Generational Dynamics
Fourth Turning Forum Archive


Popular links:
Generational Dynamics Web Site
Generational Dynamics Forum
Fourth Turning Archive home page
New Fourth Turning Forum

Thread: 2012 Elections - Page 302







Post#7526 at 02-24-2012 10:23 PM by Eric the Green [at San Jose CA joined Jul 2001 #posts 22,504]
---
02-24-2012, 10:23 PM #7526
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
San Jose CA
Posts
22,504

Quote Originally Posted by The Rani View Post
The "who are the real zombies" theme just keeps coming back for more.
Even if Eric doesn't get it.
It is quite apparent that Republicans are the zombies. I get it; I hope others get it, for the sake of our republic.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive,

Eric A. Meece







Post#7527 at 02-24-2012 10:24 PM by Eric the Green [at San Jose CA joined Jul 2001 #posts 22,504]
---
02-24-2012, 10:24 PM #7527
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
San Jose CA
Posts
22,504

Quote Originally Posted by ziggyX65 View Post
Was it conservatives who divided us into the 1% and the 99%?
It was the Republican policies of Reagan and Bush that caused our nation to be so divided. Those who use the slogan are just calling attention to the facts.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive,

Eric A. Meece







Post#7528 at 02-24-2012 10:37 PM by Eric the Green [at San Jose CA joined Jul 2001 #posts 22,504]
---
02-24-2012, 10:37 PM #7528
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
San Jose CA
Posts
22,504

Quote Originally Posted by Weave View Post
Oh please, you liberals live in fantasy land. The only time Dems win is when they pretend, like Clinton that they are moderate and then, when ther true colors show, like in 1994 and 2010 they get slapped out of power. People bought Obama's dog and pony show of simple homespun phrases of "hope" and "change". This was driven by a love crazed liberal media who never vetted a clear empty suit of little accomplishment and experience. He was, in fact a complete joke when looking at his thin resume....Anger towards Bush was the primary driver of his election.
No doubt these are plausible points. I can't really disagree. It is up to the people to relinquish its fondness for the charming actor and his counter-revolution, and to not be so deceived by the right-wing mantras of "government is the problem" and "don't raise taxes to redistribute wealth to people who don't earn it." There is no doubt that Americans have voted wrong, especially in 1994 and 2010, and that they do not now have the vision or the courage to risk making any real change in this day and age. It wasn't always so, and need not be again. We have a lot of problems in our society and our government, and government action is needed. Americans' failure to understand this is costing them dearly, and will cost them further. At least, however, as Gingrich might have said, the people are no more fond of right-wing social engineering than they are of left-wing social engineering. The public also recoils against too much Republican dismantling of government programs and religious freedoms they have come to expect, and against endless war and militarism. That's why the right-wing fails to carry out many of its destructive intentions, and why blackmail and shutdown strategies fail. As the older deceived Reaganoids die out, the chances are not good that this strategy will work in the future. But it is all that your side offers, Weave.
The only barbarians of late are the "occupy" clowns who engage in violence and mayhem driven by their puppet masters at the union halls and the DNC. Tea Partiers, by comparison, have been peaceful. Many "occupiers" continue to threaten violent acton much like Nazi stormtroopers and communist thugs of Wiemar Germany.
Tea Partiers carry guns in a threatening manner, and throw things at congressmen they don't like. The only reason they are not like the few hooligans who hang around Occupy, is that they are all geezers, and thus too old for such bravado.
As much as the left likes to talk about how "right wingers" want to deny rights, its almost exclusive of the left to look for ways to stifle freedom of speech, when it opposes their ideas.
For example?

Right-wingers are seeking to deny people the right to vote in many states, by erecting barriers intended to discourage the poor from voting. Right-wingers impose censorship laws intended to get media people fired. Right wingers want to limit what is taught in schools to what is acceptable to their own religion. Right-wingers oppose government and corporate whistleblowers and try to shut down websites that expose the truth.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive,

Eric A. Meece







Post#7529 at 02-24-2012 10:41 PM by Eric the Green [at San Jose CA joined Jul 2001 #posts 22,504]
---
02-24-2012, 10:41 PM #7529
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
San Jose CA
Posts
22,504

Quote Originally Posted by Kurt Horner View Post
I'm contrasting two individuals -- the employer vs. the employee. It really doesn't matter whether the employer has incorporated or not. I'm just pointing out that the conservative frame on the contraception mandate seems to assume that employee benefits are the property of the employer, which doesn't make any sense.
Your point on this is very well-taken, and is what I have said also.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive,

Eric A. Meece







Post#7530 at 02-24-2012 10:44 PM by Eric the Green [at San Jose CA joined Jul 2001 #posts 22,504]
---
02-24-2012, 10:44 PM #7530
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
San Jose CA
Posts
22,504

Quote Originally Posted by ziggyX65 View Post
If corporations are people, then they are slaves because they are people owned by people. So does the 13th Amendment abolish corporations?
A very good point. Maybe after Texas executes its first corporation, the corporatists will have something to say on this..
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive,

Eric A. Meece







Post#7531 at 02-24-2012 10:45 PM by Eric the Green [at San Jose CA joined Jul 2001 #posts 22,504]
---
02-24-2012, 10:45 PM #7531
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
San Jose CA
Posts
22,504

Quote Originally Posted by radind View Post
Comparing the NAZI's to barbarians seems totally inadequate. They were evil and wicked.
However, you appear to imply that the threat is only from the 'hard' right.
While I agree that the USA is also vulnerable, it seems to me that the 'hard' left is equally dangerous.
There is no danger from the "hard left" in this country, because there IS no "hard left" in this country.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive,

Eric A. Meece







Post#7532 at 02-24-2012 11:05 PM by JustPassingThrough [at joined Dec 2006 #posts 5,196]
---
02-24-2012, 11:05 PM #7532
Join Date
Dec 2006
Posts
5,196

Quote Originally Posted by Kurt Horner View Post
I'm contrasting two individuals -- the employer vs. the employee. It really doesn't matter whether the employer has incorporated or not. I'm just pointing out that the conservative frame on the contraception mandate seems to assume that employee benefits are the property of the employer, which doesn't make any sense.
Uh...benefits are offered by the employer as compensation. The government is telling the employer what kind of compensation they must offer.







Post#7533 at 02-24-2012 11:11 PM by Exile 67' [at joined Jan 2011 #posts 722]
---
02-24-2012, 11:11 PM #7533
Join Date
Jan 2011
Posts
722

Quote Originally Posted by The Rani View Post
Didn't you ever see The Bad News Bears?
I have. My mom took me to see it at the movie theatre when I was a kid. I've watched it several times since then. I'm not sure how it relates though.







Post#7534 at 02-24-2012 11:26 PM by pbrower2a [at "Michigrim" joined May 2005 #posts 15,014]
---
02-24-2012, 11:26 PM #7534
Join Date
May 2005
Location
"Michigrim"
Posts
15,014

Quote Originally Posted by ziggyX65 View Post
Was it conservatives who divided us into the 1% and the 99%?
Economic reality did. The Left called the Right to account for its trivialization of the intensifying disparity in economic results between the rich and the non-rich. Maybe the divide is more appropriately between the 3% and the 97%, but that is less dramatic.
The greatest evil is not now done in those sordid "dens of crime" (or) even in concentration camps and labour camps. In those we see its final result. But it is conceived and ordered... in clean, carpeted, warmed and well-lighted offices, by (those) who do not need to raise their voices. Hence, naturally enough, my symbol for Hell is something like the bureaucracy of a police state or the office of a thoroughly nasty business concern."


― C.S. Lewis, The Screwtape Letters







Post#7535 at 02-24-2012 11:40 PM by pbrower2a [at "Michigrim" joined May 2005 #posts 15,014]
---
02-24-2012, 11:40 PM #7535
Join Date
May 2005
Location
"Michigrim"
Posts
15,014

Quote Originally Posted by Weave View Post
Oh please, you liberals live in fantasy land. The only time Dems win is when they pretend, like Clinton that they are moderate and then, when ther true colors show, like in 1994 and 2010 they get slapped out of power. People bought Obama's dog and pony show of simple homespun phrases of "hope" and "change". This was driven by a love crazed liberal media who never vetted a clear empty suit of little accomplishment and experience. He was, in fact a complete joke when looking at his thin resume....Anger towards Bush was the primary driver of his election.
Who sets the standard of what constitutes "moderation"? Rush Limbaugh?

George W. Bush earned contempt not so much for his illiberal ideology as he did for lying to induce American politicians to commit to a war for profit, for riding the economic good times of a speculative boom that any person of modest wisdom should have seen as doomed and then holding himself blameless, for the tawdry stunt of flying onto an aircraft carrier, the creation of a personality cult, and for using fraudulent language (the earliest was the "Healthy Forests Initiative" which simply rushed clear-cutting that ensures No Forest Left Behind) to cloak his policies. Little and large things alike discredited Dubya as President to the extent that some historians consider him the Worst President Ever.

http://harpers.org/archive/2008/04/hbc-90002804

Worst. President. Ever.

By Scott Horton

“It would be difficult to identify a President who, facing major international and domestic crises, has failed in both as clearly as President Bush,” concluded one respondent. “His domestic policies,” another noted, “have had the cumulative effect of shoring up a semi-permanent aristocracy of capital that dwarfs the aristocracy of land against which the founding fathers rebelled; of encouraging a mindless retreat from science and rationalism; and of crippling the nation’s economic base.”

America’s historians, it seems, don’t think much of George W. Bush.

Now in all fairness, historians should wait a while before passing judgment on a president’s who served recently, much less one still in office. But the current incumbent is a special case. After all, 81 percent of Americans, according to a recent New York Times poll, believe he’s taken the country on the wrong track. That’s the highest number ever registered. The same poll also says 28 percent have a favorable view of his performance in office, which is also in Nixon-in-the-darkest-days-of-Watergate territory.
Failure. Catastrophic failure. His legacy will long be the atrocities of 9/11 that were eminently preventable, the worst economic meltdown in nearly 70 years, two budget-ravaging wars, and the bungled response to Hurricane Katrina completely out of character with recent Presidencies.

The only barbarians of late are the "occupy" driven by their puppet masters at the union halls and the DNC. Tea Partiers, by comparison, have been peaceful. Many "occupiers" continue to threaten violent acton much like Nazi stormtroopers and communist thugs of Wiemar Germany.
The... clowns who engage in violence and mayhem... deserve to be arrested, charged, convicted, and imprisoned or fined. Law and order is the most basic of human rights without which no other right has any meaning. Union halls and the DNC have the right to support protests against the misconduct of executive elites, plutocrats, and their stooges. If anything it is our economic elites who buy the success of politicians who sell out their states and congressional districts to the super-rich.

Spare the hyperbole.

As much as the left likes to talk about how "right wingers" want to deny rights, its almost exclusive of the left to look for ways to stifle freedom of speech, when it opposes their ideas.
The Hard Right is as capable of using Orwellian rhetoric as any fascist or commie, thank you.

Please tone down the incendiary rhetoric unless you wish to return to my "ignore" list.
Last edited by pbrower2a; 02-24-2012 at 11:44 PM.
The greatest evil is not now done in those sordid "dens of crime" (or) even in concentration camps and labour camps. In those we see its final result. But it is conceived and ordered... in clean, carpeted, warmed and well-lighted offices, by (those) who do not need to raise their voices. Hence, naturally enough, my symbol for Hell is something like the bureaucracy of a police state or the office of a thoroughly nasty business concern."


― C.S. Lewis, The Screwtape Letters







Post#7536 at 02-24-2012 11:55 PM by pbrower2a [at "Michigrim" joined May 2005 #posts 15,014]
---
02-24-2012, 11:55 PM #7536
Join Date
May 2005
Location
"Michigrim"
Posts
15,014

Quote Originally Posted by radind View Post
Comparing the NAZI's to barbarians seems totally inadequate. They were evil and wicked.
However, you appear to imply that the threat is only from the 'hard' right.
While I agree that the USA is also vulnerable, it seems to me that the 'hard' left is equally dangerous.
The Hard Left is in hibernation (Commies) or largely irrelevant (Weather Underground, Black Panthers).

Really there are three related words:

"Barbarian" refers to the difference between cultures often upon first contact when one is not in awe of the other. Montezuma and Cortez surely considered each other barbarians at first. A culture that wears kimonos, plays music on kotos and samisens, and has bonsai trees might seem barbarian to Americans before there is any sharing of culture. Just think of how barbarian Commodore Perry must have seemed in Japan.

"Barbarous" implies the practice of behaviors that another culture holds uncouth. As an example, Americans whose culture gives high reverence to dogs might be appalled at some people of old and distinguished citizens eating dog meat.

"Barbaric" implies the practice of inexcusable violations of moral values irrespective of the level of technological and intellectual sophistication of the country considered "barbaric". The Germans during World War II might have been similar enough in culture to Americans to not be "barbarian"; they might have had good table manners. But enslaving people and perpetrating the Holocaust were both barbaric and beyond any ethical excuse.
The greatest evil is not now done in those sordid "dens of crime" (or) even in concentration camps and labour camps. In those we see its final result. But it is conceived and ordered... in clean, carpeted, warmed and well-lighted offices, by (those) who do not need to raise their voices. Hence, naturally enough, my symbol for Hell is something like the bureaucracy of a police state or the office of a thoroughly nasty business concern."


― C.S. Lewis, The Screwtape Letters







Post#7537 at 02-25-2012 12:26 AM by Exile 67' [at joined Jan 2011 #posts 722]
---
02-25-2012, 12:26 AM #7537
Join Date
Jan 2011
Posts
722

Quote Originally Posted by Kurt Horner View Post
I'm contrasting two individuals -- the employer vs. the employee. It really doesn't matter whether the employer has incorporated or not. I'm just pointing out that the conservative frame on the contraception mandate seems to assume that employee benefits are the property of the employer, which doesn't make any sense.
As an employer, the majority share holder and the business owner I chose the company who would provide the companies HC plan (I picked the plan that best suited me) and then I offered it to the employees as an employment benefit. In two years, I won't have to offer that benefit anymore to employees. The contraception mandate assumes that the individuals in government have the power and authoruty to dictate and to control the individiuals who own the business's and the individuals who run and control the churches. Now, I don't know how many constitutional infractions or which one it's going to take to turn the majority of the American establishment against it's government. But, I know that it's eventually going to happen.







Post#7538 at 02-25-2012 12:38 AM by Exile 67' [at joined Jan 2011 #posts 722]
---
02-25-2012, 12:38 AM #7538
Join Date
Jan 2011
Posts
722

Quote Originally Posted by pbrower2a View Post
Economic reality did. The Left called the Right to account for its trivialization of the intensifying disparity in economic results between the rich and the non-rich. Maybe the divide is more appropriately between the 3% and the 97%, but that is less dramatic.
Realistically speaking, the divide is basically between the have's, have more than enough's and have enough's and the have barely enough's and have not's. I'm a couple of floors above poverty. You might only be a step or two above poverty or you might even be in poverty.
Last edited by Exile 67'; 02-25-2012 at 12:50 AM.







Post#7539 at 02-25-2012 03:54 AM by Eric the Green [at San Jose CA joined Jul 2001 #posts 22,504]
---
02-25-2012, 03:54 AM #7539
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
San Jose CA
Posts
22,504

Quote Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough View Post
Uh...benefits are offered by the employer as compensation. The government is telling the employer what kind of compensation they must offer.
That's a critique of "Obamacare," not the religious issue.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive,

Eric A. Meece







Post#7540 at 02-25-2012 04:49 AM by Alioth68 [at Minnesota joined Apr 2010 #posts 693]
---
02-25-2012, 04:49 AM #7540
Join Date
Apr 2010
Location
Minnesota
Posts
693

Quote Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough View Post
Uh...benefits are offered by the employer as compensation. The government is telling the employer what kind of compensation they must offer.
The government has also mandated for quite some time a minimum wage. Now you may be opposed to that as well (there are a few who are), but would you seriously argue that the difference between what they pay by law, and what they would pay were there no such law, is an amount of money that really "belongs" to the employer, who therefore has a right to a say in how it is spent? (Since that too was government mandating terms of compensation.) Otherwise I don't get your point here.
Last edited by Alioth68; 02-25-2012 at 05:12 AM.
"Understanding is a three-edged sword." --Kosh Naranek
"...Your side, my side, and the truth." --John Sheridan

"No more half-measures." --Mike Ehrmantraut

"rationalizing...is never clear thinking." --SM Kovalinsky







Post#7541 at 02-25-2012 05:01 AM by Alioth68 [at Minnesota joined Apr 2010 #posts 693]
---
02-25-2012, 05:01 AM #7541
Join Date
Apr 2010
Location
Minnesota
Posts
693

Besides, I thought the policy was now changed so that insurance companies must include the coverage for contraception free of additional charge. So it's the insurance companies that are now "being oppressed", not the religious-affiliated employers.
Last edited by Alioth68; 02-25-2012 at 05:06 AM.
"Understanding is a three-edged sword." --Kosh Naranek
"...Your side, my side, and the truth." --John Sheridan

"No more half-measures." --Mike Ehrmantraut

"rationalizing...is never clear thinking." --SM Kovalinsky







Post#7542 at 02-25-2012 09:30 AM by radind [at Alabama joined Sep 2009 #posts 1,595]
---
02-25-2012, 09:30 AM #7542
Join Date
Sep 2009
Location
Alabama
Posts
1,595

Quote Originally Posted by pbrower2a View Post
The Hard Left is in hibernation (Commies) or largely irrelevant (Weather Underground, Black Panthers).

Really there are three related words:

"Barbarian" refers to the difference between cultures often upon first contact when one is not in awe of the other. Montezuma and Cortez surely considered each other barbarians at first. A culture that wears kimonos, plays music on kotos and samisens, and has bonsai trees might seem barbarian to Americans before there is any sharing of culture. Just think of how barbarian Commodore Perry must have seemed in Japan.

"Barbarous" implies the practice of behaviors that another culture holds uncouth. As an example, Americans whose culture gives high reverence to dogs might be appalled at some people of old and distinguished citizens eating dog meat.

"Barbaric" implies the practice of inexcusable violations of moral values irrespective of the level of technological and intellectual sophistication of the country considered "barbaric". The Germans during World War II might have been similar enough in culture to Americans to not be "barbarian"; they might have had good table manners. But enslaving people and perpetrating the Holocaust were both barbaric and beyond any ethical excuse.
Barbaric is a reasonable term to describe the Germans in WWII.
I still think that we should be constantly aware of threats from the left or the right .







Post#7543 at 02-25-2012 11:28 AM by Deb C [at joined Aug 2004 #posts 6,099]
---
02-25-2012, 11:28 AM #7543
Join Date
Aug 2004
Posts
6,099

Politics is a movie and that's a problem.

Here's a Moyers interview with a cultural historian, Neal Gabler. He describes how politics today is turned into an activity like watching a sporting event and has contributed to our polarity. He says,

“Life itself has become an entertainment medium,” Gabler told Bill Moyers during a PBS interview on Friday. “We are all actors in and audience for an ongoing show. We are so steeped in the theatrical arts … that we have turned our own lives, and life outside of us, into a movie.”

How Pop Culture Influences Political Culture And How Politics is a Movie


Cultural historian Neal Gabler believes that Hollywood movies have shaped our perceptions of political campaigns for the worse.

“Life itself has become an entertainment medium,” Gabler told Bill Moyers during a PBS interview on Friday. “We are all actors in and audience for an ongoing show. We are so steeped in the theatrical arts … that we have turned our own lives, and life outside of us, into a movie.”
“Politics is a movie,” he continued, “and now we’re in a campaign season where what we’re really watching is not so much political debate … as we are watching a movie in which candidates are pretending to be our protagonists-in-chief. … They want to be the hero of the movie because they understand that’s what the American people really are looking for.”

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/02/2...ats-a-problem/
"The only Good America is a Just America." .... pbrower2a







Post#7544 at 02-25-2012 12:33 PM by JDG 66 [at joined Aug 2010 #posts 2,106]
---
02-25-2012, 12:33 PM #7544
Join Date
Aug 2010
Posts
2,106

Quote Originally Posted by Odin View Post
Santorum is clearly neurotic and is likely a closeted gay or bi person who is repressing his sexual orientation because he is terrified of God condemning him to Hell. His obsession with other people's sexual behavior fits perfectly with repress-and-project behavior.
-Interesting how you manage to use an anti-homosexual ad hominem to show the world how enlightened you are.


Quote Originally Posted by Kurt Horner View Post
No, because the present standard is to include birth control. Premiums are actually likely to be higher without birth control coverage (since pregnancies are more expensive than the pill). An employer that doesn't want to pay for birth control is actually imposing a cost on themselves...
-"Present Standard?" Whose standard? If someone doesn't want to pay for it at all, or would rather use the money to get a benfit which isn't "standard," they should be able to. Self evident, I think.

Quote Originally Posted by Kurt Horner View Post
...The distinction is one of degree, not kind. You act as if quitting a job and finding another is the easiest, cost-free thing in the world. It is far more inconvenient to switch jobs just to get birth control coverage than it is for a religious employer to just pay for the coverage...
1) If, as you say, birth control is so cheap, then it is little burden for those who want it to pay for it. BTW, how many bloody condoms are they using, anyway?

OTOH, if it is expensive, then it might be worth their while to find an employer more in line with their needs, don't you think? If it's that big a deal, to them, why did they accept employment there in the first place?

2) If you honestly can't tell the difference between getting a job under free market terms vs. serfdom, you need help.

Quote Originally Posted by Kurt Horner View Post
...The only cost to religious employers is the psychic cost of having to potentially pay, ever-so-indirectly, for a birth control pill. I see a huge problem with that view...
-No, that's "direct." "Indirect" would be when they pay the employee, and the employee uses that money top buy condoms or what have you. It would be the same thing if I pay you as my employee, and then you use it to pay dues to the KKK or whatever. My moral responsibility only goes so far.

Quote Originally Posted by Kurt Horner View Post
...Health care coverage isn't the employer's money. It is the employees money, that they earned by providing labor to the employer...
-No, it's the employer's money, because it's part of a package to which both employer and employee have to agree. The employee agrees to work for an employer in return for the compensation package which the employer offers (and pays for). Sheesh.

Again, if it's that big a deal, go work for someone who offers a compensation package more in line with your wishes.

Quote Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon View Post
Very well argued. I tend to cringe at the thought that religous orders can own businesses, and use them to indirectly impose their views on others. I haven't change my views, but your argument for why it's wrong is stronger.
-They impinge nothing. See above.

Quote Originally Posted by playwrite View Post
Only those Millies that have as bizarre a definition as yours of what is doing terrible on the economy -

-Interesting. Depending on how you judge it, job growth recovered in MAR 2009, long before anything the Obama administration did could posibly have had effect. But then, in 2010, after he'd been in charge for over a year, jobs slumped. Now, its all rather pekid- far weaker than in previous recoveries. Huh. Go figure.

Did PW give us this chart to make Obama look good?

Quote Originally Posted by playwrite View Post
For those interested in Glick's banality, here is a complete dismantling of it...
-Notice that PW NEVER actually takes us to what the SS Ponzi Scheme actuaries have to say:

http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/TR/2011/tr2011.pdf

As for this:

Quote Originally Posted by playwrite View Post
.
The SS program is nearly 70 years old and the Right has always told us that its pay-as-you-go mechanism is a Ponzi Scheme just waiting to collapse...
...PW misses out on the fact that the pyramid had a narrow apex of people born in the 1930s, followed by a wide bulge of people at the bottom who were born 1946-1964 propping it up. Now, it's the other way around. The difference in the Euro welfare states, like Germany, is even more extreme. Tick tock!







Post#7545 at 02-25-2012 01:04 PM by Odin [at Moorhead, MN, USA joined Sep 2006 #posts 14,442]
---
02-25-2012, 01:04 PM #7545
Join Date
Sep 2006
Location
Moorhead, MN, USA
Posts
14,442

This is why Obama is going to win by a landslide:

To recommend thrift to the poor is both grotesque and insulting. It is like advising a man who is starving to eat less.

-Oscar Wilde, The Soul of Man under Socialism







Post#7546 at 02-25-2012 01:10 PM by JDG 66 [at joined Aug 2010 #posts 2,106]
---
02-25-2012, 01:10 PM #7546
Join Date
Aug 2010
Posts
2,106

Quote Originally Posted by Odin View Post
This is why Obama is going to win by a landslide:

-Apples and oranges.







Post#7547 at 02-25-2012 02:18 PM by Kurt Horner [at joined Oct 2001 #posts 1,656]
---
02-25-2012, 02:18 PM #7547
Join Date
Oct 2001
Posts
1,656

Quote Originally Posted by Exile 67' View Post
As an employer, the majority share holder and the business owner I chose the company who would provide the companies HC plan (I picked the plan that best suited me) and then I offered it to the employees as an employment benefit.
The tax code gives you a tremendous amount of power over an employees health care. Even if you gave them a cash-equivalent, they could not buy the same amount of coverage since for them buying insurance is not tax deductible. As a result, any items that you refuse to cover constitute a pay cut for them. Which makes the "conscience carve-out" exactly the same as if you told an employee that you'd cut their pay if they ever bought a condom.

Quote Originally Posted by Exile 67' View Post
The contraception mandate assumes that the individuals in government have the power and authoruty to dictate and to control the individiuals who own the business's and the individuals who run and control the churches.
No, the mandate assumes that when the government has tilted the playing field toward certain people, that it is appropriate to prevent those who benefit from abusing that power.







Post#7548 at 02-25-2012 02:22 PM by JDG 66 [at joined Aug 2010 #posts 2,106]
---
02-25-2012, 02:22 PM #7548
Join Date
Aug 2010
Posts
2,106

Quote Originally Posted by Kurt Horner View Post
...No, the mandate assumes that when the government has tilted the playing field toward certain people, that it is appropriate to prevent those who benefit from abusing that power.
-The real problem is that the government has no business in this to begin with.

On related issues:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/art...nd_113235.html

...It made me want to try to jump through the legal hoops required to open a simple lemonade stand in New York City. Here's some of what one has to do...

...We couldn't finish the process. Had we been able to schedule our health inspection and open my stand legally, it would have taken us 65 days.
I sold lemonade anyway. I looked dumb hawking it with my giant fire extinguisher on the table...

Politicians say, "We support entrepreneurs," but the bureaucrats make it hard... There are so many incomprehensible rules that even the bureaucrats can't tell you what's legal. In the name of public safety, politicians strangle opportunity.








Post#7549 at 02-25-2012 02:29 PM by radind [at Alabama joined Sep 2009 #posts 1,595]
---
02-25-2012, 02:29 PM #7549
Join Date
Sep 2009
Location
Alabama
Posts
1,595

Quote Originally Posted by Deb C View Post
Politics is a movie and that's a problem.

Here's a Moyers interview with a cultural historian, Neal Gabler. He describes how politics today is turned into an activity like watching a sporting event and has contributed to our polarity. He says,



How Pop Culture Influences Political Culture And How Politics is a Movie


Cultural historian Neal Gabler believes that Hollywood movies have shaped our perceptions of political campaigns for the worse.

“Life itself has become an entertainment medium,” Gabler told Bill Moyers during a PBS interview on Friday. “We are all actors in and audience for an ongoing show. We are so steeped in the theatrical arts … that we have turned our own lives, and life outside of us, into a movie.”
“Politics is a movie,” he continued, “and now we’re in a campaign season where what we’re really watching is not so much political debate … as we are watching a movie in which candidates are pretending to be our protagonists-in-chief. … They want to be the hero of the movie because they understand that’s what the American people really are looking for.”

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/02/2...ats-a-problem/
It does remind me of Shakespeare's "All the world's a stage, and all the men and women merely players: they have their exits and their entrances; and one man in his time plays many parts, his acts being seven ages."
William Shakespeare







Post#7550 at 02-25-2012 02:44 PM by Wallace 88 [at joined Dec 2010 #posts 1,232]
---
02-25-2012, 02:44 PM #7550
Join Date
Dec 2010
Posts
1,232

Quote Originally Posted by JDG 66 View Post
-The real problem is that the government has no business in this to begin with.

On related issues:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/art...nd_113235.html

...It made me want to try to jump through the legal hoops required to open a simple lemonade stand in New York City. Here's some of what one has to do...

...We couldn't finish the process. Had we been able to schedule our health inspection and open my stand legally, it would have taken us 65 days.
I sold lemonade anyway. I looked dumb hawking it with my giant fire extinguisher on the table...

Politicians say, "We support entrepreneurs," but the bureaucrats make it hard... There are so many incomprehensible rules that even the bureaucrats can't tell you what's legal. In the name of public safety, politicians strangle opportunity.

It would be funny if it were not true.
-----------------------------------------