[paraclete]

All you guys are proving here is there aren't enough birth control pills to go around

[speechlesstx]

all you guys are proving here is there arn'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.

[paraclete]

I was thinking you should spread the joy and buy some for the conservatives, they have obviously been breeding in cupboards overnight

[talaniman]

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.

[TUT317]

Are you familiar with Gordon Tullock's 'The Rent-seeking society' ? I've alluded to it in the past and gave the taxi driver example. When the political system changed it to a medallion system ;it closed the door of opportunity for the taxi driver who aspires to own their own business ;and concentrated the power and wealth into the few who could pay the medallion fees .
That is why I keep on saying that it is government policies that create large too big to fail cartels in the market .

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

[tomder55]

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.

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.
It has to come from the electorate... hence the birth of the Tea Party movement .

[speechlesstx]

I don't get it.You wont feed the hungry, unless Sandra gives up her pills?? Thats 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.

Let Sandra buy her own pills. Oh I forget, you guys think women are helpless tools.

[talaniman]

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.
It has to come from the electorate... hence the birth of the Tea Party movement .

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.

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.

Quote by Speech,
Let Sandra buy her own pills. Oh I forget, you guys think women are helpless tools.

We are all helpless tools to those that hide the money.

[speechlesstx]

We are all helpless tools to those that hide the money.

So now you're the victim. Please.

[tomder55]

Corporations must have rules

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'.

[talaniman]

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.

I wrote about burdensome regulations that starve out the competition

You never been specific, or shown the HOW of your position.

[speechlesstx]

I said "WE", that means you two.

I don't claim to be a victim, I take responsibility for myself.

You like to ignore the results

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.

You cannot address problems that you don't recognize, nor find solutions you throw god at.

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.

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've made it clear that reality is irrelevant to you.

You never been specific, or shown the HOW of your position.

You must have me confused with tom.

[tomder55]

The same person who complains about corporation's influence on the government argues we need more of the same.

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.

[Justice Janice Rogers Brown.. United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. 'Hettinga v. United States ' ].

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.

[talaniman]

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.

[speechlesstx]

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.

[excon]

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.

Hello again, Steve:

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

[speechlesstx]

Hello again, Steve:

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.

[talaniman]

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??

[tomder55]

I think you will look back at those days as the good old days .

[speechlesstx]

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 thats 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????

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?