Politics Who's Gonna Win?

this is good reminder what the right is about beyond the blah blah blah about freedom: control.

http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/laurie-penny/2012/02/women-rights-control-sexual

 

no i'm not catholic.

i guess i'd rather them both stay out of it and let women make their own decisions. the choice of freedom seems to be allowing women to willfully choose to take birth control while allowing those who disagree with it to not have to pay for it. i dont see anything wrong with that. both groups have the freedom to do what they choose.

now we are saying one group has to cave into the other as i understand it to provide birth control against their beliefs.

 

The issue is bigger than contraception and the Catholic Church.

It is a choice between government providing assurances that all women have equal access to exercise their reproductive rights based on their own moral or religious beliefs vs using government to legislate morality and impose the beliefs of a few (radical evangelicals and the Catholic Church) on the many, thus denying many women that right. The danger is that the latter is a growing movement...from legislation to give personhood status to fertilized eggs to mandating invasive procedures before a woman can exercise her right to chose to terminate a pregnancy.

The notion that the evangelical right and social conservatives are anti-big government is bullshit when you consider the dozens of bills in Congress and state legislatures to limit women's reproductive rights..

 

I believe we have a spending problem, not a tax or revenue problem. First, fix the spending problem. Determine the true revenue need. Fix the tax code. Establish the most effective rate. I don't know what that rate is.

If Obama or liberals want my support for a particular tax rate, I tell you how to do it. An appeal to "fairness" won't do it for me. An appeal to efficiency or effectiveness will. Connecting this with Obama's inability to achieve consensus on any aspects of his economic and social agenda, is his failure to understand how to get others, with a different view, to "buy in" - just as he failed with Obamacare. I stated many times a few percentage points on the top rate won't make that much difference - but my steadfastness against any tax rate increase is based on my view that we have a spending problem. Any talk of tax rate increases before addressing the spending problem is met with a very closed mind on my part - and I know it, I know why, and I repeatedly explain it to those willing to listen.

 

I don't think one should achieve consensus with those on the far end of any particular spectrum. I have no interest in the White House reaching a compromise with the fringe.

 

My view is clear, I don't get yours. I agree that I don't want conservatives imposing their morality on me when it does not affect the right of others, but I also don't want liberals imposing their morality on me. People can choose to be Catholic, they can choose to work for Catholic institutions, they can choose to employ the services of Catholic institutions. Why should I care what Catholics want or do? Why force Catholics to do something against their moral beliefs if it does not interfere with the rights of others? If the government wants contraceptives to be available at low or no costs, the government should make them available - the government doesn't need to go through the Catholic Church or its institutions.
--- merged: Feb 28, 2012 at 12:00 PM ---

Put your view in a different context - one like the slavery question, or women voting rights. I think true, lasting consensus requires going to the extremes and moving people to the best solutions. In order to do that one must seek understanding of those on the extremes. It is true some are only motivated by pure hate, but most on the extremes are not - addressing their concerns makes a difference. I fear Santorim would govern similar to Obama (based on Obama's actions, rather than words), and have a my way or the highway attitude. There are no longer any good choices on the Republican side. Our only hope is for a brokered convention.

 

Address the spending issue first, because I don't trust they will if allowed to increase taxes. It is a trust issue. If they understood that and/or actually wanted to address the trust issue, a solution would be easily arrived at.

Did you know that as Obama celebrates "saving the auto industry" today (GM is not the auto industry, just a component of the auto industry), GM records record profits - meaning profits never recorded in the company's history - UAW workers gave up their right to strike. Oh, and GM still owes the American taxpayer about $43 billion. I think they owe Canada about $10 billion. The market cap of GM is about $40 billion (what the company is worth) - so what does all this mean? The government is not good at negotiating and making financial deals in the private sector. Government officials will easily spend money for political purposes rather than the public good. Under what conditions should this be deemed a success? I don't care who you are, there has to be agreement that celebrating the GM bailout as a success today is premature. I agree with Santorum and Romney on this issue, and more with Santorum because he was also against the Wall St. bailout.

 

Speaking of ace and incompatibility:

Yet, if I recall, you supported legislation that would prohibit Muslims from practicing Sharia law in the US.

No double standard there, ace.

 

Romney takes Michigan! Hopefully that will slow down the talking heads of trying to convince us Santorium has a chance to be president.

 

Given the volume of our interactions, the above is a dishonest statement. I think you know my objection goes beyond "one aspect of..."
--- merged: Feb 29, 2012 at 11:56 AM ---

I stated clearly that when the rights of others is not infringed upon I have no objection to how others practice their religion. In the context of women, if Sharia Law would allow an honor killing of a daughter who engaged in premarital sex - I would never support this. If Catholics don't want to pay for abortions or contraceptive devices, but they have no power to deny those services/products for those who want them - that is their business. If a Christian organization advocated the bombing of abortion clinics - I would never support that. If a Christian organization wanted to legally protest in front of an abortion clinic - that is there business - just don't interfere with the rights of others to come and go as they please. I am sure you can see the differences.

 

We can talk about economic impacts of policies all day, but at the end of the day, the general election is a personality/popularity contest driven by a host of knee jerk citizens who are largely uneducated on the actual facts, besides the ones they see on Fox News or MSNBC. Saying that, can any of the republicans beat Obama in the election? I'd say absolutely not. Milktoast Romney, Religious Zelot Santorium, or the Philandering Newt? Not a chance.

The republicans problem is that they have been largely taken over by a minority group that to the majority of americans, appear to be certifiably insane.

 

The important thing to remember about the Laffer Curve is that it proves that raising taxes is ALWAYS bad. No matter what. Right? kthx.

 

I remember when Ace used to claim to not believe in compromise. I would expect that Ace to applaud Obama's approach to the contraception issue.

 

The Catholic church, yes. Catholic affliated institutions, no, it is not their business.

When a Catholic charity or university or hospital serves the entire community and chooses to hire non-Catholics, it gives up the right to impose religious restrictions on their employees. Even more so when they accept $millions/year in federal grants, which is the case with many of those institutions.