 |
US News & World Report poll said the top news story Americans feared most for 2012 was Obama wins reelection, 2-1 over those who fear he won't win reelection.
President Obama wins reelection 33%
Taxes will increase 31%
Iran will get a nuclear weapon 16%
Obama will lose reelection 16%
North Korea will attack South Korea 4%
Me? I'm with the 33 percent.And yours? (I attempted a poll but there was apparently a glitch in getting 'er done)
For me: the "Arab Spring" of 2011 will evolve into the "Muslim Extremist Spring" of 2012.
Europe plunges the world into another GFC.
Carbon Tax/Mining Tax causes massive inflation
Hello Steve:
Although I'm NOT thrilled with Obama, I DREAD the Supreme Court appointments ANY of the wingers would make. For that reason, and that reason ALONE, Obama needs to be reelected...
If you like the drug war, you're going to love the birth control war.
excon
OK, but I can GUARANTEE you won't read that news story in 2012.
I am worried about the European debt crisis, Islamic extremism in Egypt and other countries in North Africa and the Middle East. And Iran getting a nuclear weapon. Birth control was settled by the U.S. supreme court in 1967 so we don't have to worry about that no matter who is on the supreme court, they wouldn't dare try to outlaw it or even abortion, they are both settled issues.
As Romney said in the debate... there is absolutely no movement in Congress or the States to reverse the Griswold decision... no matter how wrongly it was decided.
Put me down for the threat of an Obama reelection . As bad as it's been ;the worse is yet to come if he has a 2nd term with no worry of running for reelection.
I'd think ex would be a bit more concerned about "Bush on steroids" winning another round.
Hello again:
Couple things... Griswold was brought up, NOT by Stephanopolos, but by Santorum himself.. He DID say, out of the blue, that contraception is wrong and states have the right to outlaw it. The question to Romney, therefore, WAS appropriate..
I'm NOT a fan of Obama. I'm LESS a fan of the alternatives, however... In fact, each one of the alternatives would appoint Supreme Court Justices who WOULD overturn your right to purchase birth control.
If you LIKE the drug war, you're going to LOVE the contraception war.
excon
Not only is it now a "right "... the left has made it an "entitlement" with my tax dollars going to people who can't afford their own balloons . You would make a criminal of any pharmacy owner who REFUSES to sell it .
Hello again, tom:Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Nahhh... I'd just take his license away.. After all, it's the PUBLIC who grants the license, and if he's not going to service the PUBLIC, he doesn't deserve a license.
excon
So Santorum's rightful, constitutional belief in states' rights is bad, but forcing an individual to violate his conscience is good. How do you feel about other "conscientious objectors"?Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Hello again, Steve:Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
Let's call a spade a spade, shall we?? If a pharmacist has trouble dispensing SOME drugs, maybe he ought to seek out another profession. Nobody is FORCING him to become a pharmacist. But, if he SEEKS a license from the PUBLIC, the PUBLIC has the right to set the TERMS of the license.
You DO agree with that, don't you? What if a guy who owns a bar decides, IN GOOD CONSCIENCE, to serve kids? Should the state let him?
To be clear, the ONLY candidate who would actually give the states BACK the rights the feds took, is Ron Paul.. And, even HE'D mandate a FEDERAL ban on abortion...
So, the candidates who SAY they're for states rights, will selectively pick WHICH rights the state should have and which rights the feds should have...
You don't think they'll allow MY state to legalize marijuana or gay marriage. You KNOW they won't.
excon
"Iran getting nuclear weapon" by a landslide. To me, all the others combined, pale in comparison.
In your bar scenario you are telling him he is restricted from selling the liquor. In your pharmacy scenario you are forcing the pharmacist to dispense all legal drugs.
A better comparison to a bar would be to compel the bartender that he must sell scotch or any other liquor product the owner doesn't want to sell. He's licensed too. Are you saying he has no choice what NOT to sell ?
Is that true of a licensed doctor too ? Are you going to force them now to perform infantacide if they are opposed ?
Hello again, tom:Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Why license ANYBODY for ANYTHING, if in good conscience, people can do their own thing?
excon
Well that of course is a horse of a different color . Perhaps the use of certified credentials are a bit overused in this country . My lawyer may be good at tax law or tort and may not do criminal law . He has a choice of what aspects of the law he chooses to practice. Yet he has to pass the bar to be a licensed lawyer all the same.
I can't think of one example outside the medical/pharmacist profession where the added requirement is imposed that someone is required to compromise their values . Oh wait... take that back... some Muslim taxi drivers refuse fares carrying alcohol.
The way I see it ;if they refuse to conduct commerce that's their business.The only one losing money is them (even though it probably violates their terms of employment with their bosses ) .
But you are of the mindset that government can force you to conduct commerce. It doesn't surprise me that if you think everyone should be compelled to buy insurance that you would have no problem telling pharmacists they must sell something they don't want to.
But then don't talk to me about being libertine. That is statism extreme.
Hello again, tom:Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Being the reasonable fellow that I am, I DO have a solution. It's a compromise, and probably a compromise YOU'RE not willing to accept.. But, I'm going to put it out there...
I have NO problem with a pharmacist doing his own thing, AS LONG as the PUBLIC can STILL get served... In other words, if there's another pharmacist that's convenient to the PUBLIC, I WOULDN'T force that guy to compromise his values... However, if he's the ONLY pharmacist in town, it would be MY judgment that the needs of the PUBLIC outweigh the needs of the pharmacist.
That is a REASONABLE solution to a problem that I'm certain you won't agree with.. You'd probably like it to be a little more ONE WAY.. In fact, a LOT more one way.
excon
Dude, we're licensed to sell, service and install fire extinguishers, fire suppression systems and security systems. I'll turn down any customer I please.
So in other words, if you're the only doctor in town you should be forced to perform an abortion? Dude, that's just wrong.
Hello again, Steve:Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
At least tom recognized the special situation of doctors and pharmacists.. I don't know how it got by you...
But, let's use fire as an example. Could the fire chief let a Muslims house burn down because, in good conscience, he believes they're terrorists?
excon
I have no idea what you're referring to with tom recognizing "the special situation of doctors and pharmacists" that I allegedly don't recognize. You'll have to be more specific in what I allegedly don't know.
The fire chief is either a) of a volunteer department and can probably decide to fight a fire or not for whatever reason he wants, or b) a municipal chief obligated to protect and serve all residents equally. Most abortions as is the is the use of contraceptives, are elective, just as I can elect to NOT perform abortions or sell "emergency" contraception.
Hello again, Steve:Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
That's interesting... You think a volunteer fire fighter WOULD be able discriminate.. I don't share that view, of course.
excon
In fact there are many such examples:Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
1. If you have a license to run a business establishment you may not refuse to serve people based on race, creed, sex,etc. It doesn't matter if you believe it immoral for races or sexes to mingle - you may not discrimenate even though your place of business is your private property.
2. If you are a landlord you may not discriminate - it doesn't matter what your view on cohabitation of unmarried partners (or gay partners) may be - you may not refuse to rent them your property unless the living arrangement would violate local law.
3. If you want to provide certain charitable services you can run afoul of laws as well - look at what happened with Catholic Charities and their refusal to help place foster children with gay couples. They have been forced to stop providing foster children services in certain municipalities due to refusal to bend on their views. Like the pharmacist they had a choice to either compromise their values or get out of the business.
Key word, volunteer. He/she doesn't have to do anything. You apparently think volunteers are as obligated as doctors and pharmacists to do whatever it is you demand. I don't share that view.
And that's a damn shame. A disgrace actually.Quote:
Originally Posted by ebaines
I would hope that any voluteer first responder who refused to serve people based on race, creed, religion etc would be bounced out of the service ASAP. Yes he's a volunteer, but he's also a representative of the organization he's a part of, and as such has an obligation to uphold the standards of that orgaization. If I'm the fire captain I would tell this guy to take a hike - we don't need him.
As a practical matter most volunteer organizations have written non-descrimenation policies in this regard - it's required if you want to get funding government (and most volunteer fire departnments do get support from local government) or large charitable foundations such as United Way, Red Cross, etc.
Don't worry, I'm not advocating for a volunteer firefighter to discriminate for any reason and of course I know there are conditions for government funding, requirements for housing, etc.
All I'm saying is there ought to be a few exceptions, such as forcing a church to violate their morals to adopt children out, or forcing a pharmacist to dispense drugs or a doctor to perform abortions that are purely elective in nature. Whatever happened to "choice"? Don't we get one as well?
Now, back to the subject of this post. This is not a headline I ever want fulfilled...
Obama Administration Reportedly Plans to Create Internet ID for All Americans
That's why choice # 4 was the only real choice.
From this comes censorship next.
Romney said its okay to fire the bums that can't give you the service you wanted. Hire someone who can.
I agree. But the worst nightmare we can get is to elect him president, and have a republican congress with him. Déjà vu?
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:05 AM. |