OK if you are uncomforable with ideology use the word philosophy. I did not use the word until you brought it up.Quote:
Why would you want to argue for this position anyway? Ideology is not a good thing.
|
OK if you are uncomforable with ideology use the word philosophy. I did not use the word until you brought it up.Quote:
Why would you want to argue for this position anyway? Ideology is not a good thing.
Why is ideology not a good thing? Everyone is ideological though some either pretend not to be or just lie about it.Quote:
Originally Posted by TUT317
Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
Hi Steve,
Yes, it is probably true for everyone. It is for this reason I try to avoid this trap whenever possible. Some occasions are more successful than others.
The reason being is because political ideology is very seductive. It gives us the impression that when it comes to politics we can reduce the complex to the simplex. Social relationships are complex arrangements on various levels. Language also adds to this complexity. There is no simple reduction.
When we start to believe we possess,'the truth'. We also begin to believe this pursuit will solve our problems. We tend to ignore the actual realities that surround us. The more we can ignore the realities the tighter we embrace the ideology. "If only society could conform to our ideology everything would dramatically improve for everyone".
History has shown that humans have some type of psychological weakness when it comes to ideologies. We can't seem to help ourselves.
Just my opinion.
I couldn't agree more TUT. Ideology isn't good for compromise, and consensus when all sides become entrenched in it.
Well, I am just a simple guy and I don't have a problem with ideology, I don't see how we can escape it. I just take issue with people who insist they aren't ideological while aggressively trying to implement their "If only society could conform to our ideology everything would dramatically improve for everyone" world view.
That is what this thread is about, a disease in search of a cure. Facts be damned, all those non-ideological liberals are just being pragmatic in forcing the church to either violate her beliefs or give up ministering to people's needs so whoever missed out of the "virtually universal" contraceptive use in this country can have birth control pills provided by others.
At least I'm being honest about my ideology. They're not.
You've couldn't have illustrated my last point any better.Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
The churches rights stop where mine begins. That's not ideology, that's the law. And NO church will dictate MY rights. That's the law too. Its no conspiracy for a church to be a church, and not a tax exempt business, we have enough of those already.
38 states agree with me, and so does TEXAS, so don't blame Washington, blame your state legislature, and the Governor for making rules for the church. I know,any thing from us libs is a straw argument. That's cool, but it changes no facts, or the law.
Fact is, contraceptives is an answer to stopping abortions. If that's a conspiracy, or a straw argument, so be it. And the Tea Party should keep its hands off MY rights. Now that is ideology!
I didn't realize the church was infringing on your rights. How so exactly?Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
The indisputable fact is there is no shortage of access to contraceptives, and your answer is exactly what I just referred to. Your "contraceptives is an answer to stopping abortions" line is but an agenda hiding behind a cliché. FORCING the church to buy contraceptives against her beliefs is as ideological as it gets.Quote:
Fact is, contraceptives is an answer to stopping abortions. If that's a conspiracy, or a straw argument, so be it. And the Tea Party should keep its hands off MY rights. Now that is ideology!
Once again you make my point for me. I'm just waiting for you to be honest with yourself and with us about it.
You seem to be stuck in not understanding the fungibility of MONEY.
Fungibility - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Only by understanding this concept will you see that the church doesn't hand out, or pay for any goods or services provided the employee. NONE! They pay for a very defined service from a service provider, INSURANCE...
We have gone through this before and a failure to understand terms and concepts leaves you with misconceptions and flawed conclusions. So its not your ideology that makes for a disregard for facts and stated goals, but just a lack of expertise in this area. That's okay,the fine points of business and commerce is not for everyone.
Now these straw man conspiracy theories you have can be offset by my own conspiracy theory... the religious right is trying to impose its will on everyone, and hollering "VICTIM" is the vehicle by which they convey it. A distraction to their own nefarious goal of social dominance and control of the masses through the imposition of their version of moral law.
Put gods name on it and the right swallows this crap hook, line, and sinker, without question.
Well that's my conspiracy theory, not bad for an progressive huh? By law, my theory is as good as yours, until we get to court. Where I win because its settled law in 38 states including TEXAS. That's a fact I have linked to in previous posts.
A) Same BS in a different package. Already answered and putting a new bow on the same refuse doesn't make it more palatable. You are still forcing the church to use their money on contraceptives against their conscience and in violation of the first amendment.
B) Asking you to stop forcing your ideology on me does not infringe on your rights.
Hello again, Steve:Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
Let me see.. I'm NOT tax exempt like a church. I don't get that government handout... I'm not thrilled with that, but as long as a church sticks to churching, I have no problem with it.. But, when a church wants to BE a business and compete with your regular load bearing, tax paying business's, they want the SAME tax break they get for being church's.
So, if a MY business doesn't get the tax breaks you want the church to have, indeed I'm paying MORE than my fair share of taxes.
excon
They don't infringe on my rights, because they can't, I won't let them. I don't infringe on theirs either, they just say I do. You and they think their victims, but they aren't.
Just as I have limits, boundaries and rules for acceptable behavior, DEFINED BY LAW, so do you and the church. Not liking the LAW, doesn't make you, or the church, a victim.
And the circle begins again. Does your business have a soup kitchen, homeless shelter, medical clinic, orphanage or some such that offers those services free of charge to the indigent? I could be wrong (but I'm not) but the church using its DONATED funds not to profit but to the serve the community is a pretty good reason to get a tax break.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
You're still stuck on this silly narrative that church is trying to be a business when it isn't. As has already been shown repeatedly, the government infringed on the church's long established roles in health care, education and benevolence, not the other way around. And the proceeds from such services are returned to provide more services, not to profit monetarily, which is what you're in it for.
You know, when the church helps someone you do benefit, too. That's one less of your tax dollars wasted on inefficient government handouts.
You know how ridiculous that is? The church isn't infringing on your rights by your own admission, but your ideological law is forcing the church to violate their first amendment right to freedom of religion or quit being a church. You make no sense whatsoever.Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
Then the church should take the government to court and quit hollering victim. Oh that's right, they did, and they lost. Case closed.
You should pay more attention, the church's suit is just beginning.Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
You guys never quit, I like that in you. If you would only use your power for good and not be afraid of the rights of others.
Good Luck.
EDIT-Keep feeding the hungry, and let Sandra have sex, both can be done you know. Guess you don't.
Now if that ain't the most ironic answer I've ever seen. What exactly about the church feeding the hungry, clothing people, furnishing shelter, educating, helping jobless pay bills, sheltering abused women, caring for orphans and healing body and soul is not using 'power' for good?Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
Did you not read my post again? Because Obama wants the church to to pay for Sandra to have protected sex the church will have to discriminate, violate her beliefs or cease feeding the hungry, clothing people, furnishing shelter, educating, helping jobless pay bills, sheltering abused women, caring for orphans and healing body and soul.Quote:
Good Luck.
EDIT-Keep feeding the hungry, and let Sandra have sex, both can be done you know. Guess you don't.
I mean really, Tal, you progressives have been yammering at our side about the need to take care of others, regardless of who they are, and then you tie our hands, tell us to discriminate on the basis of religion.
Like I said, you're going to miss the services the church provides, it's cutting off your nose to spite your face. And I promise, we won't go quietly while this injustice is carried out. We haven't begun to fight.
Your choice, empty stomachs or contraceptives for Sandra. It's a damn easy choice for me.
If Sandra (and others) get contraceptives, there won't be so many hungry mouths to feed.Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
Yes I've heard. And if that doesn't work we can have forced sterilization, and with the dearth of young bodies needed to work to support that retires when they're 50 we can all be Greece. Or, we can just implement mandatory euthanasia when the state deems you've sucked the nation's resources dry long enough.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
Giving Sandra a handful of contraceptives does nothing to feed the hungry child who needs to eat today. I mean really, weren't we just discussing the massive poverty problem in America a couple of weeks ago? Your solution is contraceptives. One question, are they nutritious?
All you guys are proving here is there aren't enough birth control pills to go around
There are as I've already shown but you do have a point. I'll pitch in a thousand bucks to buy contraceptives for liberals.Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
I was thinking you should spread the joy and buy some for the conservatives, they have obviously been breeding in cupboards overnight
I don't get it.You won't feed the hungry, unless Sandra gives up her pills? That's crazy to even hold hostages like that! Maybe take some of that tax free money you use to pay lawyers and buy some more food. Then you could feed even more homeless people.
Just a suggestion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Tom, the political system didn't change it to the medallion system. In other words, they didn't build it themselves-they had help-and lots of it!
Rent-seeks is just as much a product of corporatism as politics. They are all in it together. Politicians of all persuasion; along with bankers and their hangers-on, the managerial class and their hangers-on and technological elite. Together they they are all rent-seekers.
It is not only the unemployed and poor who are a financial drain on society. These people are also a financial drain on society, yet they managed to go undetected. We all know who wears the brunt of this type of criticism.
Together these elites don't represented so much a drain in terms of what they do, rather it is a case that this type of elitism perpetuates the belief that the solution to our economic problems is to further increase their numbers. This will result result in producing more managerial solutions to societies problems. If we can cut ourselves off from reality we will better be able to examine problems in terms of idealism rather than how things actually work in experience.
As none of their numbers have actually put forward solutions that actually work they set about ignoring the results of their failures. After all their eyes are set firmly on the blueprint.
As I said before, the less society conforms to our expectations the tighter we hold onto the ideology. They have to hold tight to the ideology -after all they are the managerial elite of society. And society is something that ought to be managed correctly, rather than being left to the whims of the democratic process.
Tut
Yes it is a product of corporatism IN politics. The concentration of power benefits both the preferred corporation ,and the political "class". The body politic could easily change it by eliminating both subsidies AND burdensome regulations that starve out the competition.Quote:
Rent-seeks is just as much a product of corporatism as politics.They are all in it together. Politicians of all persuasion; along with bankers and their hangers-on, the managerial class and their hangers-on and technological elite. Together they they are all rent-seekers... As none of their numbers have actually put forward solutions that actually work they set about ignoring the results of their failures. After all their eyes are set firmly on the blueprint.
It has to come from the electorate... hence the birth of the Tea Party movement .
Let Sandra buy her own pills. Oh I forget, you guys think women are helpless tools.Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
Corporations must have rules as we have seen only to well that when they don't, or when they write their own and police themselves it's a disaster in both economic and human terms for the environment and people. Be specific when you say burdensome regulations.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
I agree changes must come from the electorate, but the electorate has to be informed and aware to be effective, and that's where the Tea Party falls short, as passion and conviction so far has only led to more obstruction, and ineffective governance.
Seems we are reliving the civil war, without the guns and blood.
We are all helpless tools to those that hide the money.Quote:
Quote by Speech,
Let Sandra buy her own pills. Oh I forget, you guys think women are helpless tools.
So now you're the victim. Please.Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
really ? And did I write they didn't ? No . I wrote about burdensome regulations that starve out the competition. I've gone over this before. If only a handful of companies can afford to comply ,then the market consolidates and that is how you end up with 'too big to fail'.Quote:
Corporations must have rules
I said "WE", that means you two. While you blame liberals and Obama for the ills of society, thus promoting that this is all his fault for the last three years, you fail to recognize that the rules, regulations,and boundaries on business, and banks, to prevent this from happening, have systematically been dismantled for the last 30 years. You completely ignore the FACT that factories under republicans got PAID to move to Mexico (50,000), and over seas. You ignore the FACT that the rise in health care costs, and energy have hurt YOU as well as me because Corporations were allowed to profit at a record pace on our dime through higher costs for services. How quickly you forget the BP oil spill. Or the millions who lose insurance coverage through job loss, conditions, or afford ability.
You like to ignore the results, and malfeasance causes and conditions of this current down turn, years in the making, and point blame to the guy trying to fix it while you sit on your butt and throw rocks and preach obstruction, and holler about your rights.
You give away your rights by not reaching a consensus we all benefit from and not just YOU!!
You cannot address problems that you don't recognize, nor find solutions you throw god at. So worship the rich and protect them from being fair, tear down the government, and let the church make the law. No more of this semantic BS please.
You have made it clear that you WANT to be a victim, and that's fine, but don't expect me to join you.
You never been specific, or shown the HOW of your position.Quote:
I wrote about burdensome regulations that starve out the competition
I don't claim to be a victim, I take responsibility for myself.Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
Now isn't that the pot calling the kettle black. This very discussion is about results, "virtually universal" contraceptive use in this country which proves beyond a shadow of a d doubt that the mandate is a cure iin search of a disease. If you were interested in results you would have ceded that your goal was met before Obama destroyed the first amendment and trampled on my right to freedom of religion.Quote:
You like to ignore the results
You can't see that contraceptive access is not a problem, and quite frankly I don't believe there is a better solution to anything than God. But I'm not forcing God on you so your objection is irrelevant.Quote:
You cannot address problems that you don't recognize, nor find solutions you throw god at.
You've made it clear that reality is irrelevant to you.Quote:
You have made it clear that you WANT to be a victim, and that's fine, but don't expect me to join you.
You must have me confused with tom.Quote:
You never been specific, or shown the HOW of your position.
The same person who complains about corporation's influence on the government argues we need more of the same.
[Justice Janice Rogers Brown.. United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. 'Hettinga v. United States ' ].Quote:
America's cowboy capitalism was long ago disarmed by a democratic process increasingly dominated by powerful groups with economic interests antithetical to competitors and consumers. And the courts, from which the victims of burdensome regulation sought protection, have been negotiating the terms of surrender since the 1930s.
Hein Hettinga is a Dutch-born immigrant who, by bottling milk from his own cows, was able to work outside the antiquated, industry-backed system of milk regulation. This “loophole” allowed him to charge 20 cents less per gallon than his competition. Unfortunately for him, his competition was “big dairy,” and they didn't appreciate being undercut in price. According to an economist for the Dairy Farmers of America, Hettinga's cheaper milk was “damaging to the marketplace,” even though the existing regulatory system raises costs to American consumers by nearly $1.5 billion per year.
Big dairy eliminated their competitor by lobbying Washington, D.C. lawmakers to close the “loophole” that was being “exploited” by Mr. Hettinga. Senators John Kyl (R-Ariz.) and Harry Reid (D-Nev.) compromised on a deal that would exempt milk producers in Nevada from the regulatory framework and make Mr. Hettinga pay dues into the price-controlled pool, effectively subsidizing his competitors.
Mr. Hettinga brought suit to challenge the new law as both an unconstitutional bill of attainder — that is, a piece of legislation that punishes a single person or a small group of people — and as a violation of his economic liberties guaranteed by the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment. The D.C. Circuit was obliged to apply the law as the Supreme Court has articulated it and thus they dismissed the suit.
In a separate concurrence, however, Judge Brown, joined by Judge Sentelle, wrote to criticize the Supreme Court's long history of providing inadequate protection to economic liberties.
For many businesses, particularly large, established businesses, it is now easier to have Congress regulate a competitor out of business than it is to out-compete them on a level playing field.
RESPONSE TO SPEECH,
The rule of making access to contraceptives a law for corporations, and businesses is to prevent said entities from denying the rights of taxpaying employees to the FULL range of health care,not just the parts they agree with. Even for women whose needs are different for males, and whose coverage is often more expensive.
Despite the right wing making this a religious freedom issue it is about human wellness, but you would love the pope to be the president,and the Vatican to be the congress, and discrimination against females and people with no money or not enough to continue.
Do you not get what a straw man is? There is no problem with access to contraceptives, I've made that very clear. Besides that, contraceptives are not a right, freedom of religion is. Please try and grasp the difference.Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
Hello again, Steve:Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
Couple things...
Access to contraceptives ISN'T the issue. Oh, it's what you'd LIKE the issue to be about, but it isn't.. It's about women's health care being covered by an employers insurance company JUST like they cover men's health.
And, women DO have the RIGHT to equal treatment...
excon
And here we go again. You wonder why we just talk past each other? You guys just start the circle all over again when you run out of ways to make the same silly argument. Time for this silly argument again I suppose.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
You saying its so doesn't make it so especially when you ignore the evidence and facts that it ain't so because some right wing loony says it is so, but it ain't.
Lets drop the straw man language because that's a cop out.
Is there any part of ACA you LIKE? Or should we dump it all and go back to insurance companies raising rates every two years, and canceling you when they have to pay a doctor, and kick you off when you have reached your cap? Which one of those things do you what back?
Or is that a straw argument too??
I think you will look back at those days as the good old days .
Dude, how many times have I pointed out the CDC - which is not "some right wing loony" - said contraceptive use is "virtually universal" in the US? And you want to talk about facts?Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:17 PM. |