it ain't so, Mr. Shaver. But coming back to the point: I have no problem conceding the point that the Church was after scientists. I really need to go and read a book a friend gave it to me, called Giordano Bruno and the Hermetic Tradition. Your post just showed how much I have to learn. I am sorry I cannot contribute more, first I will improve my knowledge of the subject and then maybe I will come back to it...



Shaver said:


> Except that a scientist was almost automatically a heretic during the middle ages. The Occult tradition of alchemy, astrology and theurgy being the methods utilised to examine the Deity and His Creation. Even still the Hermetic tradition was not incompatible with Christianity. The doctrine of Prisca Theologia was capable of being used an instrument to support Christianity above all other the religions - and better yet, it allowed all other religions to be subsumed into the True Religion.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

bernoulli said:


> Non-combative intelligent discussion at the Interchange? Say it ain't so, Mr. Shaver. But coming back to the point: I have no problem conceding the point that the Church was after scientists. I really need to go and read a book a friend gave it to me, called Giordano Bruno and the Hermetic Tradition. Your post just showed how much I have to learn. I am sorry I cannot contribute more, first I will improve my knowledge of the subject and then maybe I will come back to it...


bernoulli, I salute you Sir! I note on the WAYWT thread you advise that you have had a hiatus. Allow me to welcome you back. It is a distinct pleasure to engage with such a good natured chap as yourself.

Can I recommend to you The Occult Tradition by David S Katz? Here is a reasonable review to whet your appetite;

https://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2005/dec/31/featuresreviews.guardianreview10


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

Apatheticviews said:


> and whether it is better to spend today's $ to fix the problem or tomorrow's significantly cheaper (in theory) $ to fix the same problem.


That assumes the money and technology are the only things preventing us from "fixing" the problem. Once something is gone (polar ice caps, bald eagles, Donald Trumps hair), no amount of money can bring it back.

But yeah, lets hang out a bit longer and see just how many years in a row NYC gets submerged before we do anything. Good idea.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

mrkleen said:


> That assumes the money and technology are the only things preventing us from "fixing" the problem. Once something is gone (polar ice caps, bald eagles, Donald Trumps hair), no amount of money can bring it back.
> 
> But yeah, lets hang out a bit longer and see just how many years in a row NYC gets submerged before we do anything. Good idea.


+1. A tipping point, once passed, is final.


----------



## Apatheticviews (Mar 21, 2010)

mrkleen said:


> That assumes the money and technology are the only things preventing us from "fixing" the problem. Once something is gone (polar ice caps, bald eagles, Donald Trumps hair), no amount of money can bring it back.
> 
> But yeah, lets hang out a bit longer and see just how many years in a row NYC gets submerged before we do anything. Good idea.


I was personally hoping for Boston, MA, but NYC is a good start too.


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

Apatheticviews said:


> I was personally hoping for Boston, MA, but NYC is a good start too.


I was trying to come up with a similarly tasteless comment about Stafford VA - and then realized it is such a podunk town of little consequence that no one would care or notice.


----------



## Haffman (Oct 11, 2010)

CuffDaddy said:


> As I said before, I feel one way about stepping on an acorn, another about felling an oak.


Cuff, while as ever I respect your argument (and unfortunately am unclear on my own position in the debate), I think for the issue being discussed that is a ghastly metaphor ! :frown:


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

Why, pray tell?


----------



## Haffman (Oct 11, 2010)

Two reasons. Firstly, although I understand it is a metaphor, it seems a bit flippant given that we are talking about _human_ life, notwithstanding our respect for the lives of animals and plants. Second, you talk fairly lightly about stepping on the acorn but you might feel differently if you were the person who actually had to do the stepping...


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

Haffman said:


> Two reasons. Firstly, although I understand it is a metaphor, it seems a bit flippant given that we are talking about _human_ life, notwithstanding our respect for the lives of animals and plants. Second, you talk fairly lightly about stepping on the acorn but *you might feel differently if you were the person who actually had to do the stepping...*


And yet your point is one that is used very often by those in the Pro Life movement...as if people make the decision to terminate a pregnancy "lightly".

Clearly no one sees an abortion as a happy day in their life - any more than people who execute a DNR order are in a good mood after leaving their loved one that day.


----------



## Haffman (Oct 11, 2010)

mrkleen said:


> And yet your point is one that is used very often by those in the Pro Life movement...as if people make the decision to terminate a pregnancy "lightly".
> 
> Clearly no one sees an abortion as a happy day in their life - any more than people who execute a DNR order are in a good mood after leaving their loved one that day.


mrkleen, I gave - after being invited to - my two reasons for objecting to that particular metaphor.


----------



## Apatheticviews (Mar 21, 2010)

mrkleen said:


> I was trying to come up with a similarly tasteless comment about Stafford VA - and then realized it is such a podunk town of little consequence that no one would care or notice.


I didn't realize it was so much like Boston. But alas it's not a town, it's a county, located just south of Washington DC. But alas you being a plant in your pot, makes you so much better than me in my pot?

Your fervor is admirable, however your zealotry is not. You attack anyone who you THINK disagrees with you on an issue whether that is the case or not. I've had to point out multiple times I am not a Republican to you, because you lump all red together. If you re-read my statement regarding Global warming, I did not actually share my opinion on the matter, merely countered that "conservatives think" as a blanket statement.

It's just as bad as using "liberals think religion should be outlawed" or any other blanket statement. You have to remember that most people are moderates, not extremes, and that we are closer to purple than red or blue. Or may be red on specific issues and blue on others.

There are other countless issues, whether it be fiscally, or social. Just because someone doesn't support your PARTY doesn't mean they don't agree with your views on an issue. That said, attacking them before you actually find out is enough to make someone else go looking for another group to be with. The only people who like to deal with militants, is other militants.


----------



## gaseousclay (Nov 8, 2009)

Apatheticviews said:


> Your fervor is admirable, however your zealotry is not. You attack anyone who you THINK disagrees with you on an issue whether that is the case or not.
> 
> It's just as bad as using "liberals think religion should be outlawed" or any other blanket statement. You have to remember that most people are moderates, not extremes
> 
> Just because someone doesn't support your PARTY doesn't mean they don't agree with your views on an issue. That said, attacking them before you actually find out is enough to make someone else go looking for another group to be with. The only people who like to deal with militants, is other militants.


you should check out the countless gun forums I frequent where attacking liberals and painting them as moochers, communists, socialists, un-American, un-patriotic and all other manner of pejoratives is routine, especially after Obama won re-election. Maybe it's just me but these so-called 'militants' seem to be coming out of the woodwork. I find this sudden rash of petitions to secede from the Union mildly disturbing.


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

Haffman said:


> Two reasons. Firstly, although I understand it is a metaphor, it seems a bit flippant given that we are talking about _human_ life, notwithstanding our respect for the lives of animals and plants. Second, you talk fairly lightly about stepping on the acorn but you might feel differently if you were the person who actually had to do the stepping...


Well, it's an analogy. The nature of paired, "A to A' as B is to B' " analogies is that A and B will *NOT* be equivalent. The analogy is between the relationships, not the things themselves. A penny is to a dollar as a pence is to a pound. A fetus is to a human being as an acorn is to an oak. Neither of these statements says anything about the relative values of pennys versus pence, nor of acorns versus fetuses. If you view human life as the most valuable thing in the universe, then any analogy will be converting to a lower-value currency. If that offends, then it just means all analogies are off limits, which is a shame, because they can be so useful as ways of thinking and talking about things.

As for your second point, I'm not sure I follow. I've stepped on literally thousands of acorns before (it's unavoidable in acorn season some places I've lived). Are you speaking metaphorically? Are you suggesting that I would feel differently if I were a woman who was weighing whether to have an abortion? If so, I heartily agree. *Of course* I cannot know exactly how any particular woman would feel when weighing that matter. Which is one of the main reasons it's a completely inappropriate venue for the coercive power of the state.


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

Apatheticviews said:


> It's just as bad as using "liberals think religion should be outlawed" or any other blanket statement. You have to remember that most people are moderates, not extremes, and that we are closer to purple than red or blue. Or may be red on specific issues and blue on others.


A very, very, very underrated point. I generally cast my vote for a particular party because I agree with more of their stances than with the stances of the other party. But I have never yet found a single candidate, let alone an entire party, that holds all of my particular (and perhaps peculiar) preferences and philosophies. If I can get about a 70% fit, I'm doing well.


----------



## Haffman (Oct 11, 2010)

CuffDaddy said:


> Well, it's an analogy. The nature of paired, "A to A' as B is to B' " analogies is that A and B will *NOT* be equivalent. The analogy is between the relationships, not the things themselves. A penny is to a dollar as a pence is to a pound. A fetus is to a human being as an acorn is to an oak. Neither of these statements says anything about the relative values of pennys versus pence, nor of acorns versus fetuses. If you view human life as the most valuable thing in the universe, then any analogy will be converting to a lower-value currency. If that offends, then it just means all analogies are off limits, which is a shame, because they can be so useful as ways of thinking and talking about things.
> 
> As for your second point, I'm not sure I follow. I've stepped on literally thousands of acorns before (it's unavoidable in acorn season some places I've lived). Are you speaking metaphorically? Are you suggesting that I would feel differently if I were a woman who was weighing whether to have an abortion? If so, I heartily agree. *Of course* I cannot know exactly how any particular woman would feel when weighing that matter. Which is one of the main reasons it's a completely inappropriate venue for the coercive power of the state.


Well Cuff, I don't actually see this analogy as being particularly helpful as there are so many differences between a 20 week old fetus and an acorn, especially for the purposes of this discussion, that all such an analogy is obvious at best and heartless at worst. As for the second point, I am suggesting you might feel differently if you were the person _terminating_ the pregnancy (metaphorically stepping on the acorn). The two situations are worlds apart. When I read your analogy my blood ran cold, that's all I am saying.


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

Apatheticviews said:


> I didn't realize it was so much like Boston. But alas it's not a town, it's a county, located just south of Washington DC. But alas you being a plant in your pot, makes you so much better than me in my pot?


I ask you the same, since YOU were the one who started this discussion down the road towards attacking Boston, now you want to try and claim the innocent bystander role or paint me as the elitist?



Apatheticviews said:


> Your fervor is admirable, however your zealotry is not. You attack anyone who you THINK disagrees with you on an issue whether that is the case or not. I've had to point out multiple times I am not a Republican to you, because you lump all red together. If you re-read my statement regarding Global warming, I did not actually share my opinion on the matter, merely countered that "conservatives think" as a blanket statement.


Since I dont know you and never suggested I did, I was simply replying to your point in this thread. If you respond with a typical right wing talking point - you can imagine why I might respond to you as if you were on that side of the issue, right? Walks like a duck and all.

As for the rest, I agree that the country is full of shades of blue and red and mostly mixtures in between. This particular section of this particular site however - seems to bring out the bright red and bright blue in many, myself included. And after listening to the world is ending - Romney will win - rich white BS out here for the past 2 years (and in fact before the last couple of elections), you can imagine that watching our President win re-election and so many tea party wing nuts swept out of the Senate - brings some sort of joy to an East Coast Lefty.


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

Haffman said:


> Well Cuff, I don't actually see this analogy as being particularly helpful as there are so many differences between a 20 week old fetus and an acorn, especially for the purposes of this discussion, that all such an analogy is obvious at best and heartless at worst.


OK. The point of the metaphor is only to demonstrate that there is a difference between potentiality and actuality. An acorn can become an oak tree, but it is not yet. A fetus can become a person with sentience, self-awareness, emotional attachment, empathy, and all the other things that make human beings special and worthy of the highest level of protection. But cutting off that potential before it actualizes is not the same thing as destroying it once it is present.



> As for the second point, I am suggesting you might feel differently if you were the person _terminating_ the pregnancy (metaphorically stepping on the acorn). The two situations are worlds apart. When I read your analogy my blood ran cold, that's all I am saying.


Are you talking about the doctor or the mother? And what does that have to do with anything? Maybe I'm being dense, but I'm not tracking your point here.

If you are suggesting that my lack of personal connection with fetuses is limiting my understanding, you may presume too much. At the risk of revealing too much, I will say this: My wife has had a miscarriage. I have a daughter. The miscarriage did not fundamentally change my life, although a second child would have. The loss of my daughter would be unspeakably horrible, and likely profoundly change who I am as a person. The miscarriage was equivalent to a seed that did not sprout - an acorn. My analogy, which you find offensive, fits my personal experience quite closely.


----------



## Apatheticviews (Mar 21, 2010)

mrkleen said:


> I ask you the same, since YOU were the one who started this discussion down the road towards attacking Boston, now you want to try and claim the innocent bystander role or paint me as the elitist?
> 
> Since I dont know you and never suggested I did, I was simply replying to your point in this thread. If you respond with a typical right wing talking point - you can imagine why I might respond to you as if you were on that side of the issue, right? Walks like a duck and all.
> 
> As for the rest, I agree that the country is full of shades of blue and red and mostly mixtures in between. This particular section of this particular site however - seems to bring out the bright red and bright blue in many, myself included. And after listening to the world is ending - Romney will win - rich white BS out here for the past 2 years (and in fact before the last couple of elections), you can imagine that watching our President win re-election and so many tea party wing nuts swept out of the Senate - brings some sort of joy to an East Coast Lefty.


I absolutely was snippy, and don't apologize for it. I wasn't attacking Boston, I was specifically egging you on. Not with direct malice, but with trollish glee. I find the likelyhood of Boston or NYC being submerged so unlikely due to global warming that your suggestion that it could be (NYC) was downright funny.

My personal opinion on global warming is that it is happening, humans do have some effect on it, but whether or effect is measurable or not in real terms has yet to be proven conclusively. That said, we should do what can through reasonable regulation to limit our impact on the environment as a whole. That means smarter fuels, better refrigerants, and better practices on a personal level. Like not buying bottled water which requires petroleum for production. I am directly opposed to going vegetarian or vegan because I like meat too much, and the long term ramifications of foodstuff animals being REMOVED from the ecosystem are equivient of the bald eagle going extinct (I am pro protection regarding sustainability). Going V (as a nation) would result in reduction of CO2 emissions but the extinction of several species. It's a trade off I am not wiling to make.

Red vs Blue comes out strongly when talking issues. If you and I spoke about gun control I would appear as Red as they come, however on the ProChoice/ProLife issues I am deeply Blue (I don't think the government should have any say in my medical decisions, period). Many of the others on the forum are very similar.

We're only able to debate snippets of an issue, which in turn makes it appear that people who agree on 80% of an issue are directly opposed to each other.

Using ObamaCare as an example, my opposition stems from above, and my belief in a minimalistic government. The government forcing me to ACTIVELY do something causes me a lot of heartburn. If there was no penalty clause in the Act, I probably wouldn't care, because I retain freedom of choice. The rough plan as presented is not bad, however there are specifics which I personally feel are power grabbing from the government. A sizable number of other citizens have similar issues. There comes a point when majority and consensus need to meet. ObamaCare didn't do that. Half the country hates it, as perceived, which means as soon as the country goes red again, it's gone. That's not how things should work. A law should be good enough on its own merits to ignore party lines.

But I digress..

I didn't want Romney to win, because frankly he scared me. I don't particularly care for the presidents track record concerning constitutional or civil rights issues. I personally think we ended up with the better of two evils, but picking the devil you know still means you got a devil.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Of course climate change is not my specialism but, just as a layman, it looks like it may be shrinking to me.


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

Apatheticviews said:


> If you and I spoke about gun control I would appear as Red as they come, however on the ProChoice/ProLife issues I am deeply Blue (I don't think the government should have any say in my medical decisions, period). Many of the others on the forum are very similar.


At least one right here!


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

Apatheticviews said:


> I absolutely was snippy, and don't apologize for it. I wasn't attacking Boston, I was specifically egging you on. Not with direct malice, but with trollish glee. I find the likelyhood of Boston or NYC being submerged so unlikely due to global warming that your suggestion that it could be (NYC) was downright funny.


Dont even know where to begin here...other than to say, I am fine with people taking shots. But dont come back later with that "what makes you better than me" bullshit....as if you are the innocent bystander.



Apatheticviews said:


> My personal opinion on global warming is that it is happening, humans do have some effect on it, but whether or effect is measurable or not in real terms has yet to be proven conclusively.


The only real debate left on global warming is to what extend humans have caused it and are by their actions exasperating it. Waiting to see how it turns out is a bad idea, and excusing that inaction by claiming we can just fix it when it is cheper to do so, is even worse.



Apatheticviews said:


> Red vs Blue comes out strongly when talking issues. If you and I spoke about gun control I would appear as Red as they come, however on the ProChoice/ProLife issues I am deeply Blue (I don't think the government should have any say in my medical decisions, period). Many of the others on the forum are very similar.
> 
> We're only able to debate snippets of an issue, which in turn makes it appear that people who agree on 80% of an issue are directly opposed to each other.


Thanks for the sociology and psychology lesson. I have seen enough tasteless posts from a number of members here to know where they stand on enough issues. They have left no open opportunity to hit Democrats (often below the belt), at every possible occasion. Turnabout is fair play.



Apatheticviews said:


> Using ObamaCare as an example, my opposition stems from above, and my belief in a minimalistic government. The government forcing me to ACTIVELY do something causes me a lot of heartburn. If there was no penalty clause in the Act, I probably wouldn't care, because I retain freedom of choice. The rough plan as presented is not bad, however there are specifics which I personally feel are power grabbing from the government. A sizable number of other citizens have similar issues. There comes a point when majority and consensus need to meet. ObamaCare didn't do that. Half the country hates it, as perceived, which means as soon as the country goes red again, it's gone. That's not how things should work. A law should be good enough on its own merits to ignore party lines.


While your objection to Obamacare sounds good on paper - in the real world, the cost of health care is sure to bankrupt this country, unless costs and spending are reeled in. So Obamacare, or whatever you call the eventual solution - will be a form of universal healthcare. You dont have to like it, that is the way it is going to happen.

AND the only mechanism that will allow it to work, is if everyone participates. That was the very basis of the Supreme Court ruling - if they found the mandate unconstitutional, the law would have died...as without everyone contributing (rich and poor, sick and healthy) - you do not have enough of a pool of people to make the numbers work.

As for the half the country hates it...that is BS. People are overwhelmingly in favor of covering children until they are 26. They are overwhelming in favor of reduced prices on prescription drugs. They are overwhelming in favor of preventing insurance companies from excluding people with pre-exsisting conditions. And as more of the law goes into effect - more people will realize the benefits and start to embrace it. And if in 2016 - people want to vote in a republican and get rid of it - more power to them.

In the meantime, states that want to opt out - can do so. They can also forgo all of their medicare and medicaid funding. If they are truly in favor of small government, why wait till 2016 - get started right now.

As for how Romneycare is working in Massachusetts - it is a great step in the right direction, with 98% of adults and 99.6% of seniors and 99.9% of children with coverage. This is the future of healthcare in the US....working someday towards a true universal, single payer system. And in 10 or 15 years, our children will look back and wonder what all the uproar was about.


----------



## Apatheticviews (Mar 21, 2010)

Shaver said:


> Of course climate change is not my specialism but, just as a layman, it looks like it may be shrinking to me.


Right but how much of that is us? How much is part of the natural global cycle? We're coming off an ice age relatively speaking, so at least some of that is "normal."

But no one seems to be able say it takes X to get Y when it comes to climate or what the baseline would be if we're not here.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

mrkleen... with all due respect... we get along, but sometimes you attack the people who are technically on our side with a little too much ferocity!


----------



## Apatheticviews (Mar 21, 2010)

mrkleen said:


> Dont even know where to begin here...other than to say, I am fine with people taking shots. But dont come back later with that "what makes you better than me" bullshit....as if you are the innocent bystander.
> 
> The only real debate left on global warming is to what extend humans have caused it and are by their actions exasperating it. Waiting to see how it turns out is a bad idea, and excusing that inaction by claiming we can just fix it when it is cheper to do so, is even worse.
> 
> ...


And romneycare resulted in a 30% increase in insurance costs. The idea is sound, the application is poor.

Universal Health Care is not the same as universal health care insurance. Insurance is a mechanism, and a flawed one open to profiteering. On paper it looks like the right solution, but in reality it is a poor choice. Just ask any military member who remembers the transition from service provided health care to tri-care insurance.


----------



## Apatheticviews (Mar 21, 2010)

Jovan said:


> mrkleen... with all due respect... we get along, but sometimes you attack the people who are technically on our side with a little too much ferocity!


My point exactly. Over beers or scotch this would be lively, but not angry.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Apatheticviews said:


> Right but how much of that is us? How much is part of the natural global cycle? We're coming off an ice age relatively speaking, so at least some of that is "normal."
> 
> But no one seems to be able say it takes X to get Y when it comes to climate or what the baseline would be if we're not here.


It is unacceptable to suggest that there is a normal, natural, global cycle to be observed in the 21st century.

The impact of industrialised civilisation is such that even the self regulating chaos theory embedded at the heart of the Earth's biosphere cannot effectively moderate the scale of input that we generate.

Only those involved who seek to profit from the status quo (either directly or by lobbying for favours) promote the denial of climate change. All involved parties _without bias_ accept what is transparently obvious.

You and I are free to make up our own minds as to whether the denial arguments are credible. Based on the impartial and honest information I have provided above, I would strongly suggest that they are not.

The real question is how much climate change can the Earth tolerate?


----------



## Apatheticviews (Mar 21, 2010)

Actually the question is how much climate change can humans tolerate and remain living in earth. I've said before and I'll say it again, if we get too uppity, Mother Earth will stomp us like the bugs we are.

As for there not being a normal cycle, I have to call foul. The planet is 4.5 billion years old. It's absolutely silly to think we can damage her in 300 years. I have zero doubt we are affecting her, but I don't think have the ability to cause a localized earthquake let alone an earth killing, without the help of nuclear fallout.

All we can say for certain is that it's getting warmer, but without knowing how warm it would get normally, we can't make any real predictions.

That said, when identified, we should do things that are known to limit our effect on the environment, however we should not stop being human to do it.

Technology gets better with time. Look how far we've advanced just in the last 25 years. Leveraging said technology to reduce our overall impact should be the goal. Whether its those new fancy plastic bottles that are 30% plant fiber, or electric cars (when they come up with battery options that aren't more harmful than the gas they replace).

As a former intel analyst I used to present briefings with the following phrases:

We've identified the following concerns/issues/problems...

The difference being the level of information available and the ability to react to it.global warning is a concern, bordering on an issue. We know its there, and we know there are things we can do to reduce its overall impact, but there no equation to back it up. We can say if the earths average temp raise X deg then we lose Y cu inches of icecap. But no one can say how many humans doing what does it take to get 1 degree.

It's like running a marathon, if you do lots of little things each one will reduce your time by 1%, but you have to do a lot of them just to run the marathon. So you never know where the actual returns on investment came from.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Apatheticviews said:


> Actually the question is how much climate change can humans tolerate and remain living in earth. I've said before and I'll say it again, if we get too uppity, Mother Earth will stomp us like the bugs we are.
> 
> As for there not being a normal cycle, I have to call foul. The planet is 4.5 billion years old. It's absolutely silly to think we can damage her in 300 years. I have zero doubt we are affecting her, but I don't think have the ability to cause a localized earthquake let alone an earth killing, without the help of nuclear fallout.
> 
> ...


There is just no sense at all in asserting that because something is 4.5 billion years old then it cannot be damaged in 300 years.

We _do_ have the ability to cause earthquakes. Just one example: a magnitude 5.1 tremor which struck the town of Lorca in south-east Spain, My 2011, is convincingly attributed to groundwater extraction drilling.

Of course we do not know what the normal variance of global average temperature would be without our interference. However, as illustrative example, If I broke your arm and then said 'well, we don't know how broken it would have been if I hadn't touched it'. Would you accept that?

No matter the improvement in technology the unavoidable truth is there are too many people, not enough resources, and too much toxic waste produced.

I am genuinely surprised (and say this without any hint of spite or sarcasm) given your advised role as an analyst that these issues are not clearer for you.

Allow me to play with your marathon analogy. Ignoring climate change is akin to running a marathon and slicing your own legs off piece by piece en route. You may get to the finish line but at what cost?


----------



## Apatheticviews (Mar 21, 2010)

I've never said to ignore it, but I'm also not going to assume causality. I've stated repeated, do what we can, where we can to reduce our impact on the environment, however, we also need more real data before we can assume that we are the cause of "all" this.

Ignoring the enviroment is more akin to not training and attempting to run a marathon. Neglect causes damage assuredly, but we've actively started going after anyone who is actively trying to harm the planet. We just need to figure out better ways to do that. Technological improvements are a big step. Policy is another, but we cannot assume that humans will doom us all based purely on limited observational data.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Apatheticviews said:


> I've never said to ignore it, but I'm also not going to assume causality. I've stated repeated, do what we can, where we can to reduce our impact on the environment, however, we also need more real data before we can assume that we are the cause of "all" this.
> 
> Ignoring the enviroment is more akin to not training and attempting to run a marathon. Neglect causes damage assuredly, but we've actively started going after anyone who is actively trying to harm the planet. We just need to figure out better ways to do that. Technological improvements are a big step. Policy is another, but we cannot assume that humans will doom us all based purely on limited observational data.


I trust you are able to acknowledge, as I do, the good natured thrust of our exchanges here and in this faith I am moved to be very direct with you, whilst remaining very polite and sincerely respectful.

You have pointedly failed to engage with any of the valid points I have made to counter all of your claims. This tends to arouse suspicion as to the limits and strengths of your position.

The signature strategies of all denialists are these: framing, sunk loss fallacy and confirmation bias. You will, I presume, concede that your debate is somewhat riddled with these manoeuvres?


----------



## Haffman (Oct 11, 2010)

Cuff, I am not offended by your analogy I just found it too flippant for the issues being discussed. Everything you have said about a fetus can also be said of a neonate.From the experience of your own daughter surely you realise how helpless and neurodevelopmentally immature she was at birth? She did not have those 'human' qualities you list at that stage - self awareness, attachment, empathy. A 24 week old fetus has a shot at life even if forcibly delivered. A neonate has a shot at life too but is totally and utterly helpless. Both have the potential you describe. One can eat and breathe, the other not. Both are human but also, by your definition, not yet human.

Yes, I was meaning the medical practioner. Terminations of pregnancy, at the latter stage of the legally sanctioned limit, are gruesome unfortunate procedures. Would that they were just like stepping on an acorn! Perhaps I presume too much but I dont think you have been present at one? All I say is that you might feel differently about the analogy if you had. 

I emphasize no offence is given or taken. I just think the subject is worthy of more serious thought than your analogy implies.


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

Jovan said:


> mrkleen... with all due respect... we get along, but sometimes you attack the people who are technically on our side with a little too much ferocity!


Sorry I dont have a scorecard - nor see it as "sides" - if I see someone with an argument that I feel I can reply to, I do.


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

Apatheticviews said:


> And romneycare resulted in a 30% increase in insurance costs. The idea is sound, the application is poor.
> 
> Universal Health Care is not the same as universal health care insurance. Insurance is a mechanism, and a flawed one open to profiteering. On paper it looks like the right solution, but in reality it is a poor choice. Just ask any military member who remembers the transition from service provided health care to tri-care insurance.


Every Military member I have seen questioned about the VA system says it is flawed, yet they dont want Washington to touch it. And Medicare for all its faults - is one of the most popular social programs in the country.

Obamacare in its current form is not the final execution we will settle on as a country. But just like your earlier global warming comments.....it is better to get the ball rolling, and work out the kinks along the way, then to wait till our entire health care system is bankrupt and then pull some master plan our of a hat.

I love all the Monday Morning Quarterbacks who are blocking their states from participating in the Affordable Care Act - while simultaneously offering no viable alternatives, while bleeding the current system dry with their ghastly high number of uninsured who use the ER as their aspirin dispensary.

Makes about as much sense as those tea party fools holding the "Government - keep your hands off my social security" signs.


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

Haffman said:


> A 24 week old fetus has a shot at life even if forcibly delivered. A neonate has a shot at life too but is totally and utterly helpless. Both have the potential you describe. One can eat and breathe, the other not. Both are human but also, by your definition, not yet human.


Those are all valid points. I have read child development experts express the opinion that all humans are born very premature, at least compared to any other animal, and that they are not really humans in a full sense until 6 months of age.

And that's one of the reasons that I eschew debates about the moment of "ensoulment." I think personhood accrues over time, and I'm not sure it's 100% done at the time of birth. I am 100% confident it's not significantly there in the first trimester.

As for how the physician feels, the good news is that American doctors are rarely _compelled_ to perform procedures. If we were talking about whether all obstetricians should be _required _to perform late-term abortions on demand, that would matter a lot. But presumably those who do so now are willing to do so. So we're not talking about forcing a doctor to do anything he deems repugnant. Just about whether some women should be forced to do something _they _do not wish to do.


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

CuffDaddy said:


> As for how the physician feels, the good news is that American doctors are rarely _compelled_ to perform procedures. If we were talking about whether all obstetricians should be _required _to perform late-term abortions on demand, that would matter a lot. But presumably those who do so now are willing to do so. So we're not talking about forcing a doctor to do anything he deems repugnant. Just about whether some women should be forced to do something _they _do not wish to do.


CuffDaddy and Haffman, I am enjoying following your debate. It is an object lesson in how to express very strongly held views on a controversial subject with civility and decorum.

Haffman, what is the UK position on this? Are abortions something that a National Health Service hospital doctor specialising in the appropriate area would be obliged to perform?


----------



## Haffman (Oct 11, 2010)

Balfour said:


> CuffDaddy and Haffman, I am enjoying following your debate. It is an object lesson in how to express very strongly held views on a controversial subject with civility and decorum.
> 
> Haffman, what is the UK position on this? Are abortions something that a National Health Service hospital doctor specialising in the appropriate area would be obliged to perform?


No you are not obliged to perform them and cannot be compelled to perform them, but sadly because there are so many terminations of pregnancy on the list (and thats a story in itself...) those doctors I know who are in relevant specialties (including anaesthetics) can feel a pressure from colleagues to participate. My own experience of them comes from medical school so fortunately was not in a 'leading' role, but I can tell you that, for example, watching what I knew to be a perfectly healthy young fetus being vacuumed up a tube was one of the most dismal occasions of my life. The true horror being of course that it still is impossible for me to make my mind up which is the most reasonable course of action for government and society to take.


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

Haffman said:


> ... but sadly because there are so many terminations of pregnancy on the list (and thats a story in itself...)


Thank you for responding. On the quoted bit, regardless of one's views on the issue of legality, this is terribly sad.


----------



## Haffman (Oct 11, 2010)

CuffDaddy said:


> Those are all valid points. I have read child development experts express the opinion that all humans are born very premature, at least compared to any other animal, and that they are not really humans in a full sense until 6 months of age.
> 
> And that's one of the reasons that I eschew debates about the moment of "ensoulment." I think personhood accrues over time, and I'm not sure it's 100% done at the time of birth. I am 100% confident it's not significantly there in the first trimester.
> 
> As for how the physician feels, the good news is that American doctors are rarely _compelled_ to perform procedures. If we were talking about whether all obstetricians should be _required _to perform late-term abortions on demand, that would matter a lot. But presumably those who do so now are willing to do so. So we're not talking about forcing a doctor to do anything he deems repugnant. Just about whether some women should be forced to do something _they _do not wish to do.


Your comments on child development are perceptive and I think correct. The human birth canal is poorly designed compared to, say, a horse. The problems with the limited dimensions and passage of the birth canal, ever increasing human skull size as our cortex got more developed, and our bipedal locomotion have probably conspired to fetuses being delivered a few months before their 'correct' date would otherwise be.

I accept your other point but am mindful that a 12 week old fetus is still a very humanlike 'miracle' of design, development (and survival), although of course terminations continue well to the end of the second trimester.

My point about the practitioners of abortion, to be clear, is not that they are compelled to do it but a similar one I suppose to thinking of the slaughterhouse... I.e. one's views on killing can change or be tempered when one is exposed to the reality of it (whereas stepping on an acorn one barely registers, even when aware of it)


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

Haffman said:


> No you are not obliged to perform them and cannot be compelled to perform them, but sadly because there are so many terminations of pregnancy on the list (and thats a story in itself...) those doctors I know who are in relevant specialties (including anaesthetics) can feel a pressure from colleagues to participate.


It is very much the opposite situation here. There are states that currently have NO doctors who will perform abortions. The doctors who will perform late term abortion are down to a handful in the whole country - few enough that rabid anti-abortion types know them all by name (and kill them from time to time). Women can face dire medical need for an abortion and have a hard time getting those services.


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

Haffman said:


> My point about the practitioners of abortion, to be clear, is not that they are compelled to do it but a similar one I suppose to thinking of the slaughterhouse... I.e. one's views on killing can change or be tempered when one is exposed to the reality of it (whereas stepping on an acorn one barely registers, even when aware of it)


Interesting point. It reminds me of my very tangentially-related view that all people who eat meat need to occassionally hunt or participate in the slaughter of a domestic animal. If it's too distateful to you, then stop eating meat. Don't deny the reality of what you're doing. But don't imagine it to be something it's not, either.


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

One other note. There is sometimes wisdom to be found in the old English Common Law. I have been led to understand that abortion under the common law was legal until the "quickening," and a misdemeanor thereafter. Infanticide was murder. That seems to me not an entirely unreasonable arrangement of sliding the scale as the likelihood of "personhood" grows.


----------



## blairrob (Oct 30, 2010)

CuffDaddy said:


> Interesting point. It reminds me of my very tangentially-related view that all people who eat meat need to occassionally hunt or participate in the slaughter of a domestic animal. If it's too distateful to you, then stop eating meat. Don't deny the reality of what you're doing. But don't imagine it to be something it's not, either.


That seems rather silly to me. I enjoy neither fishing nor hunting because I find them unpleasant tasks or hobbies but to think that should suggest I stop eating trout or steak is ridiculous, Cuff. I don't like farming or growing vegetables either; all that dirt under your nails and that smell of pig manure- Yikes!, but I am not giving up on cream of squash soup or roasted potatoes.

Surely one doesn't have to partake of all endeavours they find unpleasant to enjoy the fruits of such endeavours when done by paid labour? I can't wear leather shoes anymore because I don't want to spend time in an abbatoir? It seems an irrational perspective. To push that further, I particularly dislike cleaning toilets and am quite happy to have someone else do it for me but if I am not permitted to use it without cleaning it myself, well, lets just say I will be a larger and crankier poster than I am already, should such a thing be possible.


----------



## bernoulli (Mar 21, 2011)

Thank you for the recommendation. I just started the Bruno and the Hermetic Tradition last night and maybe will add yours in the reading pile in the future. Unfortunately, work will continue to keep me very busy till the Holidays, so any further exchanges will be rare. It has been a pleasure though, and I hope my unusual sense of style (since you mention my WAYWT post) does not offend your sensibilities.



Shaver said:


> bernoulli, I salute you Sir! I note on the WAYWT thread you advise that you have had a hiatus. Allow me to welcome you back. It is a distinct pleasure to engage with such a good natured chap as yourself.
> 
> Can I recommend to you The Occult Tradition by David S Katz? Here is a reasonable review to whet your appetite;
> 
> https://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2005/dec/31/featuresreviews.guardianreview10


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

blairrob said:


> That seems rather silly to me. I enjoy neither fishing nor hunting because I find them unpleasant tasks or hobbies but to think that should suggest I stop eating trout or steak is ridiculous, Cuff.


My view has nothing to do with whether one enjoys hunting or fishing. It has to do with facing the consequences that one's choices place on other living creatures. Plants aren't sentient, so there's no moral component there. People who clean toilets for a living are making a choice to do that in exchange for money.

But animals are sentient and don't choose to be meat. Every time you sit down to eat a hamburger or order fish & chips, you are choosing to end an animal's life. It's easy to live in complete denial of that fact if you don't ever really face it by being present for a food animal's death.

I say the same thing about those of us who drive cars. I believe current climate change is anthropogenic, and anyone who doesn't do everything they practically can to reduce their greenhouse footprint should be required to go look at glaciers - and the places glaciers were 20 years ago.

I believe people should be granted wide latitude in how to live their lives, since no human really KNOWS the secret to the "right" way to live. But for life choices that have negative impacts on others, we ought to face those directly. Want to fire an employee? Do it yourself, don't "delegate" it to HR. Want to break up with a girlfriend? Don't send an email, do it in person. Want to eat meat? Watch an animal die from time to time. Don't flinch, face what you are and what you do forthrightly.

I recognize that all of the above are among my more peculiar views, which is saying something. But they make sense to me, if to nobody else.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

CuffDaddy said:


> My view has nothing to do with whether one enjoys hunting or fishing. It has to do with facing the consequences that one's choices place on other living creatures. Plants aren't sentient, so there's no moral component there. People who clean toilets for a living are making a choice to do that in exchange for money.
> 
> But animals are sentient and don't choose to be meat. Every time you sit down to eat a hamburger or order fish & chips, you are choosing to end an animal's life. It's easy to live in complete denial of that fact if you don't ever really face it by being present for a food animal's death.
> 
> ...


*+1* Responsibilty, and the capacity to own it, makes for a better person.

My quibble re alleged non-sentience of flora can wait for another day. :icon_smile:


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

^^
I hunt. I fish. I also raise a vegetable garden in the back of our property. I guess that makes me an omnivore(?). I also have at least a years worth of survival rations stored on shelves in our basement. Does that qualify me as one prepared for emergencies, a survivalist, a nut case or perhaps a combination thereof? LOL.  Just a thought, but when a vegetarian eats their nuts, seeds and berries, or perhaps that ceasar salad I had for lunch the other day, is the plant not just as dead as the critter that gets consumed? I seem to recall that scientists discovered that plants scream when they are cut for harvesting(?).


----------



## Snow Hill Pond (Aug 10, 2011)

CuffDaddy said:


> Interesting point. It reminds me of my very tangentially-related view that all people who eat meat need to occassionally hunt or participate in the slaughter of a domestic animal. If it's too distateful to you, then stop eating meat. Don't deny the reality of what you're doing. But don't imagine it to be something it's not, either.


Although I agree with the sentiment, I disagree with the punishment. I've never slaughtered a cow, but I enjoy a strip steak as much as the next guy...maybe more.

With regard to killing-what-you-eat, I have hunted and fished for smaller game and enjoy those activites...fishing more than hunting. I agree that everyone should be exposed to these activities...not for the gut check aspect of it (Can you eat something after seeing its blood and guts?), but rather, it gets the person closer to nature and hopefully makes the person respect it more.

Even more tangentially, I think a man is not man until he can competently handle a fishing pole and a firearm...not necessarily simultaneously, of course, unless the situation warrants.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

eagle2250 said:


> ^^
> I hunt. I fish. I also raise a vegetable garden in the back of our property. I guess that makes me an omnivore(?). I also have at least a years worth of survival rations stored on shelves in our basement. Does that qualify me as one prepared for emergencies, a survivalist, a nut case or perhaps a combination thereof? LOL.  Just a thought, but when a vegetarian eats their nuts, seeds and berries, or perhaps that ceasar salad I had for lunch the other day, is the plant not just as dead as the critter that gets consumed? I seem to recall that scientists discovered that plants scream when they are cut for harvesting(?).


I'm gonna opt for the combination Eagle - you are a survivalist nutcase who is prepared for emergencies. :icon_smile_wink:

After spending much of my adult life as a vegetarian I am now an omnivore. Can't beat those dripping red steaks. Yummy.

I am terribly fond of animals, but now I eat them too. I disdain anyone who hides from the fact that this is a killing, who can't bear the sight of blood, who doesn't want to see how the food gets to their plate.

Plants have a very different scale of chronology to humans, which is why it is easy for some to discard them as inanimate.


----------

